When the Doctor Must Choose Between Her Patients and Her Notes - <AUTHOR> http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2016/01/opinion-doctor-patients-notes <comment><USER2> I see people here explain all this documentation requirements as a function of it paying private health care.

While some of that is true, it is far from the whole explanation.

I am a Norwegian we have what you guys call socialised health care. I've been treated in the US and Norway so I can compare. In the US there is a lot more paperwork related to disclaimers, suing, billing, insurance companies etc which we don't have to deal with.

However when it it comes to the medical side of things, doctors here also sit and type at their computer while seeing their patient. They are also stressed out trying to make it all add up. Just because there isn't a profit motive doesn't mean there isn't a push to be more efficient from above.

There is lots of political pressure from above to save money on health care. The core problem here isn't profit or not. I think the problem in common both in the US and Norway is the measurement and feedback based management. New Public Management or whatever you call it. Both in public sector and private those at the top want to be able to control and improve what is going on below and so they insist on massive amounts of feedback, so they can measure everything about how things are run. Of course they never consider the massiv cost of all this documentation.

It is the same in schools here in Norway. Teachers have ended up spending a shitload of time documenting and measuring over the last decades. The paperwork load keeps adding up even though every successive government says they are all about cutting paperwork.

IMO opinion the solution to this isn't to go public or private but to change our ideas about how things are managed and run.

<comment><USER3> This has to be answered empirically. No doubt there is value in giving doctors or teachers the freedom to do what they think best - especially the best ones. But there is also a lot of value in standardization, accountability, and ensuring we know what went on. A patient may think they care more about how kind the doctor was, but if better notes make the difference in spotting a rare condition or simply catching a mistake - or, more subtly, enable data analytics that let us spot new correlations and develop improved treatments - then (with a limited amount of doctor's time available) that's a lot more important.

What has the overall effect of these paperwork changes been on healthcare outcomes?

<comment><USER4> One of the outcomes is that doctors spend up to 50% of their time making notes instead of seeing patients. Another issue is that by making these overly controlled environments you are basically being forced to higher more control people.

I.e. you are getting more "cold hands" (administrators, controlllants, bureaucrats) than "warm hands" (doctors, nurses, caregivers)

This at least has been one of the main issues in Denmark. Can't speak for Norway but my guess is the issue is the same.

Denmark has fallen far down the list of the places with most effective care. It is however (mostly) "free".

There is a real groundbreaking business hiding there. How to ensure control of whats going on without burdening the wrong people.

<comment><USER5> _One of the outcomes is that doctors spend up to 50% of their time making notes instead of seeing patients._

But, is that a bad thing? If the notes are relevant/useful and can only be entered by a doctor, then I'd say that's just part of practicing medicine.

How much of that 50% is purely red-tape? And, if it is red-tape, can that work be off-loaded to a less valuable employee?

<comment> lloyd-christmas > If the notes are relevant/useful and can only be entered by a doctor

My father's secretary has done it for 20 years. Now she does less, liability has decreased slightly, my father works longer hours and sleeps less while seeing the same amount of patients. All in all, a big win for everyone except the doctors and patients.

What I don't think people are realizing is that the data DOES exist. It just isn't entered into a central electronic database. They already took notes. Now they have to write them twice. It's not a bad thing that they are centrally located, but from watching my father's life change since this happened, I struggle to see how it benefits patients.

From my side, I have epilepsy. When I was younger, I went to see a different doctor, and the physical MRI was sent between hospitals. The images and accompanying notes were misread, and they thought I had a brand new brain tumor. Not exactly awesome to hear at the ripe old age of 14. Had EMR existed, that mistake would be much less likely to have happened. It obviously CAN be beneficial. On the flip side, since this legislation, I don't see my neurologist anymore. I go every 6 months to get a "checkup". Which really means visiting the nurse practitioner to re-up my prescriptions. Since my epilepsy is stable (and I've known him 20 years), it's a time saver for both of us to just fake the appointment. I can't complain too much as it's a time saver for me as well, but the legislation doesn't seem to be in my medical best interests in that my doctor is willing to take that shortcut. I used to have to fight to see him less frequently (taking days off work to strap electrodes to my head or sit in a tube can be draining on the vacation/sick days).

<comment><USER4> Exactly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My wife is a therapist. Her supervisors expect 80% efficiency (billable time) and her treatment to paperwork load is close to 1:1.

So literally her only option is to document while also treating.

she comes home and tells me that a patient asked for water and that creates a dilemma for her: go get water and lose productivity while treating your patient like a human OR reject their request and keep productivity high and avoid being scolded.

The problem is, obviously, good care is therapy AND getting water for your patient. They're humans not numbers. We're forcing medical professionals to only work within the scope of "billable" activities and that ultimately hurts the patient.

<comment><USER7> My wife is a therapist as well. She has to clock out and do documentation on the evenings or weekends to meet productivity (documenting while treating isn't an option given her need to be hands on with patients). They also require her to overbook (i.e., book >100% productivity) so that she stays above 80% in the case of no shows. I get the logic behind it, but it really sucks for her when she doesn't get no shows.

They don't care if she gets overtime (so long as she meets productivity), so that's nice, but I really can't understand why they don't just go to salary or work with insurance companies to incorporate documentation into billable time. I can't imagine the patient experience would be hurt too much by shifting from 1 hour sessions to 45 minute sessions with 15 minutes of paid documentation. If anything, insurance companies should get better documentation and that should help them combat fraud while also improving care. Granted, I think the clinic my wife works at is almost entirely built around Medicaid reimbursement and Medicaid doesn't have many real incentives to reduce costs or improve quality of care.

<comment><USER8> These sorts of universal employee abuse problems are what unions are supposed to solve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The requirement for high levels of documentation is largely an attempt by payers (insurers) to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. In the US most healthcare providers are still paid on a fee for service basis so the more patients they treat in a day the more money they make. There have been many incidents of providers submitting claims for patients who didn't need treatment, or with the wrong billing codes. (Obviously the vast majority of doctors don't do anything unethical or illegal, but still fraud is fairly common.) So payers want to see the notes in order to verify that treatment actually occurred, was medically necessary, and consistent with the terms of the patient's insurance policy.

The new Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model has the potential to reduce the documentation requirement. Under that model the insurer shifts the risk to a provider organization which is receives a flat fee per year to care for the patient. So the providers no longer need to submit detailed insurance claims.

The secondary reason for requiring detailed clinical documentation is coordinating between all members of a patient's care team. Obviously your primary care physician would like to know what your psychiatrist did and why.

<comment><USER10> There is still a requirement for highly structured data entry that is unavoidable. Even if you reduced the other documentation requirements, the "computerized physician order entry" systems (healthcare lingo) still require quite a lot of provider time. You need to be very explicit when entering things like chemotherapy regimens.

<comment><USER9> Right that's also a factor. Some medical practices have hired scribes to shadow physicians during patient encounters and do the data entry in real time. This is expensive but can end up being cost effective if it allows a highly-paid physician to see more patients per day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Uh... Isn't the fix to just stop taking more patients than you can handle comfortably and enjoyably? Maybe that, paired with encouraging more of the younger generation to become doctors (to cover for the patients you feel like you might be abandoning?)?

Doctors are extremely valuable workers/members of society, I'm surprised that they don't feel more in-control of the situation (if you want shorter notes, push for it?)...

Also, this assumption that constant note taking makes someone feel like they're not being treated as human isn't completely convincing either... If my doctor takes notes while I speak to him/her (and it was made clear at least once that I have their attention), that impresses on me that they're doing their job, which is far more important to me than the feeling of being treated like a human for an hour.

Also, why not just take micro breaks during billable time to do notes? bill for the 45 minutes, notes for 15 mins, take notes right in front of the person, and let them know what is happening?

Maybe this just seems easy to fix to me because I'm an outsider

<comment> lloyd-christmas > Isn't the fix to just stop taking more patients than you can handle > comfortably and enjoyably?

