Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes - snaky
https://www.zdnet.com/article/opera-brave-vivaldi-to-ignore-chromes-anti-ad-blocker-changes-despite-shared-codebase/
======
rndgermandude
The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be
added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for
"enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one
if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back
in.

The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed
out, as the other browsers mostly rely on the Chrome Extension store. If
Google really decides to pull the plug here they could start rejecting
extensions using the old, removed-from-Chrome APIs. And then what? Each
browser such as Vivaldi, Brave, Opera has to implement their own app store
just to host the old-API ad-blockers. And implementing such a store is a major
feat. And the walled garden strikes again.

Vivaldi already indicated they might create a "limited" store, meaning not a
real store open to the public, but one where they list hand-picked old-API
extensions such as ublock origin. Of course, innovation is still stiffed as
you in such a "chrome-store + limited vendor store" scenario cannot just
develop new extensions using the old-API because you'd have no chance of
getting listed in the chrome store, and essentially no chance in the hand-
picked limited vendor ones.

~~~
el_programmador
My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some
kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno.

It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers,
it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can
install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize
that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to another
browser like firefox/brave. And the PR repercussions will ensure that a lot of
newbies will leave too (because they usually follow the power users on
youtube) which will essentially kill the advertising income that they wanted
in the first place?

~~~
user17843
Maybe think about it in a different way. Right now, there is a kill-switch
within googles primary product that could essentially destroy their business
model.

This is not about google wanting to harm the current power users. It is
probably the idea that someone could come along and destroy their business.

If such an extensions goes mainstream that could seriously harm them.

They may also want to get rid of paying Adblock Plus money for their highway
robbery.

Now that I think about it, getting rid of ABP may be the primary reason for
this move. They have to basically pay a third party to get access to their own
users.

Either way, the battle is not over the power user minority, but over the
average user.

The idea is to make the API just powerful enough for the most annoying ads to
disappear. Most users would probably be content with this. They will probably
make it so they won't lose all of their power users. I think what they really
want is increasing the amount of works it takes to have full adblocking
functionality to the point where the average user has no access to it.

~~~
Isinlor
ABP is compatible with the new API and will not be affected.

See:
[https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetReques...](https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetRequest#type-
Rule)

This is API that ABP can use. But with the new API the rules list will be
limited to 30 000 rules vs. for example 42 000 EasyList is using, and an
update to the rules will require a full update of the plugin.

See also comments from gorhill: [https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-
issues/issues/338#iss...](https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-
issues/issues/338#issuecomment-456171375)

~~~
user17843
ABP released a statement to german news site golem.de, saying that they
"prepare for the worst case".

This means they anticipate Google to target the Acceptable Ads program.

Originally I thought 30,000 rules wouldn't be enough to cover things, but
according to this research, only a couple hundred rules are enough to block
>90% of the ads: [https://brave.com/the-mounting-cost-of-stale-ad-blocking-
rul...](https://brave.com/the-mounting-cost-of-stale-ad-blocking-rules/)

So maybe there's another limiting aspect of the declarativeNetRequest API I
don't know of.

~~~
throwaway2048
90% of the ads right now, but its trivial to design adtech so its only
possible to block a tiny percentage of everything with only 50k rules.

(register 50k domains, use 50k different subpath/subdomains and mix
content+ads on something like youtube where you cant wholesale block youtube,
etc)

------
negamax
Damn Google! This is so short sighted. People/everyone just installed Chrome
on whatever systems they could find and that's how Chrome become so prevalent.
Not because it was a superior product, not because of technology but because
everyone was anti IE. Google is painting Chrome into similar corner. In a way,
this is a good indicator of decline of Google. Revenue not through innovation
but by coercion

~~~
TylerE
I think that's rather revisionist. At a point in time Chrome was way better
than not just IE, but way better than Firefox. The performance was leaps and
bounds ahead.

~~~
whatpreventsit
I’ve been using both Firefox and Chrome since they came out and they have
always felt near each others performance. It would be interesting to see some
data on the subject.

~~~
TylerE
One huge advantage Chrome had was it's multi-process model. This was back in
the day when stuff like Flash would often nuke your entire Firefox session.

~~~
tty2300
Firefox has had this for years.

~~~
TylerE
But it didn’t until years after a chrome did

------
red_admiral
I tried opera a while back, and while it's fast and looks good, it has a new
tab page with "recommended" sites that you can't turn off - I tried, but it's
protected by DRM (opera will refuse to start if the file doesn't have a valid
digital signature).

So if I'm going to switch browsers because of privacy/advertising concerns,
it's not going to be Opera.

~~~
ModernMech
The new tab page has a list of bookmarks you can customize. It starts off with
some "recommeded" sites in there, but you can just remove them once and they
never come back. The only thing you can't remove from the new tab page is the
Google search bar, which never really bothered me. Either way, it seems like
you're implying that Opera will populate the new tab page with sites it
chooses, but that's just not the case.

~~~
laqq3
Opera does allow you to remove the Google search bar (actually, it's not tied
to Google).

Go to browser settings -> advanced settings -> Start Page.

This is what I use
[https://i.imgur.com/GpF0sQt.png](https://i.imgur.com/GpF0sQt.png)

~~~
ModernMech
Thanks for the tip!

------
jraph
I feel like things would be easier if Firefox could be embeded in another
browser just like chromium can.

Let Google cripple their browser for themselves, and Mozilla provide the good
and strong de facto browser engine.

~~~
yoz-y
What is currently stopping its adoption? Iirc there were several browsers
based on Gecko engine. Is it drm?

~~~
sametmax
Firefox is probably still a legacy mix of XUL, cpp and migrating to rust. I'm
pretty sure chrome is easier to adapt.

~~~
feanaro
XUL was replaced quite some time ago.

~~~
jccalhoun
>XBL stats update :

>* 28 bindings (9.33% of original bindings)

>* 10517 lines of code (21.02% of original LOCs)

[https://twitter.com/mozxbl](https://twitter.com/mozxbl)

~~~
feanaro
Yes, apparently I was wrong. Thanks for the additional data.

------
lsiebert
I switched to Chrome years ago. Recently I switched back to Firefox.

It's changed dramatically. Speed, security, and stuff that you can't do in
Chrome, like extensions like Facebook Container.

To me this isn't about Chrome Vs Firefox though. It's about the benefits of a
healthy marketplace for software, and the dangers of near monopolies to
consumer choice.

~~~
josh2600
The world is changing. People are starting to care about things they didn’t
before. I think the pendulum is swinging towards privacy and I like it.

------
tzury
This one[1] and the likes will prevent vast majority of ads, regardless of
which browser you have chosen to use this morning.

[1]
[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/h...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts)

~~~
close04
Except mobile browsers, arguably the most critical place where you need
blocking to get any kind of reasonably decent experience (load times, viewable
area, battery life, etc.).

Extensions like uBlock target people who don't want to bother with editing
hosts files and keeping them updated.

~~~
bambax
Firefox on Android supports extensions, including uBlockO, and it works
perfectly. It can be set as the default browser and voilà, no more ads ever.

~~~
close04
Agreed. My point was playing with hosts file is definitely not something easy
on a mobile, or something most people would want to bother with. Especially
when it comes to adding exceptions and getting some sites to work.

For computers and Android devices Firefox and uBO are far more capable
solution than DNS blocking, at least when it comes to browsing.

------
partiallypro
I don't see how Chrome's new anti-ad blocking isn't seen as anti-competitive,
considering Google basically runs the ad business on non-Google sites, etc.
Sure, Facebook and Amazon also serve up ads...but Google is by far the company
that is hurt the most by ad blocking. Then at the same time Chrome is
essentially blocking "intrusive" ads by default...and by intrusive they
basically mean non-Google ads that have the same CPC and CPM model Google has.

~~~
bongobongo
It is absolutely anti-competitive garbage, and you should be prepared to see
more and more of it (and increasingly anti-consumer iterations if it) until
people wake up and start demanding that their political leaders do something
about it.

“Companies will regulate themselves” is a cute libertarian bedtime story.

~~~
techntoke
Google never said they were blocking ad-blockers. It was the hyperbole Firefox
crowd who used some post by Raymond Hill from the creator of uBlock Origin as
a reason to start another "Switch to Firefox" campaign.

However, Hill admitted that adblockers aren't going away and it is just a
proposed change in the WebRequest API to make things more akin to Safari to
help adblockers operate in a standard in speedy way.

Mozilla on the other hand did expose a bunch of users to ads and malicious
sites recently though when they didn't renew a certificate and didn't push out
a fix for over 24 hours in which all addons were disabled in their browser and
the configurations were lost as well.

~~~
qtplatypus
Can you link to the site where he says this?

~~~
techntoke
[https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/chrome-may-get-faster-ad-
block...](https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/chrome-may-get-faster-ad-blocking-
while-breaking-ublock-origin/)

~~~
gorhill
I said:

> Ad blocker uBlock Origin “can no longer exist” if a proposed change to
> Chrome goes through.

First, I never ever referred to uBlock Origin as an "ad blocker", so the
article is wrong there. Second, I specifically point out that uBlock Origin
can no longer exist, not that "ad blockers" can no longer exist.

~~~
throwaway89403
uBlock Origin isn't an ad blocker?

------
agumonkey
I, for the first time ever, uninstalled chrome/chromium from my computers. It
pains me because I liked it overall, and firefox isn't happy with my 2009
laptops.

