Apple iPhone Supplier Foxconn Planning Deep Cost Cuts - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/apple-s-biggest-iphone-assembler-is-said-to-plan-deep-cost-cuts <comment><USER2> It's possible that this turns out to be a real sign, and I think other commenters have some good reasons why it could be. That said, I have been an AAPL stock owner and watcher for a few years and have noticed a pattern. Every September, Apple introduces new iPhones. Later in the fall, the articles come out citing weak demand.

2017: "'Anemic' iPhone 8 demand drags Apple shares lower", [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-iphone/anemic- iphon...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-iphone/anemic- iphone-8-demand-drags-apple-shares-lower-idUSKBN1CO1E7)

2016: "Apple may be cutting iPhone 7 orders as demand falls", [https://www.cultofmac.com/456431/apple-may-cutting- iphone-7-...](https://www.cultofmac.com/456431/apple-may-cutting- iphone-7-orders-demand-falls/)

2015: "Apple stock slides on claims of slashed iPhone component orders, weak iPhone 6s demand", [https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/12/01/apple-stock- slide...](https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/12/01/apple-stock-slides-on- claims-of-slashed-iphone-component-orders-weak-iphone-6s-demand)

Note that there were articles in those years also suggesting high demand. My point being that articles suggesting soft demand happen every year. Except 2014 when the iPhone 6 came out. Everyone was in total agreement then that demand was insane (and that quarter proved to be very hot indeed for Apple).

My point is that we won't truly know what demand looked like for the new iPhones until late January when Apple announces earnings.

<comment><USER3> There seem to be many unique things to this year though:

* Apple announces it will no longer report unit sales. This is a clear shift in strategy.

* Orders have been cut not once, but twice.

* Suppliers have been slaughtered in earnings reports.

* Suppliers have cut staff and are trying to control costs.

I agree there is a "cry wolf" element to this, but sometimes the wolf really does show up.

<comment><USER4> _Apple announces it will no longer report unit sales. This is a clear shift in strategy._

I thought that at first, too. Then I read that Apple was an outlier in reporting these figures. I'm OK with Apple not reporting these kinds of numbers if it allows the company to focus on quality of product instead of satiating the salivating stockholders (of which I am one).

 _Orders have been cut not once, but twice._

We don't actually know this as a fact. It is pure conjecture.

It is what a bunch of so-called supply chain "analysts" say, but they say it all the time, and are almost always wrong.

I wish I could be wrong as often as these Wall Street types and still keep my job.

The only people who whiff more often than Wall Street supply chain analysts are five-year-old softball players.

<comment><USER5> > I'm OK with Apple not reporting these kinds of numbers if it allows the > company to focus on quality of product instead of satiating the salivating > stockholders

There's no possibility of any kind that not reporting these numbers will do anything to the quality of the product.

They still are doing all the exact same amount of work to actually gather the numbers, since they internally need to know. They are only skipping the last step of putting that number in the report they give to investors. Nothing changes about how Apple is operating by not reporting that number.

That doesn't automatically mean it was a bad number, either, it could have just been a shift to avoid providing more information than necessary similar to the rest of their industry. But it's not going to do squat for anyone's day job at Apple, either. The people that would actually worry about that number still have that number.

<comment><USER6> The point is that by not reporting the number, they can let the number slip without pissing off investors. I am not sure how letting that number slip will lead to higher quality though.

<comment><USER7> My speculation is that Apple believes that people are lengthening their purchase interval on new phones not primarily because of cost but because they don't see the value. So, Apple is focusing on higher cost "1st year" phones which provide more differentiation on value to the old phones.

They also may stop just discounting the phones as they become "2nd year" phones, similar to the setup they have with the iPad and iPad Pros.

This both means more profit per phone to account for the decrease in sales due to lengthening time between phone purchases, and a bit more motivation to update to the next sexy 1st year phone rather than the cheaper models due to explicit feature differentiation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm disappointed by the discontinuation of the iPhone SE, and I'm not the only one.

Frankly, all of Apple's recently-introduces hardware options have a bad combination of being too expensive and simply not appealing enough, the lack of upgradeability on MacBook Pros being a major example.

<comment><USER9> Personally, I think they've become too big, too heavy and too expensive.

The XR is honestly a huge misstep, IMO. It's bigger, heavier and dramatically more feature-less than its 2018 counterparts. Who is this phone for?

<comment><USER10> People who want the cult of the new but can't afford the XS.

<comment><USER11> Why does it always have to be "can't afford"?

How about "can't justify"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In the UK a new iPhone is ~£1250 there are so many more things I would rather spend that money on.

I spend so much time with my phone, I use it all day rely on it so much, it's the epicentre of my digital life.

But still, I think it's too expensive. I think once you touch the £1,000 mark you have to start proving far more worth than polished marketing. My work thankfully proved an iPhone 8, otherwise, I was going to buy an iPhone 6 or 7 [0]. I just cannot justify the extra money for the difference in the product.

[0] [https://www.johnlewis.com/browse/electricals/mobile- phones-a...](https://www.johnlewis.com/browse/electricals/mobile-phones- accessories/iphone/iphone-6/iphone-7/price=250-500/_/N-7bqwZ1z0jye4Z1z07s5bZ6ssu)

<comment><USER13> Also in the UK, and I can't remember the last time I actually _bought_ a phone outright. I resigned myself years ago to paying ~£40/mo for a contract and insurance. Every 2 years I get an upgrade to the latest iPhone.

<comment><USER14> This is the funniest thing I've read in a while. I remember the rest of the world mocking the American model for cell phone plans (contract lock-in with high monthly rates in exchange for cheap uogrades) and praising the model used in the UK and most of the EU (no contract, incredibly cheap rates but phones are purchases outright). American carriers finally came around to adopting the UK/EU model in the past few years as people began to become more accepting of the idea that the latest smartphone is worth keeping for more than 2 years if it means halving their monthly service payment and now you're telling me the UK has adopted the old American business model?

I find this to be hilarious for reasons I can't quite articulate but going from a model where service is decoupled from hardware to a model where you're contractually obligated to pay a set bundled fee is a 180 degree switch too inexplicable to ignore.

<comment><USER15> Australia had the USA's model, and to a certain degree, still has. But it used to be that if you wanted a reasonable amount of data (back in the days where 2 up to 8GB was "reasonable"), you'd be best off to get one of the expensive phones on a plan (say $80-100/mo).

But these days, those expensive plans have 20-30GB a month, whereas I'm still only using the data I was back then, and you can get plans for $20/mo for 4-6GB. So I've now gone to buying the phone outright and getting a cheap plan, and save a ton of $.

I suspect a lot of people are still under the mentality that they need the amount of data included in the more expensive plans, without ever checking that to be the case.

Of course, if you're streaming YouTube/Netflix/music at the high bandwidth rates and not even doing the bare minimum to pull down that data while on WiFi, all bets are off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm guessing next year's refresh will feature a much lower price. I think Apple is finding out the hard way that increasing prices means lower volumes. They might even pull off a mid year price reduction. They've done that before.

Despite not owning one, I believe Apple can easily fix most of their issues by simply reducing the price and growing volumes again. They are about to lose the teenage market. That's mostly a cost problem. For the past few years they've cashed in on their popularity by squeezing the high end of the market. Now that that is running dry, they need to pay attention to their bottom line again or they risk permanently alienating a new generation of users.

My guess is that a 500$ base model that doesn't suck, would be quite popular. Of course their problem is that they have little to differentiate the 1200 $ model from that and that most of their competition is selling quite nice phones at or below that price.

<comment><USER17> Likely, a smaller phone in the form factor of the (now discontinued) iPhone SE.

<comment><USER18> The original SE was released "out of cycle" so maybe the sequel will be too?

<comment><USER19> Well the Se replaced the iPhone 5s at the time. But this time around there is no "replacement" to be made as they have discounted the SE.

<comment><USER18> No, the 6 replaced the 5s. The SE came a few months afterwards.

That they didn't actually discontinue the 5s at the time is incidental.

The point is, that they do release things out of cycle so just because they didn't do it at the usual time doesn't mean they won't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder if there's a bit of the "end of Moore's law" in play as well. There appears to be a slump not just in iPhones, but in all smart phones: [https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/gartner-reports-first- ever...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/gartner-reports-first-ever-global- decline-in-smartphone-sales/)

Basically, the delta in speed and functionality gains for new models isn't what it used to be, so people hang onto old phones longer. Personally, I buy ~$150 androids because I tend to drop them, and a $1k phone would be a bad idea for me.

The end of "phone subsidies" probably also plays into this.

<comment><USER21> Actually, the new A12 chips are considerably faster than the A11s. Apple's chips in general are much faster than their Android equivalents: [https://browser.geekbench.com/ios- benchmarks](https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks) [https://browser.geekbench.com/android- benchmarks](https://browser.geekbench.com/android-benchmarks)

<comment><USER22> That might be true but most phones are not running application that leverage that performance. The apps are more often than not optimised for lower performance and if you spend most of your time in Safari/Messenger/Instagram/Whatsapp A12 wont give you a lot of performance bump as compared to A11

<comment><USER23> It helps with longevity. It's what allows an iPhone 5s from 2013 to run the latest OS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The increased pricing changed how I perceive replacing my X with a new one. I used to routinely upgrade yearly up to the SE. Now, I'll keep I plan to keep using it until it no longer functions. Similar to my laptop upgrade cycle which is every 3 years now.

