jakobe

$2999

Okay, now I get it, the naming makes autocomplete more convenient.

Returning void makes it easier to spot errors. If you accidentally use "capitalizeInPlace" instead of "capitalizedString" your code will compile without issues. If the mutating method returned void, it would result in a compile error.

If you blindly trust anybody, you clearly don't value your privacy as much as I do.

Huh? The top level comment said something about Google search using SSL and "clicking through certificate warnings" which doesn't sound like server-to-server connectivity to me.

Two reasons:

a) The author might disagree with my asessment. A pull request would imply that I consider it an error, but I think it's more a question of style.

b) I already waste too much time on HN. Forking a project, trying to understand all of it, making changes, writing a pull request, etc. would probably take me all day but I need to clean the kitchen and take care of the kids and work on some overdue client work that I have been postponing for far too long.

I'm not really sure I understand; why would calling the method "capitalize" instead of "capitalizeInPlace" be inconsistent?

(Also, the comments in the header file and the README file contain the name "capitalizedStringInPlace" instead of "capitalizeInPlace")

Another inconsistency is that most mutating methods in ObjectiveC don't return self, but either void or a boolean or an integer that reports if the method succeeded. But I assume that this inconsistency is on purpose because you want to make the methods chainable.

One thing that irks me is that the author doesn't stick to ObjC naming conventions.

Take for example the capitalize methods. In ruby, you have "capitalize" and "capitalize!" to distinguish the immutable and mutable versions. To make this distinction in ObjC, you generally use nouns vs. verbs. So for the equivalent of ruby's "capitalize", you'd use "capitalizedString" (which is in fact provided by NSString). But the mutable version, the equivalent of ruby's "capitalize" should simply be "capitalize", not "capitalizedStringInPlace".

> add its certificate to your trust stores

I wouldn't install a company CA certificate on my Mac. It would theoretically allow the company to intercept all my SSL connections. I'd rather validate SSL certs for all the intranet servers manually.

The majority of users don't break the DRM themselves. They just download a torrent / go to some shady streaming site, where they get the content DRM free.

DRM doesn't work because it only takes 1 internet dork to provide a DRM free copy for everyone else.

But 2FA doesn't protect you from even a single compromised device. If the computer you use to access the service is compromised, an attacker can simply intercept your next login attempt. The only difference is that in the case of CLEF the vulnerable part is your mobile, not your laptop.

I am pretty sure that possesion of device and typing PIN into the same device qualifies as 2FA. A spy that watches you type your PIN can't log in without your device. At the same time, a thief that steals your device, but doesn't know your PIN, also can't log in. You need both; hence TWO FACTOR AUTHENTICATION.

Big thanks to the author for posting this, and for including some actual numbers!

This is also exciting because it shows that you can make money directly with an open source product, instead of making money with services surrounding a product.

This method tries to correct specific lens errors. To do this, you need very good intensity resolution. If you have poor intensity resolution, information is lost and the lens errors cannot be corrected anymore. In low light, the signal to noise ratio will lead to poor intensity resolution, and the lens errors become irreversible.

A better sensor will only get you so far; since light is quantized (a ray consists of individual photons), there are physical limits to the intensity resolution possible at low light.

Once information is lost, there is no way to recover it. And that's why you just can't make up for a crappy lens with sofware.

You are right. I made my statements in reference to claims in the article like "This technique (...) may some day provide a software alternative for those who can’t afford high-end glass". The technique can definitely improve the image quality of a given lens, but it will never allow a "cheap" lens to replace an expensive lens.

Heh! This is especially true for SIGGRAPH! Just take some ten year old physics / engineering paper, implement the algorithm on a GPU, done!

To be fair, SIGGRAPH has a strong focus on applied work, and the contributions are often extremely amazing, despite the fact that the underlying method has been developed by someone else and published before.

My god! Someone finally discovered the "ENHANCE" filter!

Well, aside from the problem that information can't be created from thin air. You can fix certain lens errors, but you cannot extract details that aren't there on the original.

The most obvious consequence is that you can't use this technique to extract more megapixels than the sensor has.

Less obvious limitations might be the sensibility to noise; all these samples have been taken in bright light, but if your crappy lens produces a very noisy image in low light, this method won't fix it.

Furthermore, the numerical aperture (NA) of the lens defines the highest possible resolution. Even with this method you can't get a higher resolution than wavelength/NA.

Unfortunately, there's no way around the principle "Garbage in, garbage out." Lensmakers rejoice, your business wasn't made obsolete after all!

Nevertheless, I can see exciting applications for this method; one thing that comes to mind are improving the pictures taken by photographic scanners used for digitizing old books.