Maybe chrome devs mistake will be the air gap that creates a new leader from
another group.

~~~
Chirael
I got a new computer recently (old one died), and because of this change I
will not install Chrome on the new computer. I’m planning to use Edge for
anything Google-specific like Google Docs or Sheets, and Firefox for
everything else.

Unfortunately, my wife has a Chromebook and it’s hard to convince her that her
very cheap, almost-disposable laptop should be replaced with something more
expensive just to avoid Chrome. (And no, she did not want me to install Linux
on it - sigh.)

~~~
agumonkey
Buy a second hand machine. I just grabbed a 3rd gen thinkpad x1 carbon for a
neighbor and the thing is a ferrari compared to any laptop I have. 390$.
Probably less than 300$ for a less thin model (x250~)

------
indronilbanerji
I really don't understand why security concerned people use Google's product
in spite of knowing that Google steals everything and compromises user's
privacy.

~~~
icxa
I think you are confusing security with privacy.

As far as security goes, I trust Google way more than any other site to handle
my credentials properly, follow security best practices, use the highest level
of encryption where applicable, keep servers up to date and patched faster
than anyone else, etc. Outside of Google+, I can't remember the last time
there was a major security incident at Google, when they happened, the impact
was minimal (contrast this to say the Apple Cloud leak which led to the
infamous "fappening", the Marriot leak, the Equifax hack, Target, etc).
Breaches and 0-days happen, but as far as I know, Google is going to be the
best it gets when it comes to security.

Now when it comes to my privacy, no. I don't trust Google as far as I could
throw them.

~~~
mistersquid
> contrast this to say the Apple Cloud leak which led to the infamous
> "fappening"

This breach was not due to missteps or problems with security on Apple’s part
(though Apple has had issues with security lapses, notably passwordless root
login on macOS which was never reported to have been exploited [0]).

In the instance of “The Fappening”, the breach that lead to the exposure of
iCloud data was “revealed to have been gained via spear phishing attacks”. [1]

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/29/macos-
hig...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/29/macos-high-sierra-
bug-apple-mac-unlock-blank-password-security-flaw)

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_ph...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICloud_leaks_of_celebrity_photos)

------
SanchoPanda
I wonder if that is sustainable as features are built on top of the new system
and their codebase diverges further and further from chrome as a result.

~~~
ralphstodomingo
I won't worry about that. I'm guessing this effectively creates a fork of
Chromium that does not have the anti-ad blocker changes in question, which
Opera/Brave/Edge will use instead of the main one.

On that note, are people switching over to Firefox already?

~~~
unicornporn
> On that note, are people switching over to Firefox already?

Not sure why power users ever left Firefox as their default browser when
surveillance tech came along. I sure didn't. Firefox was always the more
competent and customizable browser. Happy to see users returning. Among other
things, the current "Welcome Chromium/Chrome users!" megathread in the Firefox
subreddit[1] seems to indicate there's something going on. :)

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bvh4pq/welcome_chr...](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bvh4pq/welcome_chromiumchrome_users_check_out_the/)

~~~
feanaro
I never understood the appeal of Chrome over Firefox in the beginning.

~~~
nickserv
It was faster, especially for JavaScript heavy sites... Which is the majority
of sites these days it seems.

It took a couple years at least for FF to catch up. I would say for most sites
Firefox is now at least as fast while using less RAM.

Now the problem is that Google web apps are tuned for Chrome, so users will
complain their gmail is slow on FF.

~~~
feanaro
> Now the problem is that Google web apps are tuned for Chrome, so users will
> complain their gmail is slow on FF.

I've heard this argument often, but it does not really resonate with me well.
I've always used Gmail in Firefox and never noticed it being especially slow.
I just tried it now and emails open seemingly instantly when I click on them.
It feels quicker than ~100ms on average and certainly not slower than 200ms
even for the occasional large email or hiccup. I just don't see how this can
be used as a reasonable metric for choosing a browser.

------
TheSeeker11
AdGuard will not be affected by these changes -
[https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-api-
comment.html](https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-api-comment.html)

~~~
slenk
Apples and oranges. AdGuard is a third party app that runs at the system
level. Not the same thing.

------
paulcarroty
The main question is _how long_ they will do it. Now it's easy, but google can
move the locker deeply inside. If anti-ad-blocker changes will needs 1-2mb
patches every release, they will just give up fast.

------
fourier_mode
My worry is that because Chrome has become a standard of web-browsing so even
after such decisions taken by Google, people would not switch to other(better)
options.

------
nathanasmith
I looked around but I can't figure out if this affects extensions like
Tampermonkey. If not, writing an adblock script for that seems like an
alternative.

------
cfarm
When Chrome did this they quickly highlighted how much control they have over
what people view. Privacy focused open browsers will gain marketshare because
of it.

~~~
techntoke
What did Chrome do exactly? Cause they never said they were disabling ad-
blocker extensions. That was the grapevine effect from the Firefox crowd.

~~~
cfarm
I was referring to this, but it looks like there was an update to the article
saying that it might not block everything
[https://www.tomsguide.com/us/chrome-block-ad-
blockers,news-3...](https://www.tomsguide.com/us/chrome-block-ad-
blockers,news-30206.html)

------
ycombonator
What about Microsoft Edge Chromium ?

------
nerd7473
Good news :D

------
la_barba
If you don't control the browser you downloaded, do you control the OS you
chose to install? Can Microsoft ban Google Chrome from even running on their
platform? Where does the 'user gets to decide' line end and the 'vendor knows
best' line begin?

------
jackcosgrove
So not only is Google introducing this change into the Chromium codebase, but
it sounds like they aren't putting it behind a Chrome-only compiler flag. And
if you're satisfied with Chrome as-is then too bad because the GoogleUpdater
will automatically update Chrome and is harder to kill than a cockroach, and
Chrome will give you an annoying popup 80-some days after that version's build
date telling you to upgrade Chrome even if you have managed to block
GoogleUpdater.

------
EugeneOZ
Tried Opera on Mac OS - half of toggles on the Settings page is not rendered -
"Pref not found for element SETTINGS-TOGGLE-BUTTON in SETTINGS-APPEARANCE-
PAG". It was so epic trash - removed instantly. They obviously don't test it
on Mac OS.

Tried Vivaldi - render sites with errors (some images missing). 0 plugins
installed. Not acceptable, removed.

Brave - I really hate person who run this project and how he is trying to sell
his product by "if you hate google as much as me, use Brave", while using
Chromium.

So, for now I don't see any Chromium-based alternative.

~~~
pedrocx486
Edge Chromium maybe? I've been using it and have no complaints...

~~~
EugeneOZ
Yeah, testing it right now :) Thanks for the reminder - it's easy to forget MS
has a browser for Mac :)


Games Are Not Startups - danso
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/RobLockhart/20131014/202310/Games_Are_Not_Startups.php

======
robabbott
The title of this article doesn't seem to match it's content. This feels like
a rant by a game designer about games developed by non-game designers.


CarbonCalculated - Platform, Apps & API - Darraghb
http://www.carboncalculated.com/

======
Darraghb
CarbonCalculated is a suite of industry specific web tools to help
organisations accurately measure carbon footprint.

We believe that carbon data should be freely available. We have opened up our
large database, so all the sources and formulas are available via our browser.

Our API allows developers to leverage our datasets without worrying about
complex CO2 calculations. Access is available on request.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated ;-)


Hidden method of reading revealed - aston
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6983176.stm

======
whacked_new
Glad to see this posted here.

Kim Peek ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek> ) supposedly reads two
pages at the same time, left page with left eye, right page with right.

I hope there is some followup study on split-brain patients.

------
FatBastard
They need to study the difference between familiar and unfamiliar words. They
probably note this in the conclusion of the actual paper. I speculate that
unambiguous and familiar words are recognized whole (in the same way a chess
master recognizes the pattern of the whole board), and kids and adults finding
a new or ambiguous word look at each letter and pause there to figure it out
(like a chess novice looks at each piece and can only anticipate the next
move). I hope this work isn't used as ammunition in the whole word vs
phonetics holy war.

------
soundsop
The article doesn't really explain how reading occurs, although perhaps the
original paper does. All the article says is that your eyes sometimes look at
different spots.

------
ahsonwardak
I've also heard that a classic way for speed-reading is to then focus on the
middle of each line of test. This minimizes eye movement and relies on your
peripheral vision to read faster.

~~~
whacked_new
Most speed reading courses are based on theories as solid as air. Peripheral
vision does matter in comprehension, but that doesn't make them suited for the
bulk of information processing, let alone rely on them. When you actually take
in information from the periphery you usually piece it together from imperfect
cues, which suffices for waffly material but won't work if you're reading a
textbook. Duh, you say, but the amazing courses will tell you it works for
everything, and people believe it!

The read-between-the-line thing, AFAIK, is just supposed to make your eyes
backtrack less, which lessens fixations. More fixations = slower reading; it
doesn't matter where you place your eyes.

------
rachel
I wonder if dyslexics focus both eyes on one letter at a time.

~~~
aston
I read a paper that talked about the difference between dyslexic reading and
normal reading. The researchers found that dyslexic people actually see too
much at once and that by forcing them to focus on a smaller region of text
(by, for example, having them read through a small hole in a piece of paper),
they had much better performance. With consistent drills, they could even read
without the mask.

edit: <http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.803/pdf/geiger1992.pdf>


Less then 48 Hours until The TPP Vote - fur0n
https://openmedia.org/expression?src=156476

======
xxxmadraxxx
Dear America.

THEN != THAN

Thank you for your attention.