I think Apple is biting themselves in the foot with the increased pricing. I think it is significantly slowing down the replacement cycle. My dad typically buys my old phone and then his phone goes to my mom. Now, he replaced the batteries since no phone is coming his way through me.

On the upside, it's better for the environment.

<comment><USER23> Apple fully expects the replacement cycle to slow. They said that they are trying to make phones last longer. They are focusing on service revenue and accessories like the Watch.

<comment><USER25> Which is a good thing, I can't see why these devices shouldn't last five years or more.

<comment><USER23> The mobile phone cycle is just a redux of what happened with PCs until around 2007. Computers were getting a lot faster and software coming out actually demanded better computers.

Honestly, around 2009 and the introduction of the Core 2 Duo, computers became good enough for most people.

I just retired a circa 2009 Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz Dell laptop with 8GB of RAM running Windows 10 with one of the last great 15 inch 1920x1200 displays (as opposed to the 1920x1080) as my Plex Server about two months ago.

In day to day use, I couldn't tell the difference between that and newer computers besides the spinning hard drive vs SSD. It has a gigabit Ethernet port and was wired into my network. It had just as much of RAM as most computers sold today, the hard drive was the same size (but much slower), the screen was better than what comes in many consumer laptops and most computers today don't come with gigabit Ethernet.

In 2009, a computer from 2000 would have been unusable. ([http://www.topdesignmag.com/top-performance-computer- looked-...](http://www.topdesignmag.com/top-performance-computer-looked-the- year-2000/))

Mobile processors are now getting that way. While an iPhone 5S from 2013 is perfectly usable running iOS 13, there is no way that an iPhone 3G from 2008 would have been something you wanted to use in 2013.

<comment><USER11> I tell people the 6S is when phones became fast enough. It doubled the RAM and speed of the 6. It opens apps nearly as fast as any of the new phones[0].

[0] Day to Day apps. Not heavy games and such.

<comment><USER23> The only reason I upgraded from my 6s to 8 plus was the massive battery. I gave my son my old 6s - with a newish battery and the Apple battery case and he loves it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For me it is because they've become too large. Last year I got an 8 as I really needed a new device and the size is pushing it. The X models are larger still

</comment><comment><USER27> I think the reason has nothing to do with the iPhone 8, 8 Plus, X, XR or XS. I think the reason has to do with 2 back-to-back iOS updates that didn't hugely slow down my iPhone 7 Plus.

I'm used to really wanting the newer iPhone when I update iOS 12 months after buying but the last 2 updates haven't fit that mold.

<comment><USER28> There is also just a general kind of burn out. In phones, in social media, etc. Maginal utility from consumer tech is now so marginal that people are starting to not upgrade every year. It was bound to happen. I'm sure someone will come up with a more creative name for this when it starts to impact stock prices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> My iPhone 7s Plus with a LifeProof case is still going strong in nearly mint condition (despite the battery at about 85% capacity). Apple's building phones that last longer.

Also, I can't think of too many new apps I've installed lately or performance issues with my current ones. Hopefully at some point, the market will reward Apple for building reliable phones (I say that knowing about all the repair bulletins they've released these past few months...)

<comment><USER30> To be fair, my Samsung S7 from the previous year is also still running completely fine. Apple's competition are also building reliable phones..

<comment><USER31> Apple's competition doesn't provide phones with many years of official software updates. This may be just fine for many people, but if you care about security, features... then it's not reliable enough.

<comment><USER32> 2 years OS, 3 years monthly security, 4 years quarterly security. Plus, app updates are not tied to OS updates, so vulnerabilities in the browser and other built-in apps can be more easily patched.

Would 5 years of OS updates be appreciated? Of course! But 4 years of security updates isn't so bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Relevant rebuttal regarding making conclusions based on supply chain rumors from AppleInsider:

[https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/11/19/poor-news- curatio...](https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/11/19/poor-news-curation-at- bloomberg-cnbc-reuters-creating-misleading-iphone-supply-chain-panic)

</comment><comment><USER34> The new phone offerings across the board are weak. It just feels like useless gadgetry now on the same candybar.

</comment><comment><USER35> Since people seem to be talking about what this means for Apple stock...

Apple's PE ratio is 15. For any given company this is a very good number. Add to this that Apple has the growth potential of a tech stock (e.g. Google has PE ratio of 40, people pay a premium for the stock because they expect it to grow).

Certainly Apple is very undervalued?

<comment><USER7> It used to be the P/E was low because people were nervous about Apple's future. Now people are nervous because they can't figure out how to evaluate the growth potential of a $1 tril+ company.

To my limited sophistication as an investor (who owns some AAPL), it seems to me Cook has tried several things to increase stock stability. One is to make it look a bit more like a utility stock for those who wish to see it as one, such as by paying dividends. Another is to signal to the market they consider the stock to be undervalued via a their stock buyback program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I was the kind of person who would upgrade every year... and not just my phone, but a bunch of other tech.

I currently have a 7+ and haven't bothered to upgrade. The upgrades are so marginal and the time it takes to actually upgrade seems like a hassle these days. It takes me a good 8 hours of work to upgrade a device—transferring this and that, getting things set up, learning the new gestures (which don't do anything fundamental new), moving over 2FA (even though Authy makes it a little easier, you still have to set up things like Mail, Gmail, etc.).

If I buy a new iPhone tomorrow it will probably take me all day to have it be a clone of my current phone in every app and whatnot. Just not worth it. I'll do it when the battery becomes insufferable, but the reality is that that new iPhone isn't worth the hassle, despite how relatively hassle free iCloud makes it.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why is it that when people talk about Foxconn, they only talk about Apple? Foxconn supplies _everyone_.

<comment><USER37> For the same reason this happens every year, Apple gets clicks.

I don't think we have good Pixel 3 estimates yet, but earlier this year Apple was selling as many iPhones in a week as Google sold Pixel 2s all year. Outside of stock analysts, no one cares how many phones Google or Samsung sell. So if you want to generate clicks, you have to link it to Apple. Remember the compromised server article from not long ago?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Foxconn assembles over 60% of the Smartphone worldwide, and it could very well be the rest of the Smartphone vendor are lowering their 2019 forecast. People in China is taking longer to buying new phone, mainly because their current one are already good enough for most of their purposes. Which is AliPay, WeChat and basic consumption activity. China is also tightening on Credit, which means BBK and Xiaomi can no longer flush with supply and figure out sales later, they have to be careful with their inventory.

It could also very well be another power play from Foxconn, which is one of the largest private employers in the country.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm under the impression at least part of Apple's unusual behaviour this year (e.g. no longer reporting sales) is down to the XR.

From what I can see, the XR (or its successors) are to occupy the role the SE previously had, and the iPhone 7 has now. It's a long game that plays out two years from now (by which point they couldn't abruptly introduce a one camera, 720p LCD screen without it looking very very much like the 5C).

With a selling price of $800, I can't imagine they expected many people to buy it over (1) keeping their current phone or (2) paying a few hundred more for a flagship model. Once you go that high in price the difference makes less and less.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'd jump on an Android phone if it had OSX. Google is a privacy nightmare.

<comment><USER40> There's also LineageOS which is great when it comes to being in control of probably, but unfortunately not all phones have it supported officially.

<comment><USER40> Control of privacy _

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 4 may be a small number when the TOTAL number of iphone suppliers considered.

<comment><USER42> Foxconn produces at least half of the Iphones around the world, source: [https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-factory- foxconn...](https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-iphone-factory-foxconn- china-photos-tour-2018-5)

Lumentum etc. are also some of Apple's largest parts suppliers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Apple and just about every manufacturer supplier Foxconn [...]

</comment><comment><USER44> The largish one is ~$2150 AUD in Australia...

</comment><comment><USER45> Well, right now for me, iPhone's biggest feature is its price tag, in which it is its own league. The rest of the package is lackluster

</comment><comment><USER46> Maybe it's because I can get a modern Android One phone for $150 that will day-to-day perform right with an iPhone in normal use cases, with a headphone jack, notched IPS screen, IR blaster, FM radio, dual removable sim with SD storage to 256GB, 4000mAh battery that lasts 12 hours screen-on-time, camera that will compete with any modern mid range ~$400 phone, with full metal construction except for where RF needs to escape.

Most people aren't playing PUBG or running CPU intensive tasks on their phones, they're texting, reading the news, watching twitch/youtube, or looking at instagram/facebook/slack/discord.

$1000+ is absolute insanity. $749 for the XR is blatantly ripping you off.

</comment><comment><USER47> Here's something I received in my inbox a couple of days ago. (copied and pasted).