And then the hospital starts making less money (losing money), research funding dries up, and we start using mercury to treat syphilis again. I'm only half-kidding. I say hospital because all the laws that have changed in healthcare have driven most doctors out of private practice into hospital positions. since 2004, hospital-employed doctors have gone from 11% to over 60%[1]. One major reason being that with the wave of medical reform, the overhead of running a practice has skyrocketed. "Comfortable and enjoyable" are rarely applicable when you only start paying off your $1m schooling debt at 30.

> I'm surprised that they don't feel more in-control of the situation

I'm not sure what else to say other than "They aren't". These are laws, not administrative suggestions. Hospitals expect/need the same output regardless of the laws the government changes.

> this assumption that constant note taking makes someone feel like they're > not being treated as human isn't completely convincing either...

I have a life-long condition. I don't care when my doctor is typing because I've had it my whole life, it's nothing more than maintenance, and I'll see them again in 6 months. Imagine being told you have 6 months to live from someone half-sitting behind a computer.

>Also, why not just take micro breaks during billable time to do notes?

My father doesn't eat lunch, using that time to catch up on notes. For as long as I remember, has left for work at 5am and gotten home at 8pm. He spends his Saturdays and Sundays working. And again, hospital employees don't get to choose how many hours they bill.

[1] [http://www.merritthawkins.com/uploadedFiles/MerrittHawkins/P...](http://www.merritthawkins.com/uploadedFiles/MerrittHawkins/Pdf/mha2012survpreview.pdf)

<comment><USER11> > And then the hospital starts making less money (losing money), research > funding dries up, and we start using mercury to treat syphilis again. I'm > only half-kidding. I say hospital because all the laws that have changed in > healthcare have driven most doctors out of private practice into hospital > positions. since 2004, hospital-employed doctors have gone from 11% to over > 60%[1]. One major reason being that with the wave of medical reform, the > overhead of running a practice has skyrocketed. "Comfortable and enjoyable" > are rarely applicable when you only start paying off your $1m schooling debt > at 30.

Sorry, I meant suggest taking less patients, in addition to charging enough to match what you were making before. Not just doctors/hospitals making less money across the board. This will encourage more people to be doctors/open hospitals in the long run to fill the demand (then bringing down the price again, until we're at a nice equilibrium), which will bring down prices, and ensure that doctors take as many patients as is comfortable.

> I'm not sure what else to say other than "They aren't". These are laws, not > administrative suggestions. Hospitals expect/need the same output regardless > of the laws the government changes.

Is there no doctor's lobby? If the law is wrong/naive, there are measures you can take to make sure it's changed.

> I have a life-long condition. I don't care when my doctor is typing because > I've had it my whole life, it's nothing more than maintenance, and I'll see > them again in 6 months. Imagine being told you have 6 months to live from > someone half-sitting behind a computer.

Yes, that would be a very insensitive way to convey such information, but that's also not the routine case, right? Also, I noted that it seems serviceable for the doctor to cut up the time (in a world where they could set their own billable hours, which could exist).

> My father doesn't eat lunch, using that time to catch up on notes. For as > long as I remember, has left for work at 5am and gotten home at 8pm. He > spends his Saturdays and Sundays working. And again, hospital employees > don't get to choose how many hours they bill.

I didn't call into question how much current doctors work to catch up on notes -- from what the article said, and your personal experience that is a crazy amount of paperwork. If hospital employees don't get to choose the amount they bill, then maybe someone should change the hospitals? Or come up with some other structure for serving patients.

My main point condensed: The amount of paperwork doctors are buried under is insane, that much is clear. Doctors are some powerless group of victims -- surely there are some actions they can take to alleviate the problems, especially if what's best for patients is what the care about.

I did not know about these problems so reading this article was informational for me, but I found it lacking in the "what we're going to do about it" department.

<comment><USER12> > Sorry, I meant suggest taking less patients, in addition to charging enough > to match what you were making before.

How? They can't negotiate with public insurers (Medicare and Medicaid), who together control over 40% of the payer market.

They can't charge self-paying (uninsured) patients any more, because those patients can't really afford it so they don't actually pay.

And they _already_ overcharge private insurers (to account for the below-cost reimbursement rates of public insurers), so there really isn't room to charge them any more.

> Is there no doctor's lobby?

Not really. The last 40 years have been a massive power shift from doctors to hospitals, and from hospitals to insurance companies. The ACA was probably the single biggest sign of that, but it was as much a symptom as it was a cause.

Contrary to popular belief, doctors have less power today than they did 20 or 40 years ago, and they have very little leverage with which to secure any additional power. Almost all the industry power rests in the hands of the insurers. (And the private insurers are themselves beholden to Medicare).

The entire narrative is around expanding coverage and reducing costs, which invariably means paying doctors _less_ , not more, for the same work.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the information/sharing the challenges that are present.

Forgive my naive thought - but what if doctors just stop... negotiating with public insurers? is there some legislation I don't know about that prevents that?

<comment><USER12> > what if doctors just stop... negotiating with public insurers? is there some > legislation I don't know about that prevents that?

Doctors aren't negotiating at all with public insurers. Medicare doesn't negotiate, for any meaningful definition of 'negotiate'. They set the rates they are willing to pay, and you can either accept it or.... accept it. As a provider, it's very, very difficult to refuse to treat Medicare/Medicaid patients in practice, for all sorts of legal reasons.

(Also, it's usually the hospital that's in this position now, not doctors. Private practice is a dying breed; most doctors in the US are now salaried.)

<comment><USER11> OK got it - so there is some law that prevents/makes it prohibitively expensive for hospitals to not serve medicare/medicaid patients?

<comment> lloyd-christmas Not specifically law, but the number of patients on Medicare. You're essentially eliminating at least 15% of potential patients(and growing as the population ages) That doesn't even factor in the age of patients. Only 15% of that 15% are under the age of 65. That leaves you with 40m+ people on medicare who are over 65. Who tends to go to the doctor more frequently, a 25 year old or a 70 year old? Dependent upon specialty, you could have 90% of your patients on medicare. If I dropped 90% of my clients, I don't think "comfortable" would be an accurate description of my workload.

It's a tough position to be in. Many doctors ARE dropping medicare due to the large amount of paperwork, costs of auditing, deep price discounts, etc. This means that the doctors who DO accept medicare end up getting swamped with patients which increases the patient wait times. So, as a medicare recipient, you either end up paying more out of pocket to see the doctors who dropped medicare or you wait longer to see your doctor. As a doctor, you either lose your patients or gain an unmanageable amount of patients along with drastically more paperwork. Lose-lose.

All that being said, it's clearly a lot easier to criticize than contribute meaningful suggestions. The only thing I could suggest is to put much more effort into preventative medicine. Preventing disease is drastically cheaper than managing symptoms. While it comes up a lot, it doesn't seem to be a focal point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Girlfriend is an oncology PA. Writing notes are the absolute most dreaded part of her job. She has to spend about 8 hours every weekend catching up on them. The switch to electronic records vastly increased the amount of time to complete notes.

Scribes are a good solution. Her brother-in-law is an ED physician and doesn't really have to worry about notes because he has good scribes.

<comment><USER5> _The switch to electronic records vastly increased the amount of time to complete notes._

Is there something inherent in medical notes that typing them should take longer than hand writing them? Or, is the software just awful? (I assume the second, which makes me wonder why nobody is _disrupting_ this area)

<comment><USER10> Both. It's extraordinarily complex. The data entry is highly structured. All the electronic record software I've seen has probably ~100 pages worth of forms, a big subset of which usually need to be filled out for each patient visit.

It's not being "disrupted" because it's extremely capital intensive to enter this market. The requirements seem intractable:

\- Structured data with very high level of granularity.

\- Patients often don't fit the mold exactly. It's hard to classify something that is going on with a patient; there are 68,000 ICD-10 codes.

\- Data needs to be interoperable with existing and competing systems.