Clojure at BackType - omakase
http://sna-projects.com/blog/2010/11/clojure-at-backtype/

======
mark_l_watson
Great talk! I did a quick one-weekend evaluation of Cascalog a few months ago;
I wish I could have first watched this video as a good introduction.

~~~
ogrisel
Great talk indeed. Note that most (all?) the material covered in the talk is
available from the tutorials referenced on the README of the project on
github: <http://github.com/nathanmarz/cascalog>

And the demo project: <http://github.com/nathanmarz/cascalog-demo>

------
tav
It's worth noting that the video/talk also provides a fairly good crash course
on Clojure.


Apple told some Apple TV+ show developers not to anger China - jmsflknr
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-china-tv-protesters-hong-kong-tim-cook
======
mokash
Apple are beholden to China. Sure, China is a huge market for them but I think
the bigger issue is manufacturing: if they piss China off they won’t have
anything to sell, anywhere! I’m sure Apple execs know this and I hope they’re
quickly planning to reduce, if not remove this dependency.

~~~
chrischen
Chinese people are also beholden to China (the government). It may be a
political game to you, but trying to destabilize the government would have
serious consequences to the livelihoods of the people there, just because some
policies (that don’t affect you) don’t agree with your world view.

Even though there are kinks in their regime, for the most part they’ve lifted
hundreds or millions out of poverty. Imagine if the U.S. had a massive foreign
power prodding it during the early years of slavery, manifest destiny (the
justification for eradicating the Native Americans), racism, drug war,
Vietnam, and mass incarceration.

Yes, they have a big brother-style regime, but they are also capable of
sorting out their own political issues. And if not, they’ll reap the
consequences without you having to do it form them.

If you really believe in democracy, then trying to influence their politics
from afar is ultimately going to be far-less democratic than they influencing
their own politics. I understand they don't have directly elections or a
multi-party system, but that does not mean there is not opinion sharing in
policy decisions, or intra-party elections. In a representative form of
government direct-elections are not really a thing anyways.

If you truly support democracy, the last thing you would do is to try to
influence the policies of another people. That would be robbing them of their
self-determinacy, even if it is to prevent them from robbing themselves of it.

~~~
ksec
That is very much a Mainland Chinese World view, which is accurate to the
point of only to Mainland Chinese people, and no offence intended.

>they’ve lifted hundreds or millions out of poverty

And they did, by first and foremost down to joining WTO.

Once this government starts ( and has already done so ) influence or force
Rest of the world to cooperate or kowtowing to their own self interest, which
fundamentally undermines everyone else basic value and principles, then it is
no longer their _own_ policy and issues.

And that is about as civilised as I can put it.

~~~
chrischen
> That is very much a Mainland Chinese World view, which is accurate to the
> point of only to Mainland Chinese people, and no offence intended.

Yes because this is a Mainland issue. So only Mainland opinions are
legitimate. They enact their policies with their best interests in mind,
however misguided it may be because a foreigner can only enact policies with
their own interests in mind, however well-guided they may be. A white person
probably shouldn’t go into a black community to tell them how they should run
things for their best interests.

The issue isn’t that they are doing something right or wrong—all governments
will enact policies that are disagreeable... the US included (in the case of
Edward Snowden). The issue is that to the Chinese they will never take the
protests of foreigners seriously because foreigners will have their own
interests in mind, not to mention are generally poorly educated about
_Chinese_ policy decisions in general.

Trying to influence policy from afar is simply a form of taxation without
representation. A foreigner really should have no say in the policy decisions
of afar because 1) they do not have to suffer the consequences of the
policies, 2) they cannot understand the experiences leading to such policy
decisions and 3) as a result of 1 and 2 they will always have _their own_
interests in mind rather than those or their constituents. Imagine a product
manager in the US trying to manage a product built by a team of engineers in
China for the Chinese market. He’ll sure fail because he will have no grasp pf
the product in practice being used over there, and for that reason anyone that
detached from something should not be trying to exert influence for their own
interests.

A poor inner city black family may have a whole different set of daily
problems than a rich white suburban family. Imagine if the white family
admonishes the black family because their kids are failing school or dealing
drugs. In absolute terms dealing drugs is wrong, illegal, and failing school
may be a sign of bad parenting, but in reality the needs and priorities of the
black family are on a completely different level from the white family.

Disenfranchising the Chineses’ right to self-govern because of your limited
frame of reference that they are _doing it wrong_ is myopic. Waging political
and ideological war against them because they do things differently is the
true crime. You should criticize their bad policies by pointing out why they
are bad, not by disenfranchising and belittling the voice of the rest of the
population.

~~~
toxik
You talk a big talk about right and wrong, but it’s clear to everyone that the
CCP is intent on not honoring the agreement that HK be allowed to elect their
own leader.

That’s what this is about: tyranny versus freedom. It’s disingenuous and
frankly racist to compare this struggle to what a poor family lives through,
and then conflating that with their skin color. I’m sure there are legitimate
concerns with regards to the justice for minorities, but your argument is that
that’s only the concern of black people? No. Your argument is a very typical
CCP stance that the West best keep out of their dealings. No, I say, let’s
stand for freedom and democracy when it is truly being attacked.

------
Reason077
I see lots of trailers for upcoming Apple TV+ shows that look vaguely
interesting, but then I remind myself that it’s Apple and they’d never risk
doing anything even remotely edgy, racy, subversive or controversial.

Don’t want to risk offending someone and harming the brand and it’s squeaky-
clean, inoffensive values!

~~~
Simon_says
They shouldn’t even be in the content creation business. But shareholders
demand their 10% growth every year.

iTunes was great, but can you imagine Apple-made music?

~~~
layoutIfNeeded
U2 but with rounded corners!

~~~
dictum
So, U2 from _All That You Can 't Leave Behind_ onwards?

------
thesquib
Apple used to say "Think Different" \- perhaps allowing individuality and
creativity. Overwhelmingly, it now feels like they want us all to think in the
same Apple ordained way.

------
foogazi
What I don’t understand is how the US accepts doing business with China,
allowing tourist and student visas for a country that can just block US
companies from doing business there without due process

The moment the CCP tried to influence a US company the US should have
responded in kind - open the market or face tariffs

~~~
pas
Exactly. Some people probably knew well before 2012, but since the publication
of Why Nations Fail it should be more common knowledge that doing business
with an extractive political system makes very little difference in their
chance of becoming inclusive. (A better economy does not translate into better
politics.)

It's upon other political systems to ratchet open these totalitarianist
systems.

------
thesquib
1\. American companies: don't piss off China. 2\. American companies: make
more money than ever before from China. 3\. China now controls those companies
even without holding majority shares. 4\. ...

------
NicoJuicy
So, Apple has become China's bitch or was it already?

Thanks for increasing the influence of authoritarian regimes in our Western
world.

Last time I checked, freedom of speech is a human right.

Thanks for not defending it.

With a gay ceo on top ( with all respect, it means they should better
respect/understand Western values and freedom than other companies), these
actions make clear that privacy and security are not on top of apple's list as
they claim. It's profits and nothing else. They just pack innovation to have
another POV and privacy and security was the easy tactic.

Screw you, crApple.

------
notadoc
Remember when the US entertainment industry was considered part of American
soft power? I guess that is now Chinese soft power?

------
ngcc_hk
As said hk is the frontier. You can’t fight the dragon who has such a large
market and production empire. You can’t. We know.

We fight still.

Not because we see hope. But we fight may be we can have hope. Or our kids. Or
our grand. Or at least we can tell them we do not run like our father and
grands. We stay and fight.

------
newscracker
> _“Given how authentically good Apple is at protecting user privacy, it 's
> very dismaying to see it doing the wrong thing in other areas, especially
> its relationship with the [Chinese Communist Party],” one former Apple
> employee told BuzzFeed News._

Apple seriously needs to stop knee jerk reactions and pause to think about the
values its been trumpeting. Its actions seem to portray a company that will
say things that are favorable to it in the market. I don’t believe that to be
the case in every instance with Apple, but soon these actions will drown out
the positives it has done on its own initiative.

The sooner Apple moves manufacturing out of China, the better for it and
others. There are many other markets it can make money in.

~~~
mb_72
I'm not sure it's realistic for many or any countries to move manufacturing
out of China. Say assembly is moved out of China, they still need to source
the parts, and how far do you go with this? To the point where Apple is
making, in their own factories, every resistor, capacitor, logic IC, ribbon
connector, PCB etc? This would seem to require a reversal of the changes in
manufacturing that have occurred over recent decades in a much shorter period
of time.

I am no fan of China - in the news recently a couple of our politicians have
been called out as having a 'cold war mentality' just because they pointed out
there differences between Australian and Chinese values - but I have to keep
using Apple devices to develop and support software for clients. Likewise, I
bet no matter what Apple does there will be others who stick with them as a
matter of commercial reality. 'Commercial reality' has been and will continue
to be China's way to be a mandatory part of world events.

~~~
tooltalk
Why is not realistic? Just look at Samsung's Vietnam operation -- there are
now over 200 suppliers who relocated and set up shops in Vietnam. There are
also now at least dozens of domestic suppliers and contractors supplying parts
for Samsung. Samsung is the largest producer of smartphones in the world and
most of their mobile devices now come from Vietnam, contrary to Tim Apple's
ridiculous claim that no large scale electronic production is possible outside
China.

~~~
mb_72
How many of those basic components still are manufactured in China? My
argument was that it's impossible to remove China completely from the supply
and manufacturing chain, not that it's impossible to move 'production' outside
of China.

~~~
tooltalk
I'm guessing probably none today. The smartphone business is heavily
commodified at this point and there is no "basic components" that be made
exclusively only in China. As I noted earlier in my comment, there are over
200 suppliers and subcontractors who set up shops and make basic parts for
Samsung in Vietnam. Further, none of the "key" components such as AP, memory,
storage, wireless radio, display, or glass, is made in China. Lastly,
considering South Korea's recent brouhaha over THAAD, no South Korean company
wants any further economic risk from political conflict with China and have
been severing their dependency on Chinese suppliers last two years.