\---

October can be an unforgiving month.

The terrible stock market crash that signaled the beginning of the Great Depression was in October of 1929.

The stock market crash known as Black Monday was in October of 1987.

In 1997, the Asian financial crisis sparked another stock market crash in… you guessed it—October.

And back in 2007 at the height of the giant bubble that almost brought down the entire financial system, the stock market peaked once again in… October.

It's not that October is particular cursed. Maybe it's just a coincidence. But I do find it strangely ominous that asset prices seemed to have peaked last month (October) and have been in decline ever since.

Real estate prices are starting to show signs of strain; more than one-third of homes for sale had a large price cut in October-- the most discounting in the past eight years.

Corporate and government bonds are falling.

The S&P 500 is down 7%, and the big popular technology stocks that have been fueling the boom in stock prices for the past several years have been violently declining.

Facebook is down 36% from its peak. Apple is down 18% (and down more today on news of production cuts for iPhones). Semiconductor giant NVIDIA is down 45%.

Oh, it's not just in the US either.

Deutsche Bank says 89% of all asset classes it tracks are negative this year – the worst year since 1901.

This is often how a big downturn begins: gradually, then suddenly. Asset prices stew and fester, slowly grinding downward for months while people maintain hope that prices will recover.

I remember spending time in Florida back in 2007 when property prices had already started declining.

All the real estate agents I met kept telling themselves ridiculous affirmations about how the market was going to come roaring back soon, and the good times would return.

Less than a year later the worst financial panic since the Great Depression had set in. And it would be years before prices would finally recover.

Remember—asset prices peaked in October 2007. But the giant financial crisis didn't kick off for nearly a year, in September 2008.

We might be in a similar situation today; it's possible that markets peaked last month. And we're now in the "stew and fester" phase where prices gradually decline while people keep hope that the boom times are coming just around the corner.

And then, within a year or so, something sets off another huge crisis that pops the bubble once and for all… just like the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers did back in 2008.

We won't know what that event will be until after it happens.

But what we do know for sure is that the last financial crisis was caused by too much idiotic debt in the system.

Banks were lending money to legions of borrowers who had a history of not paying their debts… and then actually pretended like these toxic loans were great investments.

Today, we're seeing the same stupid debt work its way into the corporate and government sectors.

Instead of giving million-dollar mortgages to unemployed borrowers with a history of default, investors are loaning billions of dollars to money-losing zombie businesses, or to governments that are already in debt up to their eyeballs, all while pretending these are safe, credible investments.

Total global debt back in 2008 was about $173 trillion, worth about 280% of GDP.

Today total global debt is $250 trillion, worth about 320% of GDP. It's only gotten worse.

This is the sequel of the same movie we saw ten years ago… and it would be pretty foolish to not expect the same ending."

Proper preparation....

</comment><comment><USER48> This is good for the average consumer, people should not be buying very expensive devices with programmed obsolence!

</comment><comment><USER49> Guess apple will have to release some extra "security patches" to those older iPhones. Try to bump up those number for next year.

Edit: Downvote all you want. Apple did this before, it is not hard to imagine that they would do it again. I am hardly crying wolf with my comment.

<comment><USER50> Apple has made it clear they're aiming for longevity. iOS 12 actually improved performance for older phones.

That's why you're being downvoted.

<comment><USER49> And all those industrialists are going to clean up their act. That politician is really sorry about that thing they did and will never do it again. The financial sector pinky swears to never crash the economy again.

No reason to trust what apple is saying. They are a company. If it becomes financially viable to play those tricks again they will do it.

<comment><USER50> Apple has fallen short once when they sold an older model for a bit too long, and didn't support it with OS upgrades for more than a year or so, but compared to 90% of Android devices over the years that's not terrible.

Apple is a Rorschach test. You see what you want to see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Besides removing a few features, there's little difference between an iPhone 6 plus and the current model.

<comment><USER52> > _there 's little difference between an iPhone 6 plus and the current model_

Upgraded to XS after wading into a pool with my 6. Biggest hidden feature is the electronic SIM card. I can buy international data with GigSky for much cheaper than AT&T would let me.

<comment><USER53> The dual electronic SIM is awesome, I agree. I haven't used GigSky before, but their prices are super cheap in comparison. Definitely using that on my next trip overseas. How do you differentiate which data plan you'll use though?

<comment><USER52> > _How do you differentiate which data plan you 'll use though?_

I was in Iceland for a week, so 2GB for 15 days and $30 worked well. (I was on the fence about 5GB for 30 days and $50, but in the end didn't need it.)

<comment><USER53> Nice! Meant more in the phone. How does the phone differentiate which data plan to use?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> It's not really that hard:

* Headphone jack * De-nerf NFC * Switch to usb-c * Send high res mms to non iPhones (this will also avoid regulatory trouble)

I'm fed up with Google and Facebook and am ready to move, but the fact they can't get these simple things right is mind blowing.

<comment><USER13> Most users don't care about any of those things.

\- You can use the included adapter instead of a headphone jack. I do this every day to plug my phone into the car and it's no big deal. If I had a newer car stereo it'd be bluetooth anyway, and wireless headphones are pretty cheap now.

\- What would a normal user use NFC for other than Apple Pay?

\- Most people couldn't care less if the port is Lightning, USB-C, or micro USB so long as it charges their phone.

\- iMessage works flawlessly, and the standard (at least here in the UK) is WhatsApp rather than MMS now to communicate across the iOS/Android void.

<comment><USER55> \- Dongles are annoying, 3.5mm is delightfully simple and universally supported across the audio industry. It's not hard to implement and can carry a fairly high quality signal if your DAC is good enough. If you want digital, a normal 3.5mm jack plus cable should be able to carry enough bandwidth and still remain backwards compatible. I would see that as an improvement over simply-analog-3.5.

\- The normal end user wouldn't care about the difference in NFC but banks would be thankful for not having to pay Apple for the privilege of having their customer use an iPhone.

\- True but people care about not having to care and a universal charging port is good for that. Then people can just plug chargers into things and it works. No thinking required. And less waste too because vendors might not have to package chargers with every device and people won't have to buy new chargers every new iPhone release.

<comment><USER56> > banks would be thankful for not having to pay Apple for the privilege of > having their customer use an iPhone.

Could you expand on this? I'm not aware of banks having to pay Apple.

<comment><USER57> Apple takes a cut of every ApplePay transaction.

<comment><USER58> Source?

The source I found [0] indicates otherwise:

> _Are there additional fees to accept Apple Pay?_

> _Apple does not charge users, merchants or developers to use Apple Pay for > payments._

[0] - [https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/get- started/](https://developer.apple.com/apple-pay/get-started/)

Edit:

Looks like they charge banks and payment networks for the transaction. I suppose it's possible that the networks pass that fee back to the retailer at some point. Can't find great sources for any of that though.

<comment><USER57> Parent: > Could you expand on this? I'm not aware of banks having to pay Apple

Me: > Apple takes a cut of every ApplePay transaction.

Your comment: > Looks like they charge banks and payment networks for the transaction.

Details: [https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple- pay/](https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple-pay/)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Favorite programming font optimized for Unicode and Retina displays? - <AUTHOR> I'm using Hack[0] right now and I'm enjoying it but curious on hearing what others are using.
Thanks!
0. https://sourcefoundry.org/hack/ <comment><USER2> Currently using "Fira Code Retina" at work but at home I always use "Pragmata Pro Mono" (bought the first release cheap in 2007 and have got discounts for the updates since.)</comment>


SMT Solvers in Software Security (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.usenix.org/conference/woot12/workshop-program/presentation/vanegue <comment><USER2> If for verification, I'll add this trifecta some of us independently arrived at:

1\. Formal specs drive spec/property-based testing for quick verification.

2\. If that passes, try to get automated proof with the solver.

3\. Use formal specs as runtime checks or traces that get checked with the input being from fuzzers or other test generatore. Failures take you right to the property that failed.

4\. Optionally, leave runtime check in for any specification property that is unproven or lacking resources to prove.

Also, static analyzers that quickly catch certain kinds of problems. If available, I'd run them in parallel to the property-based testing _before_ the proof attempt. All this together keeps time/effort minimized with productivity on verified code maximized.

<comment><USER3> I found it funny that your "trifecta" has four clauses :)

So I looked up the meaning of the word to make sure I knew what it means- and, it turns out, it has nothing to do with a Roman Triumvirate (as I had somehow convinced myself it did).

It turns out it comes from betting on the horses. It means a kind of bet where you put your money on which three horses will come first, second and third in the race- in the exact order you bet on.

Apparently, the word itself is a kind of fragmented portmanteau, from "tri-" and the syllable "fecta" in "perfecta", from the American Spanish for a perfect bet: "quiniela perfecta". This post has got the works: [2].