\- Every hospital has their processes and documentation practices. As a result, most electronic record software is highly customizable, and a company representative is usually on call or on site to continuously customize it.

\- Software needs extreme backwards compatibility. You need to be able to read records that are tens of years old.

\- Need to be able to print everything.

\- Need to meet regulatory requirements and security audits. Regulatory requirements vary by state and country.

\- Healthcare institutions are inherently conservative with their technology, and for likely good reason. Plus they don't upgrade equipment very often. If they just spent $1 billion upgrading their entire IT infrastructure, they're not going to consider your startup's solutions for awhile.

\- Patients don't like it when their provider is focused on a computer or taking notes instead of on them.

\- Different UI for each provider (e.g., primary care physician vs. pharmacist vs. radiologist)

\- Need to communicate with a wide variety of medical hardware that doesn't have good standard protocols, and much of which is very old.

And on and on...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whenever I look at the USA medical system I wonder how much longer it can go on for. Ever rising costs combined with an ageing population and a political system that finds it hard to make decisions must end at some point, but when? What percentage of GDP does the healthcare budget have to reach before it breaks?

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure that's relevant to the article - it sounds like a general lament about the US healthcare system that could have been attached to any article on US healthcare. Have we established that doctors in the US have to deal with more documentation than doctors in other industrialized healthcare systems? I think establishing that is required to turn this discussion into one about the problems of the US healthcare system versus others.

Regarding the content, this doctor provides compelling _arguments_ that the documentation doctors have to require takes a large toll on the doctors themselves and their patients, but I'm curious if we can look at data to corroborate that. For example, maybe the copious note taking improves patient care because more information is available to more people, and is not trapped in the head of one doctor. Note I am not saying that is _necessarily_ true, but we've been presented with arguments and anecdotes - very compelling ones, which I am inclined to agree with. But it is probably not wise to change healthcare policy without looking at what data we can.

<comment><USER15> > Have we established that doctors in the US have to deal with more > documentation than doctors in other industrialized healthcare systems?

Yes. _The authors cite data showing that physicians in Canada spend far less time on administration than do U.S. doctors,_ [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-10/pfan- pco10231...](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-10/pfan- pco102314.php) _Administrative work consumes one-sixth of U.S. physicians ' working hours_ Note, this is non patient related Administrative work.

Now what? IMO, the simplest solution is for doctors to bill based on administrative requirements.

<comment><USER14> Yes, very interesting. But it is non-patient administrative work, so I'm not sure if it applies to the submitted article. That does, however, support the argument that in general, the US system requires more administrative work, yet (I believe), the US and Canadian systems achieve about the same health outcomes. And I also believe the Canadian system is cheaper. It's then reasonable to conclude that the many layers of the US healthcare system are the cause.

It would be reasonable for patient-related notes to be correlated with other administrative work, but it's not necessarily so.

<comment><USER15> The article points out that most of these notes are not related to patent care.

 _A seasoned supervisor told me that, when he was a resident working in the psychiatric emergency room, he used to see more than three times as many patients as we residents see now.

"How?" I asked him, with an incredulous lilt in my voice that could barely be masked.

"Our notes could be shorter back then," was his reply. (Insurance, regulations and electronic health records weren't issues back then.)_

<comment><USER14> Correct, and I understood that, so I was not clear. My question was on whether or not patient notes are also associated with more-bureaucracy-for-the-same- health-outcome. At higher cost. Maybe more patient notes actually lead to better health outcomes, even though they're an annoyance for doctors and cause them to see less patients.

<comment><USER15> Got it, it's a good point and worth looking at. Doctors taking lot's of notes while in with a patent could also lead to worse outcomes as they are distracted.

However, ~50% increase in healthcare costs would need to have a huge impact on patent outcomes or drastic fraud reduction to be worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The article doesn't mention transcribers. I remember in the 80s and 90s, a few of my relatives typed up medical transcriptions as a part-time from home job. Has this fallen out of style? Or is this a result of some legislation perhaps?

</comment><comment><USER17> When I saw a dermatologist about a year ago, and he had an assistant in the room whose job seemed to be to update the notes while he was interacting with me. I can see that helping with a lot of specialties, but maybe not psychiatry.

</comment><comment><USER18> I can't help but think there could be two solutions to this problem.

1) A speech-to-text transcripting intelligent system that could automatically make some guesses at the notes the doctor would want to write. Could save them quite a bit of time if it can be tuned for utility 2) (the cheaper short-term solution) An assistant who can focus on taking notes while the doctor focuses on the patient.

Unfortunately, (1) is a technologically challenging AI problem and I bet the current medical rules and patient's expectations of being able to 1:1 with their doctor without a third-party listening in probably scuttle (2).

<comment><USER19> My SO is a family medicine MD and works at an inner city clinic. When we first started dating she'd mention the need to spend time during the evenings to write notes. As someone that a) wanted more of her time b) wrote software for a living, it surprised me that such a system doesn't already exist. It seems like it could aid in catching errors and also being a helpful assistant of sorts to ensure good notes are being captured and all possibilities are being addressed.

From what I've seen, even with newer EHR systems (Epic, Athena), medical technology is about 15 years behind current technology.

<comment><USER20> It's worse than 15 years behind -- it is a step backwards. In ye olden days, they recorded notes on a $50 voice recorder, and had a transcriptionist transcribe notes into a written form that went into records.

Now, to make data more standardized, it's a wall of clicks and checkboxes, which require domain expertise. So doctors canned the transcriptionists, replaced them with enterprise IT and hire PAs and NPs to try to bridge the gap.

I shake my head every time I go to my doctor. He's a brilliant guy and really good physician, but easily 50% of his time is dedicated to click-monkey bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Maybe doctors should hire someone to help with the paperwork? This seems like a case where scaling horizontally works better than scaling vertically. Like how some tech companies make use of QA departments while others do their own QAs, perhaps some doctors having an assistant on hand could make things more efficient.

</comment><comment><USER22> Multitasking has the effect of increasing perceived workload whilst decreasing work throughput and increasing the error rate.

Through training it is possible to become efficient in doing two tasks seemingly simultaneously, in this case, anamnesis and note-taking. Nevertheless true multitasking is not proven, and switching occurs instead, the trained person simply responds quicker to certain stimuli.

Multitasking might also be the source of frustration and contributing factor to the reported depression.

Of course the documentation work can be rationalized and tools can be developed to help this, but there is also room for improvement on the work of the doctors, revealed by the lack of standardization reported in the article.

</comment><comment><USER23> This article just makes me think of supporting more startups like Augmedix and the future of Augmented Reality will truly be a revolution in healthcare.

</comment><comment><USER24> If this Doctor was using drchrono she wouldn't have this problem.</comment>


My Computer Science Degree Was Not Worth the Cost - <AUTHOR> https://www.davebennett.tech/my-computer-science-degree-was-not-worth-the-cost/ <comment><USER2> The best thing about my college years was learning scientific methodology.

The next thing was a very deep dive into computer architecture, starting from flip-flops, to circuits, to microcode, to building operating systems.

I may be an outlier, but these two things really shaped my career.

</comment><comment><USER3> Coincidentally, I went to my first parent / teacher conference last night for 10th grade.

They offer a class on C++, which was offered way back when I was in high school '94-98.

I couldn't help but think what a waste of time that would be. And I get it - their trying to teach logical thinking and problem solving more then starting someone down a career path - but wouldn't it make more sense to start these kids on web development or app development - pick a language - java, python, perl - hell - show them some PHP as a gateway drug / get Wordpress up and running and customized.

Worse is how many students don't have a programmer as a parent and wouldn't know otherwise? Going to start a kid / young adult down a path of C++ and they'll build what - video games? Operating systems? Graphic programs?

Again - the logical thinking and problem solving this class probably offers is very important in any kind of programming but the class is offered right next to automotive repair / body work (which is what he wants to do) which absolutely translates into a career path if the student chooses to go further.