~~~
mb_72
Thank you for the extra information, looks like my info and hence opinion is
not up-to-date.

------
rosege
"anyone who would betray their ideals just to make money in China isn't worth
a lick of spit." \- Stan South Park

~~~
capableweb
How is Apple betraying their ideals here? The entire point of Apple as a for-
profit company is to earn a profit. They are doing what they are saying is the
most important for them. Big surprise?

Seems many Americans think that companies somehow have to have a moral or
something. The explicit purpose of setting up a for-profit company is to make
it explicit that the company is out after earning a profit.

If there is a choice between two options, and one will lead to less profit,
the choice is obvious to them. If you think Apple is "for encryption" because
they are just the good guys, you're missing the picture of why a company
exists in the first place.

~~~
Swenrekcah
If you are content with letting any company or executive off the hook with
everything because “the purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder
value” then you have given up on democratic society.

~~~
capableweb
I'm not content with that, but people seems to have the wrong expectations
about what a for-profit is all about. Of course, there are ways to get profit
that are illegal, but agreeing to self-censor (or be censored) by states is up
to the companies. If it gives them more money, you can't be shocked when they
chose that way.

I would only put trust in organizations who are not for-profit companies if
it's for important things. I couldn't care less about food-delivery services
for middle-class and above, but for hospitals, prisons, water, electricity and
so on, you can't have (well, you can [look at the US], but usually doesn't
turn out great for the people, only the stakeholders) for-profit companies
running them as the incentives are all misaligned.

~~~
semiotagonal
If Apple was transparently a profit-at-all-costs operation you'd have a point,
but if you look at their advertisements you'll see them invoking humanistic
values constantly. They should, at the very least, be criticized for
hypocrisy.

~~~
capableweb
"if you look at their advertisements you'll see them invoking humanistic
values constantly"

The reason companies do this is not to be a friendly company in general and
care about the world and it's people. If that was the point, they would have
created a non-profit or similar. The criticism of hypocrisy should come when
they make those ads instead.

Look at the Activision/Blizzard situation where a player was banned for
speaking for a cause they believe in, they release different statements in
different countries (one pro-China in China and one not pro-China in the US),
and applies different rules in different cases where it makes sense for the
market. In China, shouldn't speak about freedom for Hong-Kong and in the US,
it's important you support LGBT. The company will reflect that in their
advertisement, where they want people to buy their products.

~~~
semiotagonal
And when they're caught lying, they should be criticized and penalized in the
marketplace.

------
gigatexal
Every world power worth the title forces trading partners to treat it like a
delicate flower or otherwise lose the opportunity to trade and even though the
US is the current largest economy in the world China is on track to surpass it
so US companies have almost no choice but to appease the heavy-handed Chinese
government.

~~~
throw_m239339
> Every world power worth the title forces trading partners to treat it like a
> delicate flower or otherwise lose the opportunity to trade and even though
> the US is the current largest economy in the world China is on track to
> surpass it so US companies have almost no choice but to appease the heavy-
> handed Chinese government.

Yes, but what China does is go one step further by making extremely clear that
Western corporations who want to do business with China don't disparage the
Chinese government publicly, don't talk about Tibet, don't call Taiwan a free
country...

And every company has the choice, it's just that they chose to abide by
Chinese rules, that's all.

I mean the bill always comes due, always. For 30+ years the west has depended
on China to produce consumer grade products such has high tech, toys, and what
not, looking the other way when it comes to human rights, and now people are
complaining that a bloody dictatorship behaves like one? When trade agreements
were signed, why did no other world power imposed ethical conditions on China?
Because building our stuff in a bloody dictatorship to drive down cost is what
all the west wanted, that's all.

It's a bit easy to wake up 30+ years later and act all surprised that there
are political consequences to this.

Look at Hollywood, the biggest propaganda tool in the world, bending over
backward not to offend China because of their cinema market. All these
"actors/activists" so vocal about everything, you never hear them talking
about China curiously, That's the bill I was talking about earlier. Now they
work for China.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
The blindspot most people have here towards atrocities committed by Western
governments is really striking. The United States regularly invades other
countries (causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, destroying Libya),
armed Sunni extremists in Syria, backs the Saudi dictatorship and the Israeli
occupation, is economically strangling Iran and Venezuela, ran a global
abduction and torture operation, still runs a global assassination program,
and spies on the communications of billions of people around the world. Yet
suddenly, everyone is up in arms about China as the threat to the world that
must be stopped. This sudden paranoia just happens to coincide with American
foreign policy interests - preventing the rise of a challenge to American
hegemony.

A couple months ago it was Russia. Now it's China. In a year from now, it will
be the next country it's convenient to US foreign policy to hate.

~~~
gigatexal
I'm not at all thinking that the US is exempt from atrocities of foreign
policy from regime change to unfounded wars. The one distinction that exists
is that elected officials are the ones that carry these things out in the US
such that in some way all Americans carry the burden of those actions, in
China, not so much. Xi has taken steps to be leader for his lifetime; China is
carrying out mass camps where Uighurs are being systematically targeted for
their religion among other things. Being an American, I know I can be blind to
my government's policies and how they affect other nations, I mean, we use the
fact that the US dollar is the world reserve currency such that it can use the
power of the US Treasury to wield the banking system to shut down nation
banks. Great power, much responsibility and all that.

------
noah-kun
American films often use military assets and personal, and give the military
final cut on the films. They follow rules set by the navy, Air Force, etc to
portray their personnel and decision making in a certain, glorifying way. This
program has been rampant in US film, but it's arguably increased in it's
offerings to film makers; more money, more sets, more extras--and more
demands. Film franchises work with U.S. forces to produce recruitment material
using the film's IP, story, actors and brand.

Black Mirror, from memory, season 3 episode 5(?), a soldier fights a non-human
enemy that is simply hiding from them. [Spoiler ahead] Turns out, military
manipulation of the soldier's brain causes him to see non-humans where there
are actually helpless humans.

Independence Day 2 lent their story, one of fighting alien invasion, to US
armed forces recruitment videos. Actors gave mock interviews about their brave
children who fought the aliens, and viewers were encouraged to join the REAL
armed forces to be like the fictional ones fighting the fictional enemy.

This scratches the surface of what I mean to compare Cook's alleged requests
to. Apple, without military money, asked writers to be sensitive of another
nation. Their motive: a wider audience and more subscribers and customers.
Heinous and selfish--sure, why not--but a far cry from recruiting folks to
dump napalm on villages or use Iraqi farmers as target practice.

As a freaking media company, producers and other executives ask for content
and define the market in which they want to address. It sounds like that's all
Apple's really done. And if they've actually made an effort to curb US
propaganda about China, then, even better. But I think it's more about
expanding to a very promising market.

~~~
izacus
Yeah, the fact that any appearance of US military assets requires Pentagon to
approve the script means that Hollwood is unable to record a movie depicting
modern US millitary in any critical or non-heroic manner. Is you look at the
records, you can see that the requirements are very strict, to the point where
many movies aren't even allowed to depict US millitary losing in larger combat
operations.

This obviously shifts the tone of any war movie to the point where we could
almost call it propaganda. How can movies be true to history if they're not
allowed to ever show a major player in a bad light?

~~~
speedplane
> Yeah, the fact that any appearance of US military assets requires Pentagon
> to approve the script means that Hollwood is unable to record a movie
> depicting modern US millitary in any critical or non-heroic manner.

Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon ... There are probably more movies
critical of war than promoting it. Actually, the general theme is to display
the senseless of war than to glorify it. To say hollywood is in the pocket of
the pentagon is to ignore most of its history.

China on the other hand, won't approve a movie if winnie the pooh appears in
it.

~~~
izacus
Yes, movies about old operations can be made because you can get/mock hardware
without military approval. But note how those are all more than 50 years in
the past.

And we didn't even get to censorship of any sexual content, where depictions
of human bodies make sure that US will censor it.

It's really hard to be sympathetic to this US hand-wringing where we've had
our own content censored constantly under conservative American value system
on American platforms.

~~~
intended
This is a spurious comparison- at the end of the day if you wanted to make a
movie or Documentary denouncing the army- you can in america.

You can’t in China.

The act of NOT giving resources and bases to film makers is not censorship.

~~~
izacus
It doesn't matter if something is forbidden by directly via law or via
indirect pressure of money. The result isn't all that different.

~~~
intended
Since The results are very different, in practice and observable reality, I
would have to say that the statement is wrong.

For all the indirect pressure, anti war movies do exist as do movies that
challenge American systems and narratives of superiority - from within their
own country.

Dissent is enshrined as a part of existence in america.

In China it is anathema, and they explicitly and implicitly act to maintain
that strength.

Hence the whole point of the article - it’s not america which is asking Apple
to take down apps because they hurt China’s image, and it’s not America
telling the NBA to correct its errors.

When people kneeled in america during football games, or highlighted their
protest, it was handled publicly and all sides were audible. political tribes
fought over the act on the air waves- but that’s something that doesn’t happen
in China at all; No one was whisked away to a re-education camp.

------
exabrial
Apple: We're totally LGBTQ friendly!

Also Apple: We make all of our products in a country that brutally oppresses
these people!

~~~
tachyonbeam
I got the impression Chinese people didn't really have as much of an issue
with LGBTQ people as other cultures, because they don't have as much religious
hangups as people from a christian background. Is that inaccurate? I know the
Chinese government suppresses speech it doesn't like, but is it actively doing
things against LGBTQ people? Honest question.