... and I still haven't read the article I navigated here to read :)

_______________

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

[2] [https://www.dailywritingtips.com/trifecta-not-always- appropr...](https://www.dailywritingtips.com/trifecta-not-always-appropriate/)

<comment><USER2> Oh yeah, I editted in the fourth one after I wrote that. Glad you got some fun out of it. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Paper: [https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot12/woot12...](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot12/woot12-final26.pdf)

Slides: [https://www.usenix.org/sites/default/files/conference/protec...](https://www.usenix.org/sites/default/files/conference/protected- files/vanegue_woot12_slides.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER5> We've been using Certora for smart contract code verification. For me, it's really amazing to see effective code verification can be (on small and important code routines). Over time, I expect code verification to overtake unit testing for core (pure) code modules.

</comment><comment><USER6> Aside: Should have a 2012 in the title. I recognized Julien's work because he came to Bloomberg almost immediately after this :)</comment>


MI6 tried to intervene independent court by stopping judge seeing legal papers - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/28/mi6_investigatory_powers_tribunal_interference/ <comment><USER2> MI6 asked the court service to not give certain papers to the judge. The court service said "no", and promptly informed an MI6 oversight body.

It's not great that they asked, but the system does appear to have worked as it should.

Or am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> From my reading it seems they did not have the prerogatives or rights to ask this, it was an illegal demands but the apology was enough.

<comment><USER4> There was nothing illegal about their request. They shouldn't have done it, but they didn't break any laws in doing so.

<comment><USER5> It not being illegal is not a good thing. Apparently evidence tampering is cool in the UK?

<comment><USER4> I never said it was a good thing — of course evidence tampering is utterly unacceptable. The systems here simply hew closely to expected standards of behaviour from institutions, and in any event there are a range of mechanisms to address the behaviour without needing to criminalise it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The scary consequences of overbearing "Classified" status assigned to information that human beings are embarrassed by is likely the single biggest omission to the public record thus denying the public the ability to form political opinions fairly.

<comment><USER7> Well said. It's scary how many thing that get classified that shouldn't be.

<comment><USER8> It's crafty mixing of real classified information with embarrassing information...

"The address of our safehouse is classified, but all the letters we send eachother have the address on the top, therefore all these letters are classified."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Parody court agrees with parody inspector on parody rules.

Very real threat temporarily averted. Next time it will be conducted more subtly but no less mistakably, so the parody court won't hear about it or what it was meant to cover up, and all will be well.

</comment><comment><USER10> According to Wikipedia, the IPT upheld ten of 1468 complaints from 2000 to 2012. High standards of conduct, judicial probity and intellectual excellence do not inevitably lead to justice—we know this from, e.g., Singapore—and, whilst we cannot determine much sans access to classified data and rulings, this seems to be one of those cases. The problem with the IPT is probably not this sort of exploit, but rather its overall structure and the statutory framework within which it operates.

</comment><comment><USER11> Disappointed but not surprised. See also: Matrix-Churchill.</comment>


Artificial Magnetic Monopoles Discovered - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2013-05-artificial-magnetic-monopoles.html

<comment><USER2> A physicist comments: [http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1fev5e/artificial_m...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1fev5e/artificial_magnetic_monopoles_discovered/ca9vit4?context=1)

</comment><comment><USER3> A better title could be: "Monopoles _simulated_ in crystal structure".

In crystals it's very useful to describe some arrangements as fictitious particles.

For example an "electron" inside a crystal is not alone, it's surrounded by a perturbation of the nearby electrons. So the effective mass (mass * ) of an "electron" inside a crystal is different from the mass of a free electron in vacuum. The mass can even be negative! It's easy to understand this negative mass using an algebraic trick and describing this object as a particle called "hole" with a positive effective mass and a positive charge.

Another example is the perturbations of the crystalline lattice (the movements of the atoms that compose the crystal), they are called "phonons" and in a lot of ways they behave like real particles. For example the correct method to understand conductivity at small temperature is to analyze how the "phonons" can "bounce" against the "electrons" and "holes".

So, the result in this article could be useful to test what could happen if we even find a real monopole, but it's not a real monopole and it gives no cue about a possible method to create a real monopole.

Another article that describes a similar effect, but it's more clear about the difference between a real monopole and the result of their experiment: "Point- like defects in a quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles" : [http://phys.org/news/2012-09-point-like-defects-quantum- flui...](http://phys.org/news/2012-09-point-like-defects-quantum-fluid- magnetic.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Amazing that so many phenomena that were expected to turn up at colliders, (if they were to turn up at all) eg Majorana fermions, magnetic monopoles, are being discovered in condensed matter systems.

Which makes some sense, I suppose. After all, spontaneous symmetry breaking, sometimes called the Higgs mechanism, was first observed in superconductors, and described by BCS.

</comment><comment><USER5> I have a suspicion this is very important in the long run. Time will tell.</comment>


Licenses in a Subscription World - <AUTHOR> https://wch.io/writing/startups-and-licenses <comment><USER2> I like what Jetbrain does for PyCharm:

\- Great free-for-ever version that only misses advanced features to get you hooked (as no one would pay for an IDE before being able to get a good feel for it).

\- Yearly subscription to the pro version with a heavy discount for people keeping the subscription multiple years.

\- Canceling the subscription grants you a perpetual license to the current version.

Contrast that with what Adobe does for Lightroom:

\- No free version, they know they're the industry leader.

\- Subscription with no discount for loyal users.

\- Canceling the subscription renders your data useless.

<comment><USER3> The phrasing for Jetbrains cancellation sounds a bit off. As far as I understand it, cancelling leaves you with a perpetual license for the last release where you had already paid a year's worth of subscription:

[https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en- gb/articles/207240845-What...](https://sales.jetbrains.com/hc/en- gb/articles/207240845-What-is-a-perpetual-fallback-license-)

That means that it's likely that you would no longer own, say, version WebStorm 2020.01, but have to fall back to 2019.02 or something.

That said, yeah, the mixture of OSS-licensed / trial / commercial versions does work pretty well for Jetbrains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a customer, I reject this analysis. I am very tired of being burned by products where you have to be locked into an annual license before you can discover that the product doesn't meet your needs. And the ones where I have to commit to a number of users or devices for an entire year, and that number can only ever go up? What are you smoking? Whose business is like that?

No. Please charge me for my actual usage, and earn my business by making me happy every month, or at most every quarter, not once a year.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is so tough and I'm still trying to figure it out. A few years ago I built an MVP label printer app on Electron/React using all sorts of native node modules for a seamless design and print experience. I support dithered images, tons of barcode types, excel/csv integration with variables, and can render multiple labels to PDF "sheets" for laser/inkjet printing.

My software competes with free software provided by DYMO and Brother thermal printers, and also competes with $350+ software designed for more industrial printers like Zebra, etc. My software is used by consumers and businesses and I sell it for $47.99 per-computer perpetual license.

I've thought about breaking the features out into $20 for a text/image license, $50 for that and barcodes, and $100 for all that and data integration. But that's a lot of complexity for both implementation and explaining to the user. Ugh.

Another thought is to do a subscription of $10/month and after 12 consecutive payments the user is awarded a perpetual license that will work for that most recent version. But that implementation is also complex...

I feel stuck. Consumers don't want to spend more than $20, and some businesses will gladly pay whatever I charge. Some consumers want barcodes and data integration. Some businesses just need text.

I don't know what the solution is to make everyone happy.

Since my app is "a web app" running locally I've given some thought to pushing the design interface into the cloud and keeping the electron app around as a print agent. Then, users will have the ability to design and print to any printer with an agent available. This would be an easy subscription sell, but then the user would just prefer the entire experience locally, anyways. Ugh.

Fun problems to think through, though!

<comment><USER6> Make it only available as a subscription and narrow your focus on B2B by increasing a bit your prices to kick out the bulk of consumers.

Avoid adding complexity and dependency with cloud components to justify a subscription, especially if you are a one-man show. With B2B you do not need to justify anything, just set your rules and they will make the business case.

Have a single license type (subscription). You do not want to innovate with licensing, just have one single offering and then optimize the price of that offering to your market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I agree for small products, it makes sense to just buy a product license. An example that I love is: Viscosity ([https://www.sparklabs.com/viscosity/](https://www.sparklabs.com/viscosity/)). It's a small OpenVPN client that just works. The license model makes the most sense since I can just buy the product and forget about it, until the next upgrade comes along. (Note, I have no affiliation with the company, they are not paying me in any way, just a happy user)

</comment><comment><USER8> The only reason I'm still selling licenses is I don't want to deal with the pain of switching. If I was starting a new project from scratch it would definitely be a service. From a business perspective the benefits are overwhelming.</comment>


Universe's 'missing matter' finally found in the space between galaxies - <AUTHOR> https://news.ucsc.edu/2020/05/missing-matter.html <comment><USER2> The found missing matter doesn't include dark matter, which scientists still do not have an answer for.

</comment><comment><USER3> For the layman, is this "discovery" legitimate? Does this mean dark matter is erroneous? What are the cosmological implications? Is somebody getting a nobel prize for this?

<comment><USER4> No, the dark matter is still dark, and was never missing, because we know it's there from its gravitational effects. We just can't _see_ it (hence "dark") and don't know _what_ it is, really. But whatever it is, it's definitely there. Well, actually there are some who say it's an illusion, but nobody says it's missing.