I'm gonna push him in the direction of ECU programming and tuning - best of both worlds - a little programming and he can still work on cars while learning math and science.

</comment><comment><USER4> Looking at the list of techs, his CS program was an academic CS program with a focus on algorithms- this is all about making more computer scientists, not software engineers. The two fields are somewhat disjoint.</comment>


Android 4.1 Jelly Bean is now available - <AUTHOR> http://developer.android.com/about/versions/jelly-bean.html

<comment><USER2> Really? I thought the keynote explicitly said the SDK would be available today, but that neither the source code nor the binary updates would be pushed to the public (as opposed to hardware manufacturers, who now have ahead-of- time PDK access) until mid-July.

(edit: In addition, the Nexus 7, running Jelly Bean, while available to purchase today, will itself not be shipping until mid-July. I really don't think it is available yet.)

<comment><USER3> The 24-minute news cycle doesn't make allowances for little things like facts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >> Faster, Smoother, More Responsive

Does all this finally mean it has actually caught up with iOS in terms of touch-lag? And is this finally admittance that there was a problem all along?

I know some may jump to the defence of Android here, I've seen this argued ad nauseam before, and yes I've tried some Android phones that didn't have noticable lag, but the 'top of the range' Samsung Galaxy II tablet _is_ indisputably laggy when compared to an iPad 2.

If this is finally the fix we've (or maybe just I've) been waiting for then congrats to Android, I'm really glad to see it.

<comment><USER5> Honeycomb and ICS aren't as smooth as iOS, but most of the lag that you're experiencing on your tablet is coming from Samsung's terrible software and not Android itself. The Galaxy Tabs are an embarrassment.

<comment><USER4> Oh wow thanks, I hadn't realised that was the case, never actually heard anyone state that so bluntly. Is it safe to say the ASUS tabs are smoother?

<comment><USER5> Definitely. I've played around with a friend's Transformer Prime for a bit and it was mostly pretty fluid.

ASUS also makes far less modifications to the OS, too. Their devices are very close to stock Android with just some small additions, some new apps and wallpapers and whatever.

<comment><USER4> Great, thanks that's good to know, my company is considering developing on Android and the Samsung tabs are very off-putting :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For anyone wondering when it's coming to ICS phones.

"Google: Android 4.1 Jelly Bean coming to Samsung Galaxy Nexus, Nexus S and Motorola Xoom mid-July"

from: [http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/27/google- android-4-1-jelly-...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/27/google- android-4-1-jelly-bean-coming-to-samsung-galaxy-nexus-m/)

<comment><USER7> Or if you've rooted, there are ROMs already available... <http://forum.xda- developers.com/showthread.php?t=1737849>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Until the fragmentation problem is fixed, every new Android release only fills me with dread.

Normally when new versions of frameworks or software that I use come out, I like it. Except Android, because _every new version of Android has lots of nice features that I won't be able to use and it is guaranteed to further fragment of the marketplace._

Android is the (old) Internet Explorer of mobile. I've never seen one application skew across versions so hard, or single-handedly fragment the space as much. (BTW kudos to MS for strongly encouraging their IE users upgrade).

What makes this perplexing is that Google has solved this problem with most of their other installed software offerings, Chrome particularly. There's basically only one version of Chrome (v 19 as I write this). Heck, even MS realized their mistake and is making efforts to roll up old IE users into the latest version. And of course Apple has done a fantastic job keeping all of it's users at the same iOS version.

I am well-aware of the OEM madness that drives Android fragmentation, and that you might think it's not "Google's fault" because of this. But I disagree. Google has vast resources and can basically do whatever it wants. If it wanted to require OEMs to build Android-upgradable phones, it could force them to do so. In fact, if they started doing this today you would hear loud cheers from around the world (and bitter complaining from the OEMs, but so what? There's a lot of money to be made and they'll get in line).

<comment><USER9> 91% of the Android market is covered by 3 major versions (2.2, 2.3, and 4.0). 72% is covered by just two major versions (2.3 and 4.0).

This problem isn't quite as severe as its made out to be. Dealing with the diverse hardware ecosystem and implementation bugs are both much larger problems, IMO.

<comment><USER10> This report disagrees with you rather strongly:

<http://opensignalmaps.com/reports/fragmentation.php>

It claims 2.3 and 2.4 make up for ~75% of the installed base, and the remaining 25% is just a mess.

<comment><USER11> The official dashboard is <http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html> and has been updated fairly often - maybe once a month or so - since ICS released.

According to that chart, about 84% of devices that have accessed Google Play are on Froyo or Gingerbread, and another 7% are on ICS.

Pretty much all of the phone market is concentrated in Gingerbread and Froyo. I think fewer than 10 types of phone are on ICS.

<comment><USER12> Sony alone moved about 10 differen models released in 2011 to ICS about two weeks ago, mine among them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Let me offer a solution: It's time for Google to offer a Google+ Certification for Android. These certified devices would have two important characteristics:

1\. They are guaranteed to run the latest version of Android for 5 years.

2\. They are guaranteed to have a clean version of Android, without any carrier or device maker modifications.

No doubt the marketing people can come up with other things to add to the list, but that's the gist of it.

If such a certification existed, personally I would _only_ shop among those options.

Such a certification would require that Google have some sort of compatibility criteria, and that their future development efforts run well within those criteria. So it constrains Google just as much as the OEMs. The certification should be cheap, but not free. And I picked the name for Sergey's buy-in.

The nice thing about this (voluntary) certification program is that OEMs don't _have_ to participate. And in fact could have certified and uncertified devices. The program captures the essential qualities that made the iPhone successful, in my opinion. The App Store is a big part of their success, and developing for the iPhone is far more pleasant because of the stability of the platform.

EDIT: Okay, if it was 3 years I'd still be happy.

<comment><USER13> This is great. The only thing I have a gripe with is:

> They are guaranteed to run the latest version of Android for 5 years.

5 years is too long. The HTC Dream, the first Android phone, was released less than 4 years ago. It only has a 528Mhz processor and 192MB of RAM. I don't want to know what the ICS or JB experience would be on that device...

Keep in mind the iPhone only turned 5 this year (the App Store turns 4 in a couple weeks). And the last version that supported it (with limited features) was released 3 years afterwards.

I think 3 years is more reasonable. Most people are eligible for a discounted phone upgrade every 2 years. I think that would fit in for most folks.

<comment><USER14> The problem with this argument is that we don't have any more extreme strides in mobile performance in the next 5 years. We already have phones that can effectively run any intensity of "eye candy" with spiff - by the time such a policy came to market in 2 years, it would be 2014 - unless we have a revolution in tech that lets us crank up the ghz without dramatically increasing the voltage to match, any arm based device for Android will be able to run any degree of eye candy they can add in in the "short term".

Back in 2008, we could easily see that the 500mhz single core ARM chip was going to be short lived. We had tremendous strides in performance available to us in just upping core clocks, and then we had the mobile multicore revolution.

We are done with both the main vein and the secondary digs of the mobile CPU goldmine (in reference to Herb here) and we are already pretty deep into heterogeneous computing. Remote processing is next, when the telecom monopoly is torn down so we can get the data speeds we are actually capable of today without paying monopoly rates.

The hardware WILL get significantly better between 2014 and 2019 - a 2019 smartphone will almost assuredly be as powerful as the 2014 consoles that will be coming out for gaming - but we can actually predict that. A 2014 console will have approximately a GCN 7850 graphics card and quad core 3.5 ghz cpu of some sort. So expect the mobile chip of 2019 to operate at ~4ghz with some number of cores and a lot of compute nodes approximately equivalent to modern mainstream desktop graphics at similar wattages to what we have now.

If the version of Android in 2019 can't run on an Android device of 2014, then that isn't the hardware not keeping up with software - that is just terrible design. Just like how desktop hardware peaked in 2006, mobile hardware will peak soon as well, after which performance is "good enough" for average joe consumer, and the UX won't change.