~~~
justin66
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China)

------
praptak
This makes me want to anger China. What would be the best way to go about it
for an individual person?

~~~
rahidz
As one person? I'd go with art and/or memes. Winnie the Pooh is verboten in
China because one person made a comparison of Xi to Winnie and it took off. I
know some people are doing this with Overwatch (creating art and memes of Mei
supporting the Hong Kong protests) with the idea of getting Overwatch banned
in China as well.

~~~
52-6F-62
Winnie is a Canadian-British treasure and it makes me a little disappointed
that he gets to be associated with someone like Xi. I do understand that it
undermines the strong-arm image, but still...

------
Razengan
This whole situation is depressing.

Here's a list of companies that have bent over for Chinese censorship
requests:

[https://github.com/caffeine-
overload/bandinchina](https://github.com/caffeine-overload/bandinchina)

You can add any others that you know of.

This is what it must have felt like for a sane person watching the Nazis
coming into power.

~~~
im3w1l
I think you should sort them according to importance or categorize them.
Otherwise seeing a too long list may lead to outrage fatigue.

------
caublestone
Why does the culture that becomes outraged by offending people’s identity also
become outraged by China being offended?

------
anon9001
Why is this such a big deal? If companies can buy product placements in TV
shows, I don't see why China can't buy censorship.

Apple, the NBA, Google, and Blizzard are all trying to make money. Somehow
shilling for Pepsi is widely accepted, but shilling for China is too far?

~~~
austhrow743
>Somehow shilling for Pepsi is widely accepted, but shilling for China is too
far?

Uhh yes? That's a completely valid line of acceptance for people to have. One
of those things harvests organs out of people in concentration camps. How is
this confusing?

~~~
sadris
They're not harvesting organs. Criminals who are executed have their organs
not go to waste in a coffin.

It's not like they're taking everyone's second kidney.

~~~
chillacy
I think it's problematic because it creates perverse incentives to make more
criminals. And there are religious / moral concerns about taking parts of your
body after you die without consent.

But I also understand that the biggest objections are the religious / moral
ones, and I don't know maybe that doesn't bother people as much in China?

~~~
FireBeyond
> I think it's problematic because it creates perverse incentives to make more
> criminals.

We have this issue all over the US. Private prison contracts often have a
"minimum filled cell" clause that causes penalties to the city/county/state if
there are too _few_ people incarcerated.


French researcher treated 1000 virus patients with 99.3% success rate - EGreg
https://techstartups.com/2020/04/06/french-researcher-dr-didier-raoult-has-now-treated-1000-coronavirus-patient-with-99-3-success-rate/
======
dboreham
Actually it says there was a 0.7% death rate in the sample and some patients
are still in hospital.


Scientists Claim New State of Matter Created - dpurp
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090729/sc_livescience/scientistsclaimnewstateofmattercreated
======
tokenadult
Earlier Hacker News thread on same press release:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=727824>


The Control Group Is Out of Control - nbouscal
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/
======
tokenadult
This is a very interesting review of some of the most challenging published
literature on the reliability of psychological science. The author's point is
correct that parapsychology (ESP and the like) basically has no prior
plausibility. Yet a researcher who has the chops to do reliable research,
Daryl J. Bem, has conducted "experiments" that appear to show that some human
experimental subjects can see into the future. As the article says, "Bem
definitely picked up a signal. The only question is whether it’s a signal of
psi, or a signal of poor experimental technique." Please read this submission
from beginning to end and follow the links to see more of the background.

I had the opportunity to discuss the original Bem paper on psi in the journal
club I regularly participate in. The conclusion is plainly wrong, but the
error in procedure is subtle and it took a while for response papers to come
out about his initial finding. (And everyone agrees that Bem is a smart man,
so the subtle errors are all the more dismaying.) If Bem can't design
experiments carefully, who can?

AFTER EDIT TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS IN ANOTHER SUBTHREAD HERE:

Another participant is asking why parapsychology has poor prior plausibility.
Parapsychology is a rather recent discipline, always with sloppy experimental
practices,[1] and meanwhile the disciplines of physics and medicine are much
older. The study of how information is transmitted by electromagnetic
radiation and how the human body perceives sensations is incompatible with
supposed abilities like ESP, and completely incompatible with seeing into the
future in the manner described by Bem. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. A million dollars says that psychic claims are
bogus,[2] and so far no one has won a million dollars by proving that
proposition wrong.

[1]
[http://www.skepdic.com/projectalpha.html](http://www.skepdic.com/projectalpha.html)

[2]
[http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html](http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html)

~~~
rainmaking
There are plenty of reasons the $1M might have not found a psychic new owner
yet.

(1) Randi is condescending and downright nasty to people who identify as
psychics. $1M might not be worth being in his presence, let alone scrutinized
by him.

(2) Randi has a lot invested in being right, so the tests could be downright
rigged

(3) Many psychics propose all humans radiate quasi-electromagnetic energy, and
their power comes from consciously directing it. Randi could therefore be
unintentionally interfering.

(4) The test could be inadequate to describe the psychic phenomenon. For
example, the psychic could be skilled at generating a particularly strong
placebo effect, which would get written off regardless.

(5) The results might dismissed because they would invalidate too many
existing theories, all of which have been constructed on the assumption that
psi does not exist. A frequently accepted circular argument.

I'm not saying any of these explanations are true, but I am saying that no one
knows either way.

~~~
codeflo
Just one point:

> (3) Many psychics propose all humans radiate quasi-electromagnetic energy,
> and their power comes from consciously directing it. Randi could therefore
> be unintentionally interfering.

If they really believe that's the case, then they should make a different
million dollar claim: that they can remotely detect Randi's presence or
absence in the monitoring room by observing whether or not their psychic
powers are currently working. It's very easy to imagine a test protocol for
that.

Of course, one can invent an even more elaborate effect that would explain why
_that_ test also wouldn't work, and then I can design a test for this new
idea, ad infinitum.

~~~
ajcarpy2005
I can't speak of psychic energy as it's not well-defined but if anyone is
interested in some interesting science on radiation emitted by humans, here
are two good studies:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1767800](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1767800)

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23865304](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23865304)

------
btilly
It was an interesting read, but the author showed absolutely no clue why pre-
registration was important. The point is to avoid selection bias. If the same
exact study is done 100 times, but only the best 50 results get included in
your study, a meta analysis of those results is going to show a strong
statistical bias. No amount of waving around the word "Bayesian" can fix this
- the only way to fix it is pre-registration of honest results.

Why am I so certain of this? Because of the following passage:

 _By my count, Bem follows all of the commandments except [6] and [10]. He
apologizes for not using pre-registration, but says it’s okay because the
studies were exact replications of a previous study that makes it impossible
for an unsavory researcher to change the parameters halfway through and does
pretty much the same thing._

But that misses the whole point. Whether the studies had the same or different
parameters is irrelevant - the fact that you see the ones that worked out and
don't see the ones that didn't is the only thing that matters. And the fact
that the meta analysis didn't get this right makes the output statistical
garbage. No further discussion needed.

~~~
gwern
> It was an interesting read, but the author showed absolutely no clue why
> pre-registration was important. The point is to avoid selection bias.

You've missed his fundamental point: the mechanisms he listed like pre-
registration are excellent for defending against plucking signal out of random
sampling error. They do nothing for when you are investigating a real effect
which is not what you think you are investigating: the point of the spooky
studies listed is that in the psi experiments, there is still a signal of
_something_. We don't think it's actual psi in the sense of supernatural
activity, but the alternate explanations seem almost as bizarre and have
almost as painful implications.

~~~
btilly
I did not miss his fundamental point. I was making a different fundamental
point about why I view virtually every meta-analysis out there to be even more
suspect than regular research.

It was the point which is most commonly pointed out by Randi et al, but which
would be most worrisome for the author because it throws into serious question
the kind of research that he thinks should be most reliable.

~~~
gwern
> I did not miss his fundamental point. I was making a different fundamental
> point about why I view virtually every meta-analysis out there to be even
> more suspect than regular research.

It certainly sounded like you missed it, but regardless: meta-analysis is
well-aware of the selection issue. Dealing with that is half the point of
meta-analytic techniques - p-curves, heterogeneity, funnel plots, the binomial
test, trim-and-fill, etc. Publication bias is an issue which has been
repeatedly quantified, and these techniques work reasonably well: when meta-
analyses are compared to very large RCTs where selection issues are not a
concern, the agreement is pretty good (confidence intervals are blown a bit
more than they should be, but not horribly so). So you're either ignoring OP's
very interesting points or you're tendentiously overrating an issue. Neither
is a worthwhile comment.

------
tomp
From _A Meta-Analysis of 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipation of
Random Future Events_ [1]:

> [...] a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 different
> countries which yielded an overall positive effect in excess of 6 sigma with
> an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09, combined z = 6.33, p = 1.2 × 10-10. A
> Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 7.4 × 10-9, greatly exceeding
> the criterion value of 100 for "decisive evidence" in favor of the
> experimental hypothesis (Jeffries, 1961). [...] The number of potentially
> unretrieved experiments averaging a null effect that would be required to
> reduce the overall effect size to a trivial value was conservatively
> calculated to be 520. An analysis of p values across experiments implies
> that the results were not a product of "p-hacking," [...].

[1]
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692)

~~~
robinh
So... I know next to nothing about parapsychology itself, but have seen a lot
of the drama around it, and I just have to ask: is it not intellectually
dishonest to call something the 'control group of science' when their results
overwhelmingly support the hypothesis? I have a hard time seeing how this is
different from any other form of science denialism. "We don't like the results
because they clash with our preconceived notions of how the universe works so
we made up this thing to ignore your evidence"? That's hardly a valid
complaint. Basically, on what grounds can people claim one field to be
nonsense (e.g. calling parapsychology the control group of science) but not
others? Can someone explain this to me?

~~~
jarrett
It's a valid question. The article takes the following premise: Parapsychology
gets positive results following the scientific method as defined by prevailing
norms in the scientific community. So why can't we draw the conclusion that
parapsychology is as legitimate as other branches of science? What is to
separate it?

I would offer a pseudo-Bayesian[1] answer to that question. Parapsychology
aims to prove hypotheses that lacks theoretical foundations. Our current
understanding of physics and biology weigh strongly against the existence of
psychic phenomena. Even before any experiment is conducted, we must admit that
psychic phenomena are unlikely to exist. Our experimental results must be
evaluated in light of that prior probability.

Thus, parapsychology is and should be held to a higher burden of proof than
other branches of science. We should demand more rigorous experimental
designs, stronger effects, and smaller p values. This XKCD presents a similar
idea, if you substitute "psychic phenomena exist" for "the sun has gone nova":

[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1132:_Freque...](http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1132:_Frequentists_vs._Bayesians)

[1] I say "pseudo" because I'm not a statistician by trade. I'm basing my
argument on my rather superficial understanding of Bayesian statistics. I
still think it's a valid argument in its own right, but I don't claim that
it's an accurate representation of Bayesian statistics.