The missing (baryonic, i.e. ordinary) matter on the other hand, is matter that theory predicts should be somewhere but we didn't know _where_ it was, i.e. it was missing. This research says that it's in intergalactic space, which everybody kind of thought but wasn't sure. Now, using their techniques of looking at the way frequencies from fast radio bursts spread out they can basically "see" it, so it's not missing anymore.

A Nobel is not likely for this work, because it doesn't change our understanding of the Universe in any significant way... but it's pretty cool, anyway, they deserve a toast, and "found the missing matter" will look really good on their resumés.

<comment><USER5> _because it doesn 't change our understanding of the Universe in any significant way_

It's a shame, really. This is a very significant piece of the puzzle. It may be incremental progress but it's still important. Nevertheless, your assessment has reminded me of an Alpha Centauri quote I'm rather fond of:

 _There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn nonetheless for the latter.

\-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Address to the Faculty"_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could someone explain why this wasn't 2000 points on HN a few days ago when it came out?

The news articles are implying something huge.

Is it? Or is this a hyped rehash of what we knew?

[Edit] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23335794](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23335794)</comment>


Ask HN: What Web server load testing tools are you using? - <AUTHOR>

A Web developer should be able to tell how does their server perform under heavy loads before having those loads in production. Which tools are other hackers using? Which would you recommend as the best? And what makes those stand out? Thanks! <comment><USER2> I've used JPerf before, and found it adequate for what I needed. As I understand it, it basically wraps JUnit test cases in independent threads and lets them all run. Depending on your server, this approach might give you the load you need.

</comment><comment><USER3> +1 for Jmeter

I've been focusing specifically in performance and scalability for the last decade. The vast majority of problems that expose themselves under load or many-request scenarios are blatantly obvious in a profiler or tracing data access patterns. I recommend you start there, better use of time.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://jakarta.apache.org/jmeter/>

</comment><comment><USER5> These are the 2 load testing tools I used so far.

Grinder - able to record the test and customize, codes are in python.

Selenium - record in firefox, able to run the tests onto various web browsers.

</comment><comment><USER6> If it's a simple public facing site I'll throw ab (Apache Benchmark) at it. I've used Pylot for more advanced stuff, although I know it's not particularly mainstream.

<comment><AUTHOR> What if it isn't? :)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Internet Radio Station Options - <AUTHOR>

A friend of mine use to own a very prominent record store back east and wants to setup an internet radio station; googling doesn't really yield anything that looks that great.  Wondering if there are any new options, new startups, etc, out there that offer a service or even software that you setup/host yourself.  Paying a month host fee or service fee is fine, like to keep that as low as possible since this is an experiment for him.<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> Depends on the operating system and what kind of features they will need.

I am currently doing the following:

Steamcast: \- 24/7 relay of other stations. \- Accepts a relay of live music (via NiceCast) \- Free [running on a Linux VPS]

NiceCast: \- Stream music live if I want to demo some tunes to my audience \- Mac friendly \- $50

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, appreciate the info. Basically it would be on mac and feature-wise, not sure just yet. It would be for a 'traditional' radio station style setup, aka music, not podcast type of thing.</comment></comment>


How to join the Intellectual Dark Web – a user's guide - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/rebel-wisdom/how-to-join-the-intellectual-dark-web-a-users-guide-b60ae0b12b86 <comment><USER2> I'm not a big fan of any of the people mentioned in the article (though I have occasionally had exposure to good pieces from Quillete), but it's been several years since I've been exposed to what this article calls the "Intellectual Dark Web" and adjacent fora. I honestly just thought it was called "people who aren't stupid", or less acidly, "liberalism" (in the classic sense). Seriously, look at this list of bullet points:

> A willingness to engage in conversations with people who have different > beliefs and political viewpoints

> Rejection of identity politics (and a recognition that it has become the > dominant ideology in mainstream media discourse)

> Ideas worth listening to

>Honoring of freedom of speech

With the exception of the identity politics bullet pt, which requires a value judgment about the current state of mainstream discourse, none of these seem remotely controversial to me. Pearl-clutching, censorship, and labeling thoughts as wrongthink have their uses for the purposes of social cohesion, but are of questionable usefulness in any context where you're trying to improve your understanding of pretty much _anything_. I've read some pretty out-there stuff in these communities, and been happy to consider it and be able to articulate _why_ I find it vile. I've also read things that would've pattern-matched to something horrible, but upon consideration realized that they were actually saying something pretty reasonable that didn't have any of the negative implications that the normal approach would lead one to expect.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not exactly criticizing this article. What I'm talking about _should_ be a trivial part of most fora, but the article isn't wrong that it's pretty rare and pretty fragile among communities on the Web.

</comment><comment><USER3> This used to be the greater purpose of University. Not even total freedom from bias, but at least being willing to listen.</comment>


Show HN: Ingerchat – Live Sketching as Chat - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ingerchat/id950583266?ls=1&mt=8

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, folks. This is a chat app I've put together than lets people chat through live sketching. It goes through Heroku, so you don't need to be on the same WiFi to interact with your chat partner (as is the case with many whiteboarding apps). I'd appreciate any feedback you have.</comment>


Xcode 9 is unacceptable - <AUTHOR> https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/89086 <comment><USER2> Apple has really lost focus on quality under Tim Cook. It's subjective but if someone were to make some site you could submit all sorts of glitches, the Mac guys who used to poke fun at Windows 10 years ago would have been in for quite a treat.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is so true:

<cite> Apple's software quality is constantly degrading, especially last few years. I am sure I am not the only one who can see this fact. </cite>

</comment><comment><USER4> While I agree that Apple's software quality could be much better, I really don't understand why bring this up with Xcode 9. Xcode usually has been really annoying pain in the ass, however with XCode 9 I have noticed nothing but improvements.

Build times are faster, cleanup times are faster, wireless debugging, new nice menu with cmd + click, no bugs so far etc.

<comment><USER5> Have you tried integrating Mapkit in your app and run it in Simulator? It feels like Xcode is using your mac to mine bitcoin when you run app with Mapkit.

<comment><USER4> Not yet, but I guess I'll try next. :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The bugs he mentioned, are nothing but small fry. The guy is obviously overworked or something.

Xcode could always be better, sure. But personally I'm having fun coding this and that in Swift 4.

</comment><comment><USER7> Do you remember an XCode acceptable on its first version, because I don't and I am using them since XCode 4...

</comment><comment><USER8> Tell me which one is acceptable?

<comment><USER9> XCode X

<comment><USER10> is that EKS? or TEN?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Role of a Law partner - <AUTHOR>

I'm a college student with programming experience and I'm interested in making start up with another dedicated friend as a co-founder. The thing is that this person has a law background and we had heard from a law adviser that real lawyers never actually become a part of a start up. Instead what people mean by a law partner is someone who deals with the lawyers. This adviser said that instead the better choice for a co-founder is to be a business oriented person. Honestly neither of us were too certain about this advice and we are still both going ahead with our plans to start a company, since we are both very enthusiastic about start ups. However we did want to know what the real role of a Law partner is in a start up and if there was any truth in the advice we got?<p>Thanks for the help in advance. <comment><USER2> I've been a lawyer, and now I'm a startup founder. Sometimes I think I should have skipped the lawyer part; other times, not so sure.

I've never heard of a "law partner" (which doesn't mean there is no such term), but I don't think almost any startup needs a cofounder with a legal background. That's not to say, though, that you shouldn't start something with your friend -- if he's smart, if he has hustle, if he can pick up the business end while you do the coding (or vice versa, or whatever), then it's fine.

Look at it this way: your friend's legal background is unlikely to help your startup very much, because if/when you start to get serious you're going to need more legal firepower, even for pretty mundane stuff, than just one guy can provide. But it isn't going to hurt you, either.

The question is really about whether the two of you are a good fit for one another, sufficiently passionate about building this thing, and sufficiently skilled to be able to do it. Good luck.</comment>


Is license-free a good idea? - <AUTHOR> The liblfds project [1] (disussed in [2]) has the following license:

    license

    There is no license. You are free to use this library
    in any way. Go forth and create wealth!

    If however for legal reasons a licence is required, the
    license of your choice will be granted, and license is
    hereby granted up front for a range of popular licenses:
    the MIT license, the BSD license, the Apache license,
    the GPL and LPGL (all versions thereof) and the Creative
    Commons licenses (all of them). Additionally, everything
    is also placed in the public domain.
 Not to pollute the other discussion I decided to ask the question here:
Is this a good idea?
Food for thought:
* Some of these licenses are not compatible. Probably no problem because only one license applies at a time?
* As far as I can tell all mentioned licenses (even CC0) have a disclaimer. Does the disclaimer apply? Does the public domain part leave me in danger of a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where the disclaimer is necessary?
* Public domain doesn't exist everywhere (though this is controversial [3]). This no problem if you place your work int the public domain and offer other licenses in places where no public domain exists, like SQLite does. But what if you offer free choice?
[1] http://liblfds.org/
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11805728
[3] http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html <comment><USER2> This "license-free" text is a lot of needless confusion that will only serve to complicate anyone's life who needs to show this to a lawyer.