Another good example is how Google can keep pumping out new versions of Chrome without hesitation that the last version's user can run the new version. The browser is not getting exponentially more power or resource hungry, and in many ways they optimize its performance as much as they sacrifice it each release for better experience (of course things like webgl are pressuring browsers upwards with new usage in an environment without resource contraints) but the basic device, or in this case application, is not growing more and more computationally intensive by large jumps each release, or they would not be able to push out silent updates like they do.

Same thing with Android. Once it plateaus, there is no excuse not to use the silent continuous always backwards compatble update model, because the device is now "good enough". Just like how a dual core 3ghz pc from 2005 with 4gb of ram is still good enough today for 95% of use cases.

<comment><USER15> Desktop didn't really peak out at 2006. The clock speeds are not really raising anymore, true, but both architectural and fab improvements make a difference. If you take a look at benchmarks on anandtech for example, you'll find that current CPUs are about five or six times faster in well parallelizable tasks like video encoding or about three times faster in tasks that don't parallelize well.

While this might not seems like much, waiting for something one minute instead of five makes a difference, and 2006 computer won't play FullHD video, and you'll feel the difference on js heavy web pages.

<comment><USER16> Won't play FullHD video? Maybe if you're talking about crazy everything-x264-can-do encodings, but a decent 2006 computer will have a geforce 7xxx or similar and play "normal" FullHD video like you buy from itunes just fine.

<comment><USER15> But without the GPU (and I'm not sure how geforce 7xxx driver support looks now) even 720p videos might get problematic, some becoming pretty much a slideshow, some being just slightly uncomfortable when going around 20 fps. I know they do on my 2007 macbook.

<comment><USER14> The problem is that the general use case doesn't have a media center pc from 2007, "A significant portion" of consumer hardware is EXCUSIVELY for web browsing and word processing. Sources: every single relative I have except for my father who uses trading software to watch stocks, only use a combination of word (if I haven't touched their boxes), libre office (if I have), ie (if I haven't) or firefox (if I have). Those two cases cover 90% of pc use, maybe some photo browsing, but none of them watch video on a general purpose pc. (yet). Netflix probably changes that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _Audio chaining

MediaPlayer supports chaining audio streams together to play audio files without pauses. This is useful for apps that require seamless transitions between audio files such as music players to play albums with continuous tracks or games._

Best feature by far!

</comment><comment><USER18> Woah, they actually fixed the audio, at long last. Maybe my Android tablet will make music after all.

<comment><USER19> In the post keynote workshop, they noted that this is not entirely fixed. They have made improvements but they also acknowledge they have some distance to go to have it perfect.

I don't have the technical details of the updates, and I doubt anyone will for a short while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is just the Android 4.1 API Docs for now.

</comment><comment><USER21> Did google just replace Cue (Greplin) with Google Now feature?

</comment><comment><USER22> Still no Japanese input though?

<comment><USER23> It's still in beta, so not bundled with the OS yet. [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.inputmethod.japanese&hl=en)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Interesting RE: App Encryption. I had mentioned that years ago in IRC before Android was even a blip on Apple's radar and I was told that would not happen because the Market didn't want to ever modify the uploaded APK. It will be interesting to see if this curtails pirating, or more likely, just adds an extra step in the piracy process.

</comment><comment><USER25> My phone, purchased brand-new last summer (the model itself is almost, but not quite a year old), still runs Android 2.3. It will run Android 2.3 forever, even though Google owns the company that made it. Jelly Bean, released last year, is still on less than 10% of all Android phones, and may never even exceed 15%.

If Google can't get its act together on the update situation, a lot of people, myself included, will not be buying Android phones the next time our contracts are up.

<comment><USER26> What I find disingenuous about this line of argument is that you (and everybody who argues it) know full well that you will not be keeping your current phone "forever", and in fact, it's almost 100% certain you will replace it within 2 years if not 12 months simply because of the 2 year upgrade cycle that exists in many carriers or if not, because of the lure of next generation hardware will convince you to buy a new phone.

So what you are actually asking for is for tremendous engineering resources to be spent to port the bleeding edge OS to your soon to be obsolete phone so that you can use it for a few months and then toss it in the bin.

Now I'm not necessarily arguing that there isn't an issue with upgrade on Android phones etc. But I find this particular tone of "I will be stuck forever with an outdated OS thanks to Google" that appears regularly in these comments to be somewhat disingenuous.

PS: Jelly Bean was not released last year, it was announced literally just hours ago.

<comment><USER25> Whoops you are right. I meant Ice Cream Sandwich, not Jelly Bean.

But my point stands. Most people buy new phones on a 2 year cycle when their contract expires. _I_ buy phones on a 2-year cycle.

I am not expecting tremendous engineering resources to be spent on porting on bleeding edge OS to an obsolete phone. I am expecting _some_ resources to be spent on porting my phone to an OS that was announced and available to OEMs when my phone was released. I _am_ expecting an OS to be released on a phone which _has the hardware to support it_.

I am stuck with an outdated OS thanks to Google, becaues they won't do a damn thing to pressure carriers or manufacturers to remedy the update situation.

And you know what? _The money I use to buy my phone is my money_. When the time comes to vote with my wallet, if Google has not fixed the update situation it created, I will vote for something other than Android.

<comment><USER27> <quote>I am expecting some resources to be spent on porting my phone to an OS that was announced and available to OEMs when my phone was released.</quote>

Why didn't you just buy a phone which already had the latest OS on it at the time if having the latest OS is important to you? Are there no custom ROMS for the phone you have?

<comment><USER25> 1) Available to OEMs does not mean that any OEMs had yet released phones with it on my carrier. I have unlimited data, which effectively shackles me to the carrier unless I want to give that up for a pitiful 2-4 GB/month.

2) I connect to a corporate server. I cannot use a custom ROM for security reasons.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kayak Will Compete Directly with Expedia by Launching New Hotel Booking Option - <AUTHOR> http://emoney.allthingsd.com/20110314/kayak-will-now-compete-directly-with-expedia-by-launching-new-hotel-booking-option/ <comment><USER2> Kayak, likely still feeling some pressure from the ITA-Google deal and increasingly upcoming competition, has to come up with something new so it makes perfect sense. Besides, hotel bookings make much more money than just referrals.</comment>


Experiment: Does Googlebot index dynamic content from a JS app? - <AUTHOR> http://lenni.info/blog/2012/03/experiment-does-googlebot-index-dynamic-content-from-a-js-app/

<comment><USER2> I've seen a similar test, and it did work. Search HN.</comment>


Why I love solo programming (and why I hated working for Pivotal) - <AUTHOR> http://mwilden.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-i-love-solo-programming-and-why-i.html <comment><USER2> It's amazing what you can get accomplished with a team size of one.

For me it boils down to being able to fit the entire codebase into your head, or at the very least have it all written in your own voice. Reading code and packing it into your brain is the hardest part of programming, so having it all written in your own familiar style makes it really easy to get back up to speed on any bit of the project, even if you haven't visited it in a while.

Having even one other developer in there making changes can throw you out of speed-reading mode and make you stop and figure out what the other guy was thinking. That slows you down, and slowing down opens the door to distraction, which leads to bad things.

It gets really good when you're working by yourself on a project for which you're providing the direction. That removes the last roadblock from productivity, the "boss requested change".

<comment><USER3> As long as you document your style, I totally agree.

Nothing like it, if you're lucky enough to be blazing the trail.

The problem is for engineers who come in after you've left for greener pastures. If you don't document your style, design decisions, and over-all development process you're leaving behind a legacy... of miserable programmers who will make up stories about how awful you must have been.

<comment><USER4> Document, comment appropriately and write tests.

The engineer in question might be yourself, six months or a year later, and you will have completely forgotten what you were doing back then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My main argument against pair programming is that you never feel that you have done anything significant. You can never be proud of a single line of code since it's always made by someone else together with you. You can't take credit for an invention/algorithm, and thusly never get the kick of true craftsmanship.