~~~
ChuckMcM
_Parapsychology aims to prove hypotheses that lacks theoretical foundations._

This is the lynch pin for most scientists. Before you can have a hypothesis,
you must have a theory, and you can work to prove or disprove that theory by
experimenting to create or observe results that the theory predicts.
Parapsychology doesn't have good, testable, theories. Rather it has some
interesting unexplained correlations.

~~~
pjreddie
Doctors rejected hand washing for a long time because there was no theory
behind why it would improve patient care, even when there was overwhelming
evidence showing it decreased mortality rates.

Do you discount all evidence that doesn't fit into your world view? Maybe
theory hasn't caught up with evidence yet.

~~~
jarrett
> Doctors rejected hand washing for a long time because there was no theory
> behind why it would improve patient care

The germ theory of disease and experiments supporting the theory predate
medical sanitation. (Pasteur's work did come after, but he wasn't the first.)
The medical community's initial rejection of handwashing was not due to a
scientifically motivated demand for a sound theory. Rather, it was due in
large part to doctors' unwillingness to believe that they were the ones
spreading disease from patient to patient. Additionally, the medical community
at the time did not embrace the scientific method to the extent that it does
today. Had it, handwashing would have been evaluated in a controlled study and
proven effective.

~~~
pjreddie
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis)

> Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality
> to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established
> scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by
> the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that
> they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable
> scientific explanation for his findings.

He published a lot on the subject and was rejected because it didn't fit in
with how doctors saw the world and he had no theory to back up his findings.
It wasn't until Pasteur that germ theory gained any widespread acceptance so
it's pretty irrelevant that other people thought of it first.

Plenty of things are evaluated in controlled studies and still rejected today.
For example, the article that you presumably just read discusses one such
thing.

------
yummyfajitas
If anyone here hasn't read the comments on this as well, go read Eliezer
Yudkowsky's comment on meta-analysis:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-
ou...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-
control/#comment-66077)

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I've spent a lot of time in the past year studying nutrition as I've tried to
optimize my health. I don't believe there is a field that gets science more
wrong and, as a result, whose meta-analyses are, to put it in Yudkowsky's
words, more bullshit. Unfortunately, I don't think there is another field
whose bullshit gets more media play, either (except maybe politicians, but
that's a tautology).

------
return0
I think it's a larger issue with life science that everyone is looking for
correlations. In physics, correlation is the hint that leads to the
development if a theory, which leads to predictions, which are invalidated by
experiments. In life science it seems correlations is the end goal. I think
the issue is with the kind of questions one poses, not only with the
interpretations.

~~~
epistasis
Just to be clear about how this is incredibly wrong, as clearly this poster
has never read life science research, and it's very strange for such a
blatantly misinformed comment to stick around on HN.

There are no biologists out there who are just looking for correlations,
mistaking them for the real finding. Look through the life science papers in
Nature, Science, Cell, PLoS Biology, etc. You will find people starting with a
hypothesis, and running controlled, causal experiments, often with two or
three different methodologies to establish non-correlational evidence. These
are often based on initial observations that are correlational, but there is
no publication where people are like "whoa, we found a correlation, our work
is done!"

In contrast, there are some subfields where most of the work is correlational,
and those are the fields where researchers are limited to analyzing data more
than running experiements: epidemiology and bioinformatics. Now
epidemiologists collect tons of data, but there's very little that they can do
in noncorrelational analysis, because that's the nature of ethics and human
life. But that doesn't mean that they don't try to invalidate their
correlation-based hypotheses with experiments, it's just that they get to run
very few of them. Bioinformatics is somewhat different, and in some ways is
much more like a theoretical physics in that developing new methodology can be
a publication-worth, even if there was no new data collected to validate the
computational methodology.

In short, there's no truth at all to what return0 posted.

------
lauradhamilton
The fact that a lot of journals refuse to publish negative results is damaging
to science and to our understanding.

Relevant XKCD: [http://xkcd.com/882/](http://xkcd.com/882/)

------
Zigurd
Starting out with a flawed analogy to placebos makes the whole article hard to
swallow. Placebos are complicated, especially for drugs with receptors in the
brain. Stating that we know placebos "don't work" is outright incorrect. We
know the opposite: placebos can produce real results, and there are physical
mechanisms that explain those results. Nothing paranormal about it.

If the conclusion is that there is no magic wand in methodology that makes an
experiment "good" \- that's true. But the approach gets off to a rough start.

~~~
pdonis
I don't think the analogy with placebos is flawed; it's just not quite the
analogy you are describing here.

The point is not that placebos "don't work"; it's that, if a placebo works as
well as some drug, the drug itself doesn't work. That is, it adds nothing to
what you can already get using the placebo effect. Which may indeed be a
"real" result; but why pay extra for a drug to get it when you don't need to?

Note, btw, that while placebos can indeed produce real results, and there are
indeed physical mechanisms that explain those results, those mechanisms have
nothing to do with what's in the placebo itself; they are entirely to do with
what goes on in the mind and body of the person taking the placebo. In that
sense, it's true that placebos "don't work": it doesn't matter what specific
substance you put in the placebo pill--sugar, starch, gelatin, whatever--as
long as it looks and tastes the same to the subject.

------
rainmaking
Wait a minute. The author calls for "stricter scientific standards", and than
has the audacity to define "strict" as "something that excludes
parapsychology".

Say it was 1600 A.D. and we would like to improve the standards of science.
Everybody knows the cart stops when the ox stops pulling, so why not use this
reasonable observation as a litmus test for all future scientific endeavor?
Bye, Newton.

The whole article is just a particular set of beliefs trying to
institutionalize itself, the very thing science is supposed to put an end to.

~~~
Kutta
It is always right to institutionalize correct ideas, like Newtonian mechanics
(while having in mind its later refinements, of course), or the notion that
parapsychology doesn't exist.

~~~
ksmiley
Ok, but how do you determine which ideas are "correct"?

------
zackmorris
The Ganzfeld experiment suffers from bad statistics but it would sure be cool
if it worked:

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

It required so many lengthy trials to get statistically meaningful results
that only large institutions could pull it off. I think it would make a cool
crowdsourced/crowdfunded project today though.

If there's something to it, I'd like to see the relationship to distance and
especially time, but I'm not holding my breath.

------
nateabele
"You’d have to _find_ a phenomenon that definitely doesn’t exist [...]"
(emphasis added)

Welp.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is one of the better HN posts in a while.

Science is our light in the darkness.

It is not a new form of religion. It does not give us the answers to
everything. It may not even be able _ever_ to give us the answers to
everything. It does not even give us a way to think.

It does not advance in a linear way. Instead, many false starts are made
before progress takes hold.

Better ideas/models do not win out over older ones automatically. Instead,
many times an older generation has to die before new ideas can firmly take
root.

Funding does not equal knowledge. You can throw as much money as you want at
some problems and get nowhere. Many times this is because the questions are
being asked the wrong way. But you'll never know -- until progress is finally
made.

It's just Bayesian. Science is that study which tells us if we do something or
if some state exists --- then there's a very high likelihood that something
else will happen or some new state will occur. We try to create models to
explain this tenuous causality, but over the generations, models have gotten
us into more trouble than they have gotten us out of. If we understand science
as just being the study of what most likely follows what, instead of _how_
things work, it's easier on everybody. After all, at the end of the day, even
with a model, for you to manipulate the universe around you? You're going to
need to know if you do one thing, what other things will happen.

I fucking love science. But it's not what people think it is. We teach science
in much too prideful a manner. If anything, the history of how science has
been done should give us a deep and overpowering sense of humility.

~~~
gizmo686
One of the assignments in my high-school science class was to do a
presentation on the history of some scientific question. This meant stating
the question, explaining the early hypothesis, explaining the early tests that
disproved those, explaining the new hypotheses, explaining the new tests that
disproved those, ETC.

As the end of almost every one of those presentations, there was a strong
feeling of "then what" hanging in the classroom, until people realized that
the most recently stated hypothesis is what they had learned, and scientists
have not yet discovered why it is incorrect.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It used to be that part of the magic of becoming an expert in something was
learning all the 17,000 things that we still didn't know. Scientists were very
proud of all the work ahead of them.