The project could avoid the term "license free" and follow the guidelines for applying CC0 here for example: [https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#How_do_I_apply...](https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#How_do_I_apply_CC0_to_my_work.3F)

The CC0 dedication itself is available in summary form [https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) and full legal form [https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode)

CC0's full legal form includes a "fallback license" in jurisdictions where public domain isn't permitted.

A piece of software can be public domain (which does mean you don't need a license to use/modify/redistribute it), or it can have a permissive license, or a choice of multiple licenses.

If "license free" means public domain, use the proper term, and use the suggested text from CC0 (written with a lawyer's help).

If "license free" means there's a choice of licenses, then offer a choice of licenses.

If something is not public domain, then "there is no license" normally means the default license, which is "all rights reserved" \- everything is prohibited. For that reason, the term "license free" kind of implies the opposite of what this project intends.

Don't reinvent the legal wheel... especially when the CC0 dedication is already the exact thing you want to say.

</comment><comment><USER3> For any practical purpose, it's not "license free", it's your choice from the six licenses mentioned. BSD or MIT alone (or Apache? I don't remember the contents) would be plenty enough here.</comment>


Beyond the Maquiladora: A Look at Mexico's Startup Scene - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/26/beyond-the-maquiladora-a-look-at-mexicos-startup-scene/

<comment><USER2> I got to visit Guadalajara for work a few times and was blown away by it: a mega-city with mile after mile of factories, major CM's with enormous campuses, high skill educated workers, low cost of living. I got the feeling that it is on the verge of something great.

<comment><USER3> I love Guadalajara -- one of my favorite cities to do business in, though it's not really a tourist-friendly city, unless you want to day-trip to Tequila or the Primavera Forest. I agree that it feels like it's ready to go big, kind of like Shenzhen in the '90s, and the tech community is rapidly expanding (though, I was told, government meddling with the higher education system and student obsession with finance has severely restricted the number of Mexican computer scientists). There are some great nearshore development firms in addition to the local startup scene, which have the advantage of being in the same timezone as US firms.

Unfortunately, the ambient level of violence and corruption in Mexico is still too high to support a vibrant commercial scene, but the locals aren't letting that slow them down.

For anyone who might be visiting there, I recommend staying at the Fiesta Americana Grand Guadalajara Country Club, and dinner at La Tequila on Avenida Mexico -- you can't miss the flights of hyperlocal tequilas, and appetizers of escamoles and saltamontes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The US gets the wrong impression of Mexico from the immigration to the USA. That immigration is disproportionately undereducated, rural farmers. A thriving middle class has tended stay in Mexico. And we are starting to see the economic results, if the governmen doesnt blow it as usual.

<comment><USER5> > The US gets the wrong impression of Mexico from the immigration to the USA. > That immigration is disproportionately undereducated, rural farmers.A > thriving middle class has tended stay in Mexico.

Actually, lots of Mexicans have complained about the enormous brain drain of the Mexican middle class into the USA; while undereducated rural farmers may be disproportionately represented in _illegal_ immigration from the US to Mexico, _legal_ immigration (which is, even considering the not-inconsiderable expenses that often associated with illegal immigration, in practice as I understand it more resource intensive) from the US to Mexico (and some of the illegal immigration, as well) is educated professionals, especially those with family in the US, moving here because the pay they can get even taking a big step _down_ in prestige compared to the positions they are qualified for in Mexico is enough to not only live better in the US _even accounting for the higher cost of living_ , but _also_ provide surplus after that to improve quality of life for a lot of their family living in Mexico (plus, give more of their family the opportunity to eventually legally immigrate to the US, through family-based immigration visas.)

The uneducated, rural farmers get more attention in US media coverage of immigration, perhaps because they are overrepresented among illegal immigrants (which is usually the focus of media coverage), and perhaps because they are better fodder for emotional images ( _both_ those seeking to provoke sympathy for the poor _and_ those seeking to provoke fear of the unwashed masses).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was in the tech sector in Mexico around 2007-2011. This article seems quite accurate to me. I even fact-checked the official motto of Monterrey, and yeah, it is "el labor templa el espíritu".[1] Quite an obscure fact! I asked my regio coworker, and he had no idea what it was. And yeah, the stereotype in Mexico is that regios are all businessmen, ranchers, conservative, and stingy.[2] Kind of like their neighbours the Texans. :-)

Anyway, the thing that struck out to me as a Mexican at the time is that all of the actual "business" was coming from somewhere else. You can read in the article how Guadalajara is a city where a lot of foreign companies host some offices. When I was looking for jobs, by far the most common kind of thing was some local recruiting agency looking for outsourced workers to complement US or sometimes European companies.[3] This bothered me a little because it seemed like the long tail of the colonialism that plagues Mexico's history.

This is not to say that there are no purely local startups, who are trying to sell locally. Some of the startups mentioned in the article like Métros Cúbicos were already bought by 2011. I myself had a brief stint at a startup that was doing some very interesting machine learning in 2011. My heart wasn't in it and I failed the trial period. But I did get to see that it had several local clients, including a major nation-wide cineplex chain. They were also working at the time in growing their business into the US, and looking at their website, it looks like they are succeeding.

I had the privilege to work with some very smart hackers, I must say. One of my first jobs was with a company whose local office largely consisted of a band of buddies that knew each other since university and boasted amongst its ranks kernel hackers. The company was actually Spanish (Spaniard), but the Mexican office was quite sizable. Like probably most other countries, the vast majority of tech in Mexico is based on turnkey, replaceable Java-style software developers, but there do exist pockets of great innovation.

Ultimately I left Mexico to work at the actual company that I was being outsourced to. Not because I was facing any kind of hardship -- on the contrary, my outsourced salary in the end was quite generous in Mexican terms -- but because I wanted to be where the action was. But if the action is now back in Mexico, I am considering moving back.

\----

[1] [http://portal.monterrey.gob.mx/tu_ciudad/historia.html](http://portal.monterrey.gob.mx/tu_ciudad/historia.html)

[2] An example of an old Mexican sketch comedy show parodying this stereotype:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNI5KLLTfLM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNI5KLLTfLM)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NbJ18S80ig#t=284](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NbJ18S80ig#t=284)

[3] You can see an example of this attitude in Agave Lab, one of the companies mentioned in the article:

[http://www.agavelab.com/why-mexico.html](http://www.agavelab.com/why- mexico.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> Oracle, IBM, Intel and Freescale has big development buildings here, actually GDC (Guadalajara Design Campus) just opened a new building.</comment>


Securing Lasting Freedoms for All - <AUTHOR> https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/fortnite-mega-drop-faq <comment><USER2> I take a cynical view here: the only reason Epic is doing this is to make more money. They want that last 30%. i.e. this is a PR stunt and nothing more.

You can feel various ways, but personally, my reaction is "This is the hill you want to die on? You won't win this. No judge will ever order Apple to let you participate in their app store in violation of their ToS. And if they do, it'll take years of litigation."

Still... Kudos to them for this ambitious plan. It takes guts to intentionally kill off your iOS revenue stream. I wonder what percentage of revenue fortnite iOS generated. Perhaps iOS simply wasn't too lucrative. But if it was lucrative, then this took guts.

Remember that struggles for money and power are often dressed up as struggles for morals and righteousness. You start to see that pattern everywhere.

The other side of this is, Apple needs to play this carefully. It has the potential to quickly spiral out of control. For example, banning all games built on Unreal Engine would ignite a real fury, and would make [http://paulgraham.com/apple.html](http://paulgraham.com/apple.html) true – 11 years later.

Removing notarization for Fortnite on MacOS is another overstep, but it doesn't seem like it will cause Apple to lose the war.

<comment><USER3> "That last 30%" is kind of a funny phrase. If you were saying "That last 5%" I would probably agree with your take. But 30% is a massive chunk of the profit of every company in that whole market.

30% isn't "that last"; it's a substantial chunk of the money generated by the product you've spent years making, and I have trouble mustering your apparent disdain for anybody that would by so gauche as to expend energy trying to recover it.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I understand that platforms like Steam also take huge chunks, even Amazon, for hosting, providing visibility and other such features. Still, 1/3 of my revenue is _ALOT_ of money

<comment><USER5> Steam takes their cut for being the most convenient way to buy games, which drives sales, and developers are happy to be there. Apple take their cut because nobody has a choice, other than not to buy Apple devices. First is a honest partnership, second is extortion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Isn't "securing lasting freedoms for all" a hyperbolic title for this issue?

<comment><USER7> "Reducing our payment processing costs" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

<comment><USER8> Having the potential to restore general purpose computing to a device I own is a noble cause even if the standard bearers are an unpleasant bunch.