You are always expendable and can be shoved around like an animal, especially if you are a true team player that always nods and smile are "the best" to pair up with.

In fact, the cowboy programmers still rule the programming session when you pair up with them and they can easily take up most part of the day arguing small uninteristing details until they get it their way making the software theirs - not the team.

<comment><USER6> Your second and third paragraphs have nothing to do with pair programming. They indicate crappy management (shoving people around like animals) and a crappy team (nitpicky argumentation) respectively.

Your first paragraph is more interesting. How does the fact that someone else also contributed diminish pride in craftsmanship? Presumably it's the program you're proud of, so if the program comes out better, isn't that reason to be prouder? (If the program comes out worse, that's a problem.) Personally, it would drive me crazy to work with people who were constantly worrying about who contributed what. Software development is hard enough as it is. We can't afford to waste valuable cycles on that kind of thing.

My experience has been that the solitary-genius fantasy is the calling card of an immature programmer and is purely something to get over. (Just so it's clear, I'm not drawing this conclusion about you, nor about the OP.)

It may be true that co-programming makes crappy teams worse, but it also makes great teams better. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing better than a small team of smart people hammering on a hard problem together. But there's no question that it forces team dynamics into the open.

<comment><USER7> Well since you should change your partner at least once a day, it is about shoving around people ;)

<comment><USER6> That's funny, dancers seem to able to do it without shoving each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Pair programming just seems creepy. I can't even read when someone is looking over my shoulder. You might as well be sticking your finger in my face just far enough away so we're not touching. "Two sets of eyes are better than one," may work in the field when you're on stake out looking for the enemy, but in programming I don't really see how that translates. Aren't bugs caught in the code-review process?

Eliminating bugs up front is like asking human beings to be perfect.

In other words, good luck with that.

<comment><USER8> I'm unable to pair program. I've tried it, and quit where I was working as a result of their adoption of pair programming.

The best way I can describe it is that my "personal zone" for people not in my immediate family is about arms-length. If you're close enough to touch me, I'm uncomfortable. If we're sitting shoulder to shoulder at a keyboard, I'm so uncomfortable that I can't work.

<comment><USER9> Get two keyboards then.

<comment><USER10> Or therapy

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "There are a number of reasons: I get to work at a museum where I can go and look at amazing fish, lizards, and butterflies every day"

This gave me goosebumps. If there was a way I could work this into my current office environment, I'd be in heaven. I love looking at fish, reptiles, insects etc...

I guess I could always buy a fish tank and plonk it down beside me.

</comment><comment><USER12> I really liked what Mark Wilden had to say about Pair Programming. Personally, I don't see how Pair Programming is as valuable as teams. I prefer looking at people working on a project as a cross-functional team. This involves everyone (the team, product owner, agile master and even sales).

From a team perspective, people can work together when they need to, or run off to do research on their own and so on. It is an open experience where the Team figures out on their own how to best work together.

In pair programming, developers are FORCED to work a specific way. And that might not be the best way for that developer. I think Mark would have had a much more enjoyable experience in a team centric environment where each person is able to add to the team in the way they feel most comfortable.

Agile is about self managed cross-functional teams. As soon as upper management forces a team to work in a specific way, that self managed aspect disappears.

I do understand all of the advantages of paired programming but think you can get those and a lot more focusing on teamwork instead of pair work.

My two cents.

<comment><USER13> Personally, I see pair programming as one of a set of tools that should be deployed when necessary, rather than followed religiously. I've found it useful when I'm trying to solve a difficult problem, or teach a new starter about the company's code base. I also don't see it, as some other posters do, as being about 'code ownership' or bragging rights - that seems absurd to me, but perhaps I would feel differently if forced to program that way full-time.

Likewise TDD (famously: <http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/05/tdd-sudoku>), Agile, etc. None of these things is a panacea, but they can be very effective if thoughtfully applied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> My problem with pair programming is that it doesn't allow me to get in the mental state of "flow". The most productive state at least for me is when, for a period of time, I'm so focused on the job at hand, that I'm not aware of my surrounding. This is where my most productive work happens. You're completely immersed and focused.

When pairing I never can get into that state because I keep getting interrupted with "name that method x", "move that method before that method", "refactor now". It really breaks my focus.

I find it useful when tracking obscure bugs, where you can bounce ideas off of someone and basically nail the problem faster.

<comment><USER15> I've found that when I'm in the backseat we can be most productive as a pair if I spend my time trying to keep the driver in flow. When I first tried pairing the programmer control freak in me made this very difficult. I was effectively trying to write code by commanding someone else's hands to do what I was thinking.

By focusing on keeping the driver in flow you begin to appreciate when it's better to shut up and let them get on with writing the code, accepting that people have different coding styles is important here. You can then use your attention to either help out when they get stuck or maybe to tell them what the next test should be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> How does pair-programming mix with the dynamics of software consulting? It seems like it would tend to make project scope (persons/weeks) larger for clients --- something Hashrocket and Pivotal might not have a problem with.

<comment><USER17> It's a quality differentiator. You may pay a bit more, but you're guaranteed to get excellent code.

(This is what they'd say, at least. I like pairing, but I don't know if I'd be comfortable making an absolutist statement like that.)

<comment><USER16> That's what I'd say too. If hiring weren't our bottleneck, a story that made us able to add 1-2 people to every project we ran would be... lucrative. That's what set me off here.

(Our typical project scope is 2 people, 2 weeks; small projects 1x1/1x2, bigger projects tend to add weeks and not people).

<comment><USER18> Do you think you're producing quality software that meets your client's needs now?

Do you think your clients will pay more than they currently are for quality software that meets their needs?

If so, just start charging more. Make up whatever story you want about why you're charging more.

If you don't think you're producing quality software that meets your client's needs, but you think your clients would pay more for such software, then take whatever steps necessary to make better software and then start charging more.

<comment><USER16> That's how consulting pricing works in a vacuum. It's not how consulting pricing works in the real world. Scope abuse is _absolutely_ an issue in enterprise consulting.

<comment><USER18> What's scope abuse? Sounds like when you add features to the project and charge more without approval from your clients.

My language was vague, but I didn't mean to imply that you charge current clients more, just charge new clients more.

It struck me as odd that you'd have to tie any price increase to an increase in your costs. If Lexus wants to start charing more for their cars they don't need to think of ways to use more steel. They just charge more and justify it however their marketers think is best.

If you sell developer-hours instead of products why not just charge more per developer-hour?

<comment><USER16> Here's an example from my field, software security:

 _"Oh, you want this application tested? Well, first you want a 2-person, 2-week threat modeling project where we give you a report on your attack surface, then you want a 3-person 4-week testing project, and if that turns anything up, you'll absolutely want a 1-person 3-month deep code review."_

Here's an example from web design:

 _"Oh, you want a website for your new product? Well, first you'll want us to study the market for a week. Then you'll want a wireframing project so we can agree on what we're going to build; that's going to take 2 weeks. Then we'll spend 2 weeks on design and get you some comps to look at; if you want changes, we can do another week of that. Oh, you want HTML? Sure, we'll add on 3 weeks of coding."_

I'm sure that some witness to software consulting could provide you with a story that fits this thread more directly.

Why not do X or why not do Y? Obviously, you're not a golfer. They do it to make money, without alerting the client to the fact that they're simply ratcheting up the dollar cost of the whole project.

<comment><USER18> So scope abuse is when you sell each component of a project separately and tell the client that they might not need some components even though every component is required for a complete project?

I can see why it's unethical to deceive the client about what components they will actually end up needing. I can see how you'd make money by luring clients in with cheap prices up-front then once they are locked-in charging more for the things they will inevitably need but didn't pay for already.

How does that relate to how you, as an ethical consultant, could raise your prices without raising your costs.

Are you saying that the only way you could raise your prices without raising your costs would be through scope abuse?