Nowadays physicists still mostly sound that way, but a lot of others,
including many fields that we would consider hard sciences, are taking a
"we're smarter than you" attitude when dealing with the general public. Even
if they are correct in one particular instance, the idea of placing science on
some kind of pedestal where it can be asked anything from "what makes a good
life" to "what's the mass of an electron" is crazy. A really bad idea.

Science has always been political, but lately it's getting politicized: it's
choosing up teams and playing the role of arbiter of truth. That's bad for all
of us.


We're going to send out invitations to YC interviews close to midnight - pg
The person in charge of sending out the invitations to interviews is in a different time zone, so we're going to be sending out invitations close to midnight Pacific time.  So please don't worry if nothing seems to be happening.<p>The good news is, we got so many good applications that we decided to add another day of interviews, so we'll be inviting 20% more groups than we planned to.<p>(No, that doesn't decrease the probability that a group we interview will get funded.  We don't and in fact couldn't aim to fund a target number of startups.)
======
pg
While you're waiting, will you guys please remind yourselves that it's not the
end of the world if you don't get invited to interviews? Drew Houston didn't
get invited the first time he applied. And a good thing too, because the idea
he applied with was not Dropbox, and if he'd used YC to launch it, he would
probably never have started working on Dropbox.

~~~
saihan-tal
New York is pretty chilling tonight. I just asked my cofounder "would you find
the project hard to stick to if YC turned us down, which is highly possible?"
She said, "No." I asked "would you be upset then?"She said,"No. I'm more
anxious about when are you going to call the guy who said he had a great
contact."

~~~
saihan-tal
oh, btw, I think the best part of applying YC is starting conversations with
everybody on HN. I like the synergy here very much.

~~~
bustamove4
agreed. Fun Fact: Just received email from my mum (she is 69 & not up w/ all
things tech): - "Was today the big day to hear from dominator…" ;) obvious
next steps = YC rebranding as "Y Dominator" \+ getting theme song in the tune
of John Oliver's "Danger"
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmWDm2Yw9dk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmWDm2Yw9dk)

------
saihan-tal
Rejection letter arrived when I was writing a letter to a customer and when
the first actual transaction took place on this 3 weeks old platform. Ugh.
Honestly the latter didn't make me feel better, though I didn't quite expect a
miracle, because expecting a miracle often indicates the short of preparation.
This is be a 4-star strenuous hiking trail, we are a beginner level; next time
we'll be real fit. Congratulations to all got the interview and good luck!
Virtual toast to everybody who received the same letter, c u soon again on HN.

------
Gohardout
YUSS!! got rejected... and that's one more reason to work harder. Honestly I
don't even feel I worked enough, so this is no surprise. :)

I get rejected all the time (eg. Uni applications) so every time I get
rejected, it just makes me a bit stronger I reckon. Imagine if it always
worked out your way.. You wouldn't be a very strong person!

------
saihan-tal
Is it too early to propose a Google Hangout like thing between teams got
rejection letters? So we could share some ideas and encourage to take further
marching/pivoting. Up vote?

------
sashaeslami
Technocrats don't pray often, but......

~~~
brettgeoghegan
Amen!

------
PabloOsinaga
But you did decide to fund "less" startups when you had some scaling issues.
Does this mean you said "no" to startups that you would've said "yes" to if
you had scaled well?

It looks like the increase in quality of startups is an independent factor to
your ability to accept all of the really good ones.

Does this mean that you will need to figure out how to scale more aggressively
or start rejecting more and more good startups?

~~~
pg
The way we managed to fund fewer startups was to train ourselves to pick
better. So essentially we said no to startups we would have mistakenly said
yes to before.

Unless we can improve our ability to pick winners at the same rate the number
of startups increases, which is unlikely, we'll have to grow.

Fortunately we can now. The reason we tightened up our filters in w2013 was to
buy ourselves time to figure out how to shard YC. We've now done that, and we
can probably grow another 2 or 3x before hitting the next bottleneck-- which
will probably be the format of Demo Day.

~~~
petervandijck
So you 1. optimized the algorithm and 2. sharded the backend.

Next: buy more hardware and scale horizontally? (aka partners)

------
zekenie
What about rejection emails? Same time?

~~~
pg
Yes, all the emails go out at about the same time.

~~~
zekenie
Thanks!

------
powerpoetry
Any other non-profit applicants out there? Would love to connect with other
non-profit tech folks regardless of YC outcomes :)

~~~
brittanymorgan
I'm a non-profit applicant too. I wonder if the increased number of applicants
has anything to do with the intentional invitation to social benefit ideas.

~~~
saad_r
Hey guys, non-profit applicant too. Yh i wonder what share of applications
were the non-profit ones but imagine there'll be a quota for this (?). But
great addition to Y comb - the third sector generally suffers from IT
retardedness i think

~~~
VonGuard
Hey another Non-profit here: [http://www.themade.org](http://www.themade.org)
Haven't received either acceptance or rejection letter. Maybe I screwed up the
application?

~~~
powerpoetry
Maybe that's good news? We received a rejection letter last night. Best of
luck to you!

~~~
VonGuard
Thanks. Frankly, we're a fairly stable non-profit, so if you've got a non-
profit, or are working on a game, I'm happy to offer co-working space in our
facilities in Oakland. Drop me a line if you're into it. alex@themade.org

I think we're playing Artemis tonight at the museum, too.

~~~
powerpoetry
Thanks so much! We're NYC-based, so if you're ever in the area drop a line for
sure.

------
saihan-tal
Good luck to everybody. Let's get more productive in the waiting hrs. May the
force be with you.

------
NamTaf
Good luck, everyone! Remember me when you're rich beyond your wildest dreams!

------
netpenthe
how rejection letter feels:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePQcRspK5z8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePQcRspK5z8)

------
bustamove4
Just got back from "I didn't get to Round 2-Comfort Food trip to Rite Aid for
best ice cream ever- Thrifty brand mint chocolate-chip," and they definitely
stop serving ice cream well before midnight, so logically, a second trip is
out of the question, which means… I will haavve to get an interview. ;) Good
luck All and when in doubt - Rite Aid's Thrifty ice cream :)

------
jermaink
Hello everyone, I just want to shout out to those who cross their fingers in
front of the screens, hoping for an invitation or being afraid of a rejection.
While I'm writing this, I have to say that I didn't apply (this year), but
have been in touch with a few YC teams in the last years.

Everyone who goes through the application process knows what time it takes and
what it's worth. Especially _worth_ , because it enables you to reflect on
many points and it forces you to make a point. If you are at an early stage
working on your product and still iterate lots of ideas you exactly know how
challenging that can be. Even recording a 1-min video can be very challenging,
if the founders are not at the same time at the same place or have totally
different risk aversions. Just ask yourself how much time you invested into
the last point and how that could equal in lines of code for your product.

At different points in time, I lived with a few other YC applicant companies
under one roof and could pretty well observe how each handled the application
process and feedback. The most important take-away was that those teams were
invited and accepted, who did not care very much about the outcome, while the
others studied HN and the application chronologies like monks the Genesis and
Levitikus. One team even developed a pathological detail in collecting
recommendations from YC alumni, while other teams could tell you the number
and names of teams within the last four badges. Unfortunately, the rather too-
well informed teams had in common that they struggled to break down their idea
into a single sentence.

YC is not about rejection, it's rather about selection. There is no inversion
of this argument, so don't think you're not good enough. It's rather like the
Matrix, selecting their Neo-teams with some mixture of likelihood and gut
feeling. Just imagine the amount of applications they receive and the short
time that allows them to go through it. There are so many small details and
factors that flow into a decision that it would take days to summarize them.
If you go only through _traction_ and _team_ behind your product, there might
be a good chance to find a weak spot already.

Without any doubt, Y Combinator is a great way to start a company. In this
regard, the book title "launch pad" might be just right. It’s just as great as
getting into a top university, because you get social proof and a valuable
network in many ways (especially the internal startup economy and experience
exchange has its benefits). 3, 2, 1 lift off. But at the same point, being at
YC might be no self-fulfilling prophecy, even if someone could easily
calculate the valuation effects (on paper). Also, getting into YC should not
be for the sake of getting into YC. If you really believe into yourself and
your idea, you _have_ to make it without a program like this - like all the
successful entrepreneurs did before accelerators even existed. Even if there
was a launch pad, they still needed to work on their rocket too. Today, you
even have a big advantage: YC and its alumni offer so much for free. Not only
HN but all the input on the website, blogs, alumni advice, startup school etc.
From my experience, the network is not a closed fortress but a very open
community with people that care much more about your own ideas than your
credentials and affiliations. It's an open university where you can access
many resources that might be helpful as long as you don’t read them like the
truth and the only truth. Now I don't want to put my head above the parapet
and speculate too much, but at the core of YC might be a _socratic method_ ,
which is about finding _truth_ within the dialogue. Literally, dialogue means
the exchange ( _dia_ ) of reason ( _logos_ ), where reason means anything
between rational, valid and practical. Partners challenge your ideas and
approaches and as a result of dialogue, both of you are likely to find
something useful to take-away. The advantage of this is that while your best
friends are rather likely to tell you lots of things that sounds good to you
but are not necessarily the truth, YC might be brutally honest in sending you
reasonable signals.

To come to a point: If you don't make it into YC, my advice is to take care
about four things:

1\. Find people (friends and customers) who give you honest signals and that
let you know when you're running into the wrong direction.

2\. PG essays are like the encyclicals of the YC community and they have great
points. But be sure to read _between_ the lines and to find your personal
take-away, your _reason_.

3\. Do not study how to apply successfully or how to hack the process. This is
no GMAT or a gumball machine. Try to find out how YC helped the companies who
started here, struggled after demo day or came up with a new idea. Maybe, you
can emulate some of these things and benefit from information.