<comment><USER9> Restoring general purpose computing is so immensely removed from allowing 3rd party payments on a regulated software market, I would hesitate to even call it a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER8> It is in the pantheon of possible solutions to the crisis. We know for fairly certain epic wants their own store on iOS. That does move the needle significantly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Epic wants more money. Watching them raise the banner of freedom makes me want to vomit a little. But Apple's 30% take is ludicrous and the enemy of my enemy is my friend so I really hope they prevail.

<comment><USER11> > _Watching them raise the banner of freedom makes me want to vomit a little._

I agree they probably have ulterior motives, but I will always welcome people to the banner of freedom whenever they are willing to hold it. Even though they are arguing for freedom because of the potential profit, it doesn't change the importance of the freedom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tell it to the people who used to play Rocket League on linux.

<comment><USER13> Tell them what exactly? That's a case of a developer not wanting to continue maintaining an app on the platform. And thankfully WINE and Proton are able to pick up the slack and make the game playable without the support of the devs. Epic still wants to publish Fortnite on iOS, presumably, and in the meantime there isn't a way for them to do so without returning to the 30% cut.

<comment><USER12> > developer not wanting to continue maintaining an app on the platform.

This isn't what happened. Psyonix was perfectly happy with it and continued to expand and engage the wider PC gaming and modding community. Then Epic bought them for Rocket League's userbase and things reversed after the period of false assurances that nothing would change.

Epic is just a broken clock being right twice a day. Yes, what they're arguing for is sensible. But pretending that they're doing it to "Secure Freedoms for All" is absurd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here I give my analysis of what the best solution could be. Would like to know your thoughts too.

0\. Lower rate from 30% to 15% -Apple still has monopoly, nothing changes.

1\. Side loading apps: Not good! malicious apps can run amok, eg. $BIG_CORP$ will say - you will get 20$ credits if you sideload our app, and then surveil everything that is possible on the device. Here, we expect an average user to give all the permission that the app requests for.

2\. allow secondary app stores: -not good as it depends on the quality of enforcement in secondary app store. For Apple, it is in their interest to maintain app quality in their appstore to maintain overall good user experience in their device, but motivations are not same for secondary app store. May allow malicious apps which deteriorate the user experience/privacy similar to 1. And there will be a state where you will have to install 10s of app store just to install specific programs which is also not ideal.

3\. Allow secondary payment methods: -Average user will have to give up their payment info to everyone who asks for it. Most of them will not be trustworthy nor we can expect all of them to maintain good security standards for saving payment info.

The biggest culprit of all this drama is Apple does not allow secondary payment inside apps AND also, if you have secondary payment outside of app, they do not allow that price to be lower. There is no competition, thus Apple can get away with whatever it chooses to. Thus the monopoly.

4\. SOLUTION:

a) charge a flat fee for reviewing/serving apps. If necessary, linearly increase it based on daily active users if they need more resource to support that app.

b) allow whitelisted secondary payment providers. Only whitelisting few payment methods which are trustable eg applepay, googlepay, paypal, stripe, etc will maintain security of payment data.

c) allow secondary payment price to be lower than Apple.

With this solution, there will be competition between payment providers which will drive the price down.

<comment><USER15> Side loading apps would not and does not have to be bad. iOS is protected by technical restrictions as well as ToS restrictions. A sideloaded app would not be able to grab your gps and contact list without requesting permission because those are technical restrictions. It would however be able to show adult content and 3rd party payment processing because those are ToS protections.

<comment><USER16> When I worked in ad tech I, I was tangentially a part of a project where we were working with a sister company to integrate in their app to enable data collection.

My work wished to use fine-grained location and there was concern that our integration and usage of the gps API's in an app that didn't otherwise have a good reason to use them would cause it to be rejected (apparently this had happened before). I don't know for certain whether this ended up being the case, but I would certainly believe it. If there was a 2nd App Store that didn't enforce standards in the same way as the Apple run-store, I absolutely believe ad-tech companies would go to lengths to push clients to using it so they could vacuum up more data.

<comment><USER15> Android has had sideloading for like a decade and no major app is installed via sideloading. Its entirely used for beginner developers, open source repos and piracy. The inconvenience of being out of store is bigger than the benefits of being in store. I think ultimately epic does not want the solution to be sideloading since they are having the same issues on android. They want to be on the app store and to have no fees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _We are committed to securing lasting freedoms for all. This is why we fight._

This seems so out of touch given what's happening in the United States and around the world today.

</comment><comment><USER18> I understand the disgust some people are expressing, but I can't really sympathize with it.

It seems like a case of aligned incentives.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is a surprisingly personal legal battle for me.

I'm totally blind. For a long while now, iOS has been the mobile accessibility leader, and unless you as a blind person have some specific reason to use Android, you're encouraged to use iOS.

Back in 2009 when Android accessibility was a joke, by which I mean as a developer I found major API issues within a few hours of development, I wrote one of the first and most popular Android screen readers. I think it was at least the first to be publicised even before TalkBack, where by "publicised" I mean TalkBack wasn't in Android's release notes, but I at least had an APK installable via tinyurl and posted to a mailing list. I quite literally had nothing else to do with my time at that point in my life, and Android 1.6 had an accessibility API, so on a lark I started writing a screen reader. The project has since died out, but for a long while, Spiel was a thin on Android.

iOS won't let me do anything like that. Further, iOS won't even let me code for it unless I use MacOS, and while MacOS has some decent accessibility features, it's been a royal pain in my ass to code on. I could elaborate, but to keep this comment brief, take it as a given from a subject area expert that developing on MacOS as a blind person is worse than any other platform I've used to date. And that's saying something, since Linux is my primary platform, and there are a number of blind developers who won't touch it with a 10-foot pole. I don't want to claim that coding on MacOS under VoiceOver isn't possible, but it's more difficult than it needs to be.

Yes, these are two huge corporations slugging it out, and it's hard to muster much sympathy for Epic. But I wouldn't be the developer I am today if it weren't for Android's openness letting me build a screen reader, and its further openness letting me build an accessible GPS navigation app which I've hacked on in some form for around a decade now, and which I've come to rely upon. It bugs me to no end that the more accessible mobile platform is so locked down such that a budding blind software engineer handed an iPhone can't code for it using JAWS or NVDA. So Apple is handing blind people internet- connected mobile computers with all sorts of sensors, and telling them the only way they can develop for these devices is by using a sub-par development environment that's going to fight them every step of the way and, likely, turn them off of software development more broadly. Then maybe we wonder why we don't see more blind software engineers?

So, go Epic. If they start being asses later then of course I'll oppose that, but if they have a big enough saber to start breaking up Apple's stranglehold on the most accessible mobile platform, they've got my support 100%. Hell yeah, the web wouldn't have been possible under Apple's rule. And while I respect those of you who want more secure devices and a curated experience, don't under-estimate the harm caused by locking blind developers out of one of the most accessible computing environments they're ever likely to get. No, jumping through certificate hoops to install something that will expire after a week isn't anything near what I'm asking for.

And to those of you who say "Just tell your blind friends to use a Pinephone," I wish I could, but Linux accessibility infrastructure has no support for touchscreens and touch events. Any of you millionaires reading this interested in funding that development? ;) Serious question, I'll work to put you in touch with the right folks.

</comment><comment><USER5> If Epic pulls this off and Apple will be forced to allow app sideloading and third party appstores, I pledge myself to install Epic Store on some of my desktop computers.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is one immoral company fighting another for money and simply hoping people will see the other as more immoral.

There's something disgusting about their technique of preparing a propaganda film portraying themselves (a massive corporation) as the courageous underdog representing the people, then purposefully breaking ToS for the purposes of provoking the obvious reaction which they could then "react" to by releasing the film.

Of course all of this is independent of Apple's actual sin, which is indeed an overbearing ToS.

<comment><USER20> They broke the TOS so Apple would block the app, which then gives them standing in court. Without standing, any judge would dismiss their case.

<comment><USER9> A fair point for legal pragmatism, though it doesn't affect my opinion of their character.

<comment><USER21> Ah yes, the sanctity of the _ToS_ was violated. My heart bleeds.

<comment><USER9> Why the snark? I certainly said more than "they violated the ToS", which I even explicitly stated was an overbearing ToS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Apple's policies would have even blocked the World Wide Web if it had been > invented after the iPhone, because Apple policies disallow running code not > reviewed by Apple, accepting payments directly from customers, and accessing > content not reviewed by Apple — all fundamental features of the web

YES!

</comment><comment><USER22> This argument will be useful next time a brick and mortar store tells me they only take cash.</comment>


Lawrence Lessig: Fixing the Republic (10/29/2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1CdoDcAN5A <comment><USER2> Very powerful presentation! It gives a very clear and graphic explanation of the problems America's democracy is facing today.

If you agree with his opinion, consider showing this video to your friends and family.</comment>


Show HN: I created an algorithm to help me achieve Product-Market Fit - <AUTHOR> https://www.karma.fm/p/edveCfb/an-algorithm-for-karmas-product-market-fit <comment><USER2> For those who think the "40%+ of users would be highly disappointed if your product did not exist" is weird to test PMF, I recently found a better way: Your cohort retention curve should flat out somewhere above 0%.