There's pretty much nothing I can do. One competitor even made an icon almost identical to mine. I contacted Apple, but all they did was forward my complaint to the competitor. The competitor first sent me a threatening email, but then they changed their icon.

I think the best way to guard against competitors is to improve your product. The first one and a half years I was always far ahead of my competition. Since about a year I haven't had time for any significant new features, so my competitors have catched up. Some competing apps now have more features, some are a lot cheaper... Unfortunately the next logical steps for improving my app are so much work that I don't know if they would pay off.

It varies month to month, but around 70-80% of my revenue is from MAS. Additionally, selling on MAS is so much easier. I don't really have a good reason why I'm even selling it outside MAS.

But then I'd need to support SSL for all domains hosted on the server, and this would mean getting 5 certificates instead of one.

They just resell Comodo certificates, so I assume I'd have the same issues with broken emails and offline managment area and emails promising "Your order is being processed right now" (the business validation stuff was only a part of the problem)

Also, it makes me angry how you have all those beautifully designed landing pages everywhere, and as soon as you have ordered, you have to deal with ugly and confusing websites that barely work at all.

In my case, I don't care about encryption. On my website, I only offer software for download. No private data. Payment is handled by a third party.

The only reason why I want to support https is so that customers can confirm who they are downloading from. Ideally, I'd like an EV certificate, but I can't afford that. So I chose a business validation cert. A domain only certificate wouldn't really confirm anything.

(Also, some of my troubles would have been the same with a domain-only cert. The emails with missing links were those for domain validation, and I had to paste the CSR in the management area that was offline...)

I just recently enabled SSL on my business website. It was anything but simple.

First of all, I had to get a dedicated server, because a bunch of other sites were running on the same server, and the hosting company doesn't offer additional IP addresses.

Then I wanted to get an SSL certificate. I picked Comodo, because they seemed to offer the cheapest full business validation certificate, but then accidentally bought a domain only certificate because their marketing was so confusing. Their friendly customer service walked me through a complicated process for changing my order.

To get the certificate issued, it took me a week to collect the documents they requested. I had to make sure my business was listed in the yellow pages, so they could send me an automatic phone call for verifying my number.

After every step in the process, they told me to log into their online management area, which was offline from time to time.

I had to confirm my email address by clicking a link about a dozen times. Half of the emails were missing the confirmation link.

Twice I got an email telling me my order will soon be processed, and nothing happened for two days. I had to open tickets in some online support area or send them emails to get them to continue processing.

All in all it took me a month to get SSL working. Now I understand why so many sites do not use HTTPS.

I do. When I bought my Macbook, 8GB of RAM were extremely expensive. So I waited, and when the RAM got cheaper, I upgraded.

At the moment SSD prices are still high enough that it makes sense to buy an iMac with small SSD now and upgrade to larger SSD in a few years; but unfortunately that's no longer easily possible.

I think that this animated GIF is actually very bad advice.

1) They remove axis labels, forcing the reader to infer the axis from context.

2) They remove the horizontal lines, making it harder to compare different values visually.

3) They remove tickmarks, so the reader no longer knows if the origin is at zero or not.

4) They add labels with 3 significant digits, which gives the reader a false sense of precision.

Overall they arrive at a graphic that may be nicer to look at, but is functionally much worse than the original.

I make around $2000/month from two Mac apps (database tools). Revenue is falling as multiple competitors cloned my profitable app, so I have to do more client work again :(

It's amazing how many people use WD40 as a lubricant. It's good for loosening stuck parts, but using it as a lubricant will wear parts quickly.

Does it have to be like this? Is it not possible to lead a startup and work normal hours (≤8) and spend time with your kids?

I'm torn between thinking I'm putting too little time in my software business (solo developer), and thinking that I'm spending too little time with my family.

I don't want to believe I need to sacrifice my family life to be successful.

It's often quite surprising to read the ingredient list on these smoothies. They consist largely of apple juice concentrate, and rather small amounts of the fruits advertised on the front.

> If customers were being tricked into paying roaming charges in nefarious ways

If your phone rings abroad, and you don't pick it up, and the call goes to voicemail, they charge you for an incoming call and for an outgoing call. Even if the caller doesn't speak on your voicemail, you are billed at least 1 minute active + 1 minute passive.

Assume you're an Austrian, and you miss 3 calls while in Montenegro, that's 20€ in unexpected charges.

You are making a bad assumption: that the EU only regulates customer pricing. This is not the case. The roaming fees that operators can charge one another within the EU are also regulated.

I'm not sure about exact numbers, but at the moment I think they can charge eachother somewhere around 10 to 20 cents per minute at most (it differs for active/passive roaming). This limit would of course have to be lowered if roaming charges for customers were to be abolished.