<comment><USER16> No, the opposite; it's when you break a project into component parts, inflate the effort required for each part, and convince the client they need to buy all of them. "Rustproofing" is another term for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Are there really companies that do all pair programming? Does Pivotal?

<comment><USER20> There are many. For example: [http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2008/08/the- hashrocket...](http://blog.obiefernandez.com/content/2008/08/the-hashrocket- way-pair-programming.html)

<comment><USER21> When the question is about 100% pair programming I'd say there aren't that many. Hashrocket is one of the few companies (I believe Pivotal is, too) where it seems to be true, but most teams that I know are only pairing part of their time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Having inherited code developed by lone wolves a few times, I have come to believe that healthy code is like healthy DNA; it needs a variety of contributors. Yes, it can be difficult at times. It can involve struggles but I have no sympathy for the complaints about them, the struggles make you stronger.

<comment><USER14> Multiple contributors does not necessarily mean pair programming.

<comment><USER22> Seems like the comments here on HN are talking about pair programming far more than Mark's OP. The top line of his post was that he prefers to work alone, that the arguments and social overhead of collaborative development have made him unhappy. Pair programming isn't the only way (and often isn't the best way) to collaborate; reading each other's commit messages and talking about them is often sufficient.

And sufficiency is at the core of what makes software development fun and productive: a sufficient number of eyes on the code, a sufficient issue tracking app (and/or other collaborative apps) and sufficient amount of automated test coverage is often all you need.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I went back to read the year-old post he links to at the top, and it seems like his issue wasn't with pair programming, but with pair programming with poor communication skills and a crappy programmer partner.

</comment><comment><USER24> There more to life than money. It's thought provoking and inspiring to see someone putting this into action.</comment>


Video Tutorial – making a kraken - <AUTHOR> http://www.2dgameartguru.com/2017/06/creating-kraken-in-inkscape-krita.html <comment><AUTHOR> This one is a two part video collaboration between Nathan Lovato from GDquest and myself. We are creating a kraken - doing the character design in vectors - for speed and flexibility - and taking it to Krita for the painting of light, colour and details. The key elements featured are the path effects/ taper stroke in Inkscape and the inherit alpha functionality in Krita. Enjoy!</comment>


To OEMS: Lead, innovate or assemble - Mobile starts to look like the PC industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/06/lead-innovate-or-assemble-how-software-is-changing-the-macro-economics-of-mobile-handsets-2/

<comment><USER2> Custom designed phones likely wouldn't work that great for the first gen or two, but no reason they would work just as well as PC's after that. Hell, I could finally get the 1 pound batteries filled phone of my dreams.</comment>


With this hire, the FCC could soon get tougher on privacy and security - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/11/24/with-this-hire-the-fcc-could-soon-get-tougher-on-privacy-and-security/ <comment><USER2> "The Federal Communications Commission has hired Jonathan Mayer, a rising star in privacy circles, to serve as its technical lead for investigations into telephone, television and Internet service providers."

#savedyouaclick

<comment><USER3> I put that saved click towards downvoting you. Here's why: your summary tells me nothing about who Jonathan Mayer is, what his background has been, or why this will be an effective hire. In order to do that and still save me from clicking to read the original article, you or others will need to quote additional parts of that article. If everyone did this, we would end up with a poor, out of order retelling of most of the article in Twitter-length posts that lack sufficient context.

<comment><USER2> I view the point of #savedyouaclick as a way to fill in the missing noun/verb/adjective in a clickbait title, so that someone can make a more informed opinion on whether to click through.

The point is not to save you a click in all circumstances, but to save a needless click due to frustration/curiosity.

<comment><USER4> IN particular, if you know who Jonathan Mayer is, you don't have to read the article at all.

I know HN likes to keep the original title if at all possible, but pretty much every clickbait title could be profitably replaced by a clever submitter:

"FCC names Jonathan Mayer new chief technologist for enforcement"

The only other clickbait title I see right now is courtesy the Washington Post:

"This might be the most controversial theory for what's behind the rise of ISIS"

which would be better as:

"Piketty says inequality drives terrorism"

although that doesn't quite replace reading the article, it's just a lot better than what was there.

<comment><USER3> The top story right now is far more clickbaity: "The secret message hidden in every HTTP/2 connection".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hopefully.

A few days ago my wife received a letter from OPM saying that some of her data was mixed up in their recent snafu. She received three years of free identity fraud monitoring. I believe she now has two of these monitoring services running as a result of data breaches. I also have two from different companies.

I'd love to see more serious penalties/compensation for these sorts of breaches.

<comment><USER6> You are due compensation if you are damaged as a result of the breach.

Your data being accessible as part of a breach does not entitle you to damages if nothing actually happens to you.

<comment><USER7> _Your data being accessible as part of a breach does not entitle you to damages if nothing actually happens to you._

The trouble with relying on a compensation principle alone is that invasion of privacy is typically one of the harms you cannot entirely make good retrospectively. A lot of personal data is like Pandora's box: once released, it is out there forever and the data subject is forever at risk of adverse consequences.

Not all of those adverse consequences can be quantified in purely economic terms. Financial awards are merely the most pragmatic mechanism we have been able to establish so far to give some form of compensation after the fact. If you've ever been the victim of identity theft, or of a physical crime like burglary, you'll probably understand the sense of violation I am talking about. You'll probably also know that it doesn't go away just because you have a monitoring service on your financials or you changed the locks on your home.

Financial compensation for actual damages can't remove the feeling of being vulnerable that haunts you after you've been the victim of such an incident, and so there is also a need for processes and deterrents to reduce the risk of the incident happening in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can we get a non-clickbait title?</comment>


Datacoup – Unlock the Value of Your Personal Data - <AUTHOR> http://datacoup.com <comment><USER2> I briefly considered connecting my credit and debit cards to Datacoup, but their dialog box set of warning bells. It asked for my card number and my online banking password. These are the same as my online banking credentials. In principle, with that information, Datacoup would be able to log in to my bank's website and drain my accounts.

It seems incredibly foolish to give this information to ANYONE over the internet. Why should I trust Datacoop with it? That's not a rhetorical question.

<comment><USER3> You could investigate the people in charge of the company and their backers. If you think they have more to gain by draining a small number of peoples bank accounts than they have to lose by committing a federal fraud crime then don't use them. Obviously any evaluation would also depend on the credibility of the information presented on the website about those individuals.

I don't make any purchases with my debit card, so I would only link my credit card, which has pretty solid fraud protection. I'd probably be more way about cash accounts.

<comment><USER4> The problem isn't necessarily with the intentions of the people running the site. It could be an attacker altering the site to steal the information.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Conceptually I love the idea. I have thought about this business idea for a long time, but never got over the issues with it to pursue it.

The main insight I got when doing customer interviews was that many people don't like the idea of others accessing their data when its raised to the foreground, but are perfectly ok with it when it's "hidden". The other issue is that the amount of cash required to make this interesting for the avg. person is relatively high.

On the business side, when interviewing VPs Marketing/Sales, the #1 question asked was "What additional value does this bring beyond what we already have?". This is a valuable question to answer b/c massive amounts of data are already collected on each one of us. To be valuable, a business like Datacoup needs to convert this data into insight that can be used to help companies to sell more.

With all of that said, I hope Datacoup is successful. It's a great idea and one that I personally like.

<comment><USER6> > On the business side, when interviewing VPs Marketing/Sales, the #1 question > asked was "What additional value does this bring beyond what we already > have?".

It's true that massive amounts of data are being collected, but the better value proposition for customers to sign up is: "Billions of dollars are spent by companies on advertising; you deserve a slice of that."

>The other issue is that the amount of cash required to make this interesting for the avg. person is relatively high.

I also ran into the exact same dichotomy when sussing out this idea, namely that people don't mind monetization of their data exhaust/patterns "for free" or in nominal exchange for a foreground service, but being asked to give this in direct exchange for monetary compensation makes them demand a very high premium for the exact same data.