I find the 40% rule weird because it highly depends on which people you include as "users". The flattening retention is way more acurate (vs survey question) and already gives more insight into what people are actually doing on your platform.

<comment><USER3> It's not weird at all. It's also called the "Must Have" Metric which defines if your product is a Must Have vs. Nice-to-Have. Must Have means your users can't live without it. This is the first state of Product/Market Fit. If you have can find a scalable channel then you have the second stage of Product/Market Fit.

Not all products need or have retention. Some amazing businesses are 1-time or products people pay for but don't need to use or actively engage with.

e.g. Universities, Courses = 1-time use Stocks/Investments = buy them and don't touch them until you sell Insurance = buy it and don't touch it until you renew 1 yr later Plenty of other examples

But every product should be a "Must Have" if it's going to grow.

<comment><USER2> But you need 40% of your "users" to qualify.

If I take all registerd people on my platform as "users", I might end up at 0,1%. But if I define a user as someone who is currently using my product >1 month, I might end up at 60%.

You are correct that not all products can have retention. But if you do, the cohort is a better metric in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice! it would be great if you are able to integrate a simple playground where getPainsIFeel() can be edited and the URL shared with anyone for them to enter `theirPains` for calculating Product-Market Fit.

Because getting people to share their problems, finding those who share the problem, getting those who would like build/have built solution for those problems in a single place is very hard. I've been trying to build a solution for it at needgap[1].

[1]: [https://needgap.com](https://needgap.com)

</comment><comment><USER5> On a slightly unrelated note, the firewall at my work tagged karma.fm as pornography. I opened this post on mobile and it clearly isn't that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well that's concerning... do you know if your work draws from a third-party service, and/or do you think it's possible that the "newness" of the site could be triggering that?

<comment><USER6> Probably a prior owner of the domain? One can easily imagine Karma as a racy name for a risqué service.

<comment><USER7> This is true more often than not, but in this case web.archive.org just shows a web radio as the previous owner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Am I the only one who finds it strange that "minority groups" is listed as a persona and that it's also associated with compatible traits, behaviors, and values?

<comment><USER9> Reading through the list, it seems like the author is aiming for an audience of "people like me", which isn't really the worst thing.

I glanced through the website homepage and didn't really understand what the site was all about, but I'm also not the target audience based on those criteria, so maybe that's okay.

<comment><USER8> Yeah I thought it was a joke at first but then I saw the comments here and went back to re-evaluate. Looks more to me like it's a thought process that's laid out like code to help the author come up with ideas that solve problems and then evaluate the efficacy of those ideas based on a perceived market for it. Sort of like a checklist to run through in your mind but laid out as a coding workflow.

If you are familiar with the GTD method from David Allen, it reminds me of that a bit where " _var product = new idea(getPainsIFeel());_ " and " _innovateSolutions(painsIFeel, audiences, traitsBehaviorsValues);_ " is basically the equivalent of the weekly review and trigger list to generate things to do/improve. Similarly, thing like createValuableContent(), achieveProductMarketFit(), and synthesize() are analogous to the intermediary stages within GTD that drive the workflow and keep things on track to reach completion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for introducing me to David Allen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is cute and all but there is a sniff test here. Could you rephrase what you're turning into pseudocode back into prose, specifically into a memo, and have it still sound concrete or meaningful?

One thing that might jump out if you do that is that there's no mention of historical context or a competitive landscape. What are potential substitutes and comparable products that potential users use to do something that Karma could do a better job of solving? What is the history of that pain point? You touch upon this where you define what the boundaries are of whether karma can definitely help, and the enumeration of pains that you feel.

This is my humble gut opinion, but I get the sense that there is too much ground being covered there. Solutions to the problems of social isolation, social injustice in the workplace or the world at large, or lack of academic progression are pretty challenging unsolved spaces in and of themselves, and there are some pretty rough economic structures and systems in place that make things harder there. I'm almost certain you wouldn't solve any of those problems by trying to solve all of them at once, but I'm skeptical that you could solve any individual one in and of itself because even the individual ones are so challenging and work against gravitational forces.

There are many algorithms out there -- does this one produce useful work? And if it does, does it do so while effectively minimizing time-space complexity and utilizing data locality to achieve as much useful productivity as possible? If you don't get a satisfactory answer to those questions, I think the real algorithm to help you find a problem worth solving is one that isn't a complete stretch of an analogy.

It's finding subproblems, which is a crucial part of using recursion. Keep digging into smaller and smaller problems until you find something that is small enough to trivially solve that you truly do solve it, but it's aggregable enough to start putting together into a larger and larger solution. Otherwise, you might risk building a solution in search of a problem.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Some methods are NotYetImplemented but I'd be happy to expand upon any if anyone's curious! I don't even know what they should look like quite yet...

<comment><USER11> Can you define `collectiveOwnership()` and `selfActualize()`?

<comment><AUTHOR> I can try; I have yet to nail down a concise articulation of these, but here's my swing at it:

collectiveOwnership() would describe the process of the product gradually going from a dictatorship (I am the one who controls the code and direction) to democracy (all participants control the code and direction) as the community guidelines, culture, automated moderation, human moderation, and technical details of decentralized ownership are ironed out. This way we protect ourselves against any minority of stakeholders from having the power to pull a Cambridge Analytica and sell out the users and their data, or allow advertisers to dictate what's acceptable and subject LGBTQ+ creators to accidental censorship a la YouTube. If we can recursively create organizations that follow this model, I'm hopeful that people will gradually begin to expect and demand socially sustainable business models to drive the products that they use.

selfActualize() would describe the process of becoming all that we can be, which is the focus of Abraham Maslow's Motivation and Personality. Carl Rogers and Kurt Goldstein also covered it, but I think Maslow's take is the most thought-provoking. If you want some notes on his work, I'd be happy to share (they're linked in the post I shared here). Here's a wiki on it for a concise take: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self- actualization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization)

Sticking that at the end of the main() method was my way of saying that I'll feel prepared to be selfish as soon as I've had some impact on the bigger picture.

<comment><USER12> This is just a personal difference of philosophy but I feel obliged to make the case that it isn't self actualization that is desirable necessarily. I make that case because you yourself have made the claim that it is selfish, that your priority should be to make the world a better place first (in so much that can be defined).

What can be grasped, judging from the premise that the world has suffering and pain, and at times that becomes too much to bear for people (in the form of tragedy), but also in the form of malevolence. Tragedy being something that can be strived to overcome because after all life has limitation and constraints - the goal is to live in spite of those constraints in an effort to make things better. Or rather, to live with your aim up rather than degenerate down into malevolence.

It isn't self actualization that is concerned, it's about aiming towards something better across many dimensions. Self actualization is a piece of it, but isn't the whole point. You might say it begins with the self rather that out in the world. Reduce your own propensity for malevolence. Tell yourself the truth and take care of yourself to put yourself together so to speak. When you are capable enough that you have made habits out of this with ease, your capacity grows outward.

Maybe you are taking care of your home more, maybe you feel like you have enough of your cup filled that you can take care of the attention you give to your children or the kind of attention and education. Perhaps you have enough capacity that you might expand your center out into the community and volunteer, start a business, give back to open source, join a community, lead even.

It isn't necessarily that these are things are good by the nature of emulation (I.e. a good person does these things) it is a matter of what you value. What you value is directly observable by the evidence of your attention to those dimensions of life.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't disagree with anything you've said... I'm just a lousy communicator. I should have been clearer: I don't think self-actualizing is selfish, in fact I think for most people, self-actualization requires you to be unselfish. Maybe I can revise my statement to clarify:

"Sticking that at the end of the main() method was my way of saying that I won't feel self-actualized until I've had some impact on the bigger picture."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hey! I know I'm late to the party but I just wanted to say that I think I share some of these feelings and I'm glad you shared this!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much for taking a look! I'm happy it resonated :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> No shame or anything — cool project. But this title sounds like a neural net was trained on satirical HN submission titles.

<comment><USER15> [http://oneweirdkerneltrick.com/](http://oneweirdkerneltrick.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> product-market fit can never be achieved using this algorithm, since a product is never found: in achieveProductMarketFit.ks, _uncertainty is set to 1.0. It needs to go below the 0.8 threshold in order to get out of the loop, but _uncertainty is never updated anywhere so it can never happen. So achieveProductMarketFit won't ever return any product. QED ;)

</comment><comment><USER17> what language is that?

<comment><AUTHOR> KarmaScript!

It's just a weird mashup of English, JS, and C# that I'm using to help me think

<comment><USER18> A program language for people to follow is a great idea. I find that so much easier to read than if it were verbosely spun out into pages of a book. I especially like the product market fit function. I really know what that means now, and it's quite a high bar. You basically need a booming unstoppable business by the sounds of it.

<comment><USER19> I will say, it would be helpful to see a call stack.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's my resume!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is really hard to read on mobile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the heads up; prioritizing mobile ux now.</comment></comment>