4\. If you have problems making decisions –like continuing on an idea or not
as a result of not being accepted - throw a coin into the air and decide for
head or tail with each one decision. The outcome that you desire while the
coin still twists in the air is what you should do.

Surely, these methods don't replace an office hour but they at least enable
you to improve your experience.

Good luck and march on!

------
gemstone
I'm full of excitement and hope

------
Tarang
Just got my rejection message. At least its worded very thoughtfully it makes
it a bit easier.

------
jtcchan
Letter's are coming out - just got my rejection letter. Grrr.. back to work.

------
rladson
I rarely get nervous, but this time around I am. Good luck to everyone!

------
clola
The kind of euphoria that could be on the way?...

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFlcqWQVVuU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFlcqWQVVuU)

~~~
bustamove4
lol yes.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bw9RE_ruMk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bw9RE_ruMk)

Suggestion: Gold interview invites inside candy bars for next time.

~~~
clola
Classic. Nice find. And beware of Slugworth-like-term-sheets.

~~~
bustamove4
word.

------
asadlionpk
"Remember, remember, the fifth of November..."

------
brothe2000
I am just happy that we have an opportunity to apply for something like this.
Filling out the app was a good exercise in focusing my idea.

------
maikoo811
got invitation! now booking flight from tokyo.

~~~
mathrawka
Congrats! I looked up who you were and we worked together a few years ago at
Tonchidot. I went to the interview for S13 and applied again this time,
haven't got a reply yet though.

Anyways, good luck at the interview!

~~~
maikoo811
hey good to e-meet you! you still in Tokyo? would like to see and hear how the
interview went on S13.

~~~
mathrawka
I live out in western Kanagawa, and won't be up in Tokyo for a bit.

I'll actually be in SF from the 12th though, you can get my email from my
profile and contact me if our schedules overlap!

~~~
maikoo811
just sent message to your licq address! hope we can meet you there ;)

------
johiya
Thanks for the update. I was wondering what's happening to the results. It's
10:15am on 5th Nov already in India.

~~~
vrksh
We're from India too! Best of luck!

------
adiehl
we didn`t receive any mail yet, I doubelchecked with my SPAM folder but
couldn`t find anything. Are you sill sending out?

------
gemstone
PG How many applications did you recieve ?

------
dzink
So, who is building up your startups while you're waiting for an interview?
Back to work, YC candidates! ;)

------
Mimino
Strange. It looks like noone even clicked on the video or demo link in our
application. Does this happen a lot?

~~~
Gohardout
same here.

------
pgrote
Good luck to those that are waiting!

------
smaili
Thanks for the update!

Good luck to all who applied!

------
anamecheverri
just got my rejection letter :-(

------
gemstone
Thank You everybody at Y combinator For giving us a platform to do great
things

------
colingrussing
Thanks for the update, I had already become despondent, but am now
reinvigorated!

~~~
GuerraEarth
Okay, well, don't please anyone be despondent. Do something fun to pass the
time and start thinking about what we will all build tomorrow. We need every
man on deck for our future. And remember, if we don't get YC, there are mass
Angel investors out there, and there is Kickstarter (did you see that Dark
Mail Alliance is taking bids!?). And I applied for a Shuttleworth Fellowship.
Or alternatively, we can just build our stuff with no help at all. We actually
don't need any cash. Just good advice because navigating the processes are
full of pitfalls. Honestly, I am in my school library reading a Gothic horror
novel to pass the night. That and doing an investigation of radium dial
painters in the 1920's.

~~~
bthornbury
"We need every man on deck for the future." I really like that.. I may say it
myself.. do you require attribution? Lol

------
blak3r
Love having extra justification for staying up way past 3am EST tonight :)

------
clola
Thanks...We too are in a different time zone. No sleep until 3am :)

------
aut0n0m3
Thank you for the info.

------
roryreiff
Thanks for keeping us informed - excited to see the results!

------
mknappen
Thanks for the update!

------
alleycat
I didn't even get any views of the video :(

------
cscade2012
Thanks for the update. Good luck everyone!

------
conorpp
Fingers crossed

------
motocycle
maybe it's good that it's not easy to go get alcohol at this time of the night
(3am east coast)

~~~
saihan-tal
maybe east coast should hold a party.

------
sannabonner
Has anyone else not heard back yet?

~~~
sannabonner
Oh, shoot. So I sent myself a test email from a different account, and it
still hasn't shown up, either, so I imagine YC has sent me something and it is
waiting to get through.

Outgoing mail is fine...

------
StyleSage
Time to watch some BSG reruns.

~~~
powerpoetry
Nice! So say we all :)

------
bepitulaz
I'll be wait and pray :D

------
andrescala
Nice! We'll be waiting!

------
imd23
Thanks!

------
aglevy
Good luck to everyone.

------
UmohPeter
We will be waiting...

------
ravshan707
Good luck, everyone!

------
thilton1984
That's awesome!

------
calvinapp
Good luck everyone!

------
thirdknife
Good luck everyone!

------
kuntsevich
Shivering inside :)

------
hariharasudhan
Fingers Crossed!

------
talibro
Looking forward)

------
jaggill
excitement..nerves...trepidation...

------
fatoki09
this is beautiful. thanks pg.

------
iamtechaddict
Hope

------
FYI
Likewise!

Thanks pg.

------
michaelZejoop
rejection letter

------
gailees
Hell yeah :)

------
aryatoufanian
a@ImShmacked.com


Google Bans Developer for Life - anonymous1983
https://medium.com/medium-long/banned-for-life-c62f2404f66

======
treerex
You get an app banned and it doesn't occur to you that maybe you should pull
the other apps that couple violate the same nebulous terms? The "I grew up in
the 70s/80s and it was cool to defy authority if you didn't agree" argument is
a canard. If you claim to be a professional developer then act like one.
Getting in a pissing contest with Google will not end well.

Expecting Google to act like a sane company for one developer in a garage is
naive.

------
zachlipton
Guy makes a bunch of spammy apps that clearly rip off third party trademarks,
gets banned from Google Play. While I think this could have been handled
better from Google's side (such as a way to let him post a new app in the
future, with appropriate review, if he agreed to knock it off), I'm not sure
what else you'd expect. He even acknowledges ripping off the app icons.

~~~
anonymous1983
I agree that he did violate one of their terms of service, and, like you, I
believe it is unfair and too extreme to ban him from ever submitting an app to
the Google Play store again.

The author links to a few other people who have also been banned. It's amazing
that Google does not provide some way for developers to get reinstated in the
Google Play store. Google basically owns the Android app market space and a
ban for life is too severe.

~~~
MattPearce
It is possible to be reinstated, but very difficult - I signed up for a Play
Developer account a year ago, and didn't end up using it at all. A few months
later, I got an email saying my Play Developer and Wallet accounts were
banned. I emailed their appeals system once and got an autoresponse saying it
wouldn't be reviewed. I emailed again and got a personal response saying they
couldn't tell me why they banned it for "security reasons". I pushed them, and
they finally told me it was part of some sort of auto-ban on a Play Developer
account that had also banned all other "associated" accounts. I only have one
account. I asked them to investigate further, and got told it wouldn't be
reviewed. I finally managed to contact someone at Google Support who helped
put me through to someone on the Google Play team, who finally confirmed it
was a bug in their system designed to automatically find associated accounts
when banning a particular account. Someone else had been banned, and I was
caught up in the sweep.

I finally got my Play Developer and Wallet accounts reinstated, and I promptly
shut down my Play Developer account so that I wouldn't risk having my Wallet
account accidentally banned again due to someone else's actions. Now I just
develop for iOS.

------
hashtag
1\. The author chose to blatantly ignore clear signs of a problem.

2\. Then proceeds to make all sorts of insane and stupid reasoning to defend
what is obviously his problem for ignoring the issues.

3\. Even after the lifetime ban came in, he chooses to ignore the problem was
with him and what he chose to do, and instead still holds his innocence and
expects someone on Google's end will realize their mistake when in fact it was
his.

I believe a lifetime is a bit too harsh. But I also believe that when someone
makes a mistake and doesn't bother to realize the problem themselves and
instead continue to cry innocence like a dunce, they probably should remain
banned until they get a clue.

Also the argument that others got away with it is NEVER a good argument for
why you should be allowed to do something (not saying thats what he said) or
that it should be okay for you in any way (something he did say).

------
GlickWick
While I think this guy was more than a little ignorant and probably should
have been more careful, Google's policy here is just ridiculous. Banning
someone from literally everything and offering no real process for contacting
the company is more than over the top.

I lost my Google AdSense account a while back because I forgot to update my
address when I graduated from college. There's no way to get it back, and if
you create a new one it immediately recognizes you and tells you to use the
old one. There's no customer support you can talk to.

If Google wants to stick by their whole "Don't be evil" mantra, they really
need to look into their customer support policies in general.

------
jgeorge
Like others here I'm a little short on sympathy for the author specifically,
if Google bans one app, I think I'd be upset about it enough to not just let
it go under the assumption I was innocent - obviously someone or something at
Google disagreed.

However I do think that banning anyone "for life" over three apps is a bit
much. Ban the developer account, fine, but Google has gone to such great
lengths to entrench people in their own ecosystem that a more widespread ban
(like Wallet) can have repercussions far more punishing than the crime.


NASA research shows alien life is far less likely than previously thought - hhs
https://thenextweb.com/science/2019/06/12/nasa-research-shows-alien-life-is-far-less-likely-than-previously-thought/
======
apotatopot
What a preachy article. Why can't we have multiple endeavors?