EDIT: Personal.com is establishing a track record of securely consolidating and storing sensitive information. I can't help but think that controlled sharing of personal information (extending beyond core password/address/credit card/banking details) will be their next big push.

<comment><USER7> I think he was saying, what value does this add for marketers (i.e. those buying the data)? They already have many ways to get users' data, and at (likely) a lower cost.

<comment><USER6> Oops missed that completely; thanks for the clarification! For purchasers, the short-term value-add would be: a) another verified channel of specific user- preferences; b) potential for high-touch permissive advertising (e.g. let me pay you $0.10 so I can spam you because you have a potentially higher conversion rate due to all the extra details you let me access).

Data vaults like DataCoup are in essence trying to appeal to purchasers by initially demonstrating large reach (similar to newspaper/magazine/website exposure to raw number of eyeballs), and up-sell the ability to more quickly and more accurately zone in on attractive demographics, down to the individual level, than a competing 3rd party ad-broker harvesting browser fingerprints + cookie combinations or Amazon/Google.

Form example, individuals may eventually sell a list of companies they: "have bought from; may buy in the future; commit $X to buying within 90 days."

Also, individuals can be made aware that prices for their information tuple assets may devalue if they specify faulty or inaccurate information (e.g. selling information stating that they would buy $X from a company in category Y within 90 days, but failing to actually follow-through). This is rather similar to a credit score, except a "purchaser" or "consumer" score may be a more accurate description.

This isn't to say that _everybody_ would choose to participate in such a program or give up such information willingly, but at least this level of hyper-personalization and ad-bidding would become available (in theory!) to both the data purchaser and the end-customer, eventually.

EDIT: Data vaults all aim to become canonical ad-broker exchanges as the next step in the evolution of agency ad & media trading desks[1]. If this sounds like trading in the financial sense, it absolutely is. No coincidence that the founder of DataCoup is an ex-bond trader[2].

[1] [http://www.adexchanger.com/Agency_Trading_White_Paper.pdf](http://www.adexchanger.com/Agency_Trading_White_Paper.pdf)

[2] [https://datacoup.com/docs#about](https://datacoup.com/docs#about)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was really hoping this was like Google Takeout, but with adaptors for all different sorts of services. I thought the value prop would be to backup and analyze your own data, not to sell it to the same people who already creep everyone out when Facebook sells them your data.

<comment><USER9> We're launching the exact thing you describe which also includes an API later this week. We don't plan to be a data broker just to let you backup all your data from any source and provide you with an API to access that data. We're Muxy.io

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of an art installation that worked like an ATM for your data. You plug in your cellphone and based on how much data it was able to scrape it would dispense money. Usually less than a buck. Was interesting to see how many people were willing to try it.

<comment><USER11> "More than 70% of people would reveal their computer password in exchange for a bar of chocolate, a survey has found." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3639679.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3639679.stm)

<comment><USER12> Oh god help us. No wonder social engineering is still one of the more effective hacking methods :\

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The most intriguing possibility here, IMO, is the ability to show other people how much those free services really learn about them, and how much they sell.

</comment><comment><USER14> This sounds like a promising idea to me. Transparency into what data you're giving away and a monetary incentive is a win win IMO.

</comment><comment><USER6> This older article indicates that DataCoup was originally paying beta subscribers $8/month for their data[1]. Always risky trying to seed two-sided markets, but the rewards could be substantial if they can establish their credibility over the long run as personal data-brokers.

[1] [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/524621/sell-your- person...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/524621/sell-your-personal- data-for-8-a-month/)

</comment><comment><USER15> "Datacoup is lining up data purchasers to sustainably purchase data on the platform. However, to get the ball rolling, Datacoup is the primary purchaser of your data."

Uhm...

<comment><USER16> So they have no idea on the true ask price...?

<comment><USER6> That's what they're attempting to establish in a nascent 2-sided market where, by other proxy measures, the value of personal information is close to zero for large swaths of the uneducated digital population.

I use the word 'uneducated' because presumably the working hypothesis is that once data-awareness is raised (i.e. "you can actually get paid to share your data!"), the corresponding market-price of various personal information tuples/assets will rise.

EDIT: As a single other data point, AT&T's cable division called U-Verse is offering a fiber plan called GigaPower that effectively pays subscribers $29/mo for their participation in the AT&T GigaPower Internet Preferences (i.e. consensual data-mining) Program[1]. The "payment" is offered in the form of a price delta between the Premier (i.e. data-mined) tier for $70/mo, or the Standard tier for $99/mo[2]. So, at least one large corporation believes that household web browsing data is worth $29/month which is a good proxy for a price ceiling on how much personal data could be worth in the medium term.

[1] [http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB421828&cv=812#...](http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB421828&cv=812#fbid=JUNeIt0J13u)

[2] [http://www.eweek.com/small-business/att-u-verse-with- gigapow...](http://www.eweek.com/small-business/att-u-verse-with-gigapower- launches-in-austin.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Can't find many reviews (1) of the service provided, and for some reason I'm wary of the responsibility of selling my own data. Has anyone tried this service?

1\. [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/524621/sell-your- person...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/524621/sell-your-personal- data-for-8-a-month/)

<comment><USER17> I connected about 4 accounts and the rewards/week were $0.60.

Have not tried giving them access to my debit/credit cards, that would definitely raise the reward but now sure by how much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> wtf, a person's data spread over 6 accounts must be worth more to you than 1 dollar a week. i mean i understand buying low and selling high, but this is bs, this service is taking advantage of the public outcry over privacy by giving people incentives to sell themselves online, because online you are your data. go get a real job mate!

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm getting "IllegalArgumentValueExceptionFaultMessage" when attempting to sign up.</comment>


Angular.js, Ember.js, and Backbone.js Compared - <AUTHOR>

MetaCasts.tv has done a series of videos for each of the three big frameworks (Angular.js, Ember.js, and Backbone.js), resulting in almost 4 hours of videos. In each of these series we will build the same example application (and no, it's not a todo list!). By building the same application you can easily compare and contrast the different styles of each of these frameworks to help better understand which one is the right one for your next project.<p>http://www.metacasts.tv/angular-ember-backbone-screencasts <comment><USER2> I've been using Meteor.js lately, would love to see that on there!

<comment><USER3> It's pretty horrible. Stop using it.

<comment><USER4> This is not helpful.</comment></comment></comment>


Mystery Radio Signals Detected from Red Dwarf Star Just Light-Years Away - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/mystery-radio-signals-ross-128-star-637682 <comment><USER2> Occam's Razor: Perhaps naturally occurring radio waves from collisions of stars?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the absolute tiniest Linux that runs the latest Chrome browser? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> Also, related question... what is the tiniest Linux that runs Qemu? And the same question for Bochs?

</comment><comment><USER2> If you built all your code with Go and then statically compiled it and ran it in a container, then you don't need an OS to run it on at all — just use containers, all the way down.

<comment><AUTHOR> How does Go create threads with no OS to call to do it? Also, how does Go open/read/write files and open/read/write/close network connections with no OS to do it? What about malloc()/dynamic memory allocation/heap, does Go implement its own? Does it have its own internal memory manager for that? How does Go know how much memory is available? I suppose you could call a hypervisor or some container API or something to do this, but I have no experience in this area... You wouldn't have any links to sample code or articles about this, would you? I'd be grateful for any pointers in that direction... I think it would be highly interesting...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Alpine linux

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I will check it out. (Just for the sake of leaving no stone unturned, does anyone know of anything smaller?)</comment></comment>


17 Mistakes Microsoft Made in the Xbox Security System - <AUTHOR> http://www.xbox-linux.org/wiki/17_Mistakes_Microsoft_Made_in_the_Xbox_Security_System

<comment><USER2> If you're interested in this stuff 'bunnie' wrote a whole book on the topic: <http://hackingthexbox.com/></comment>