When free markets make it worse: new TLDs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.asmartbear.com/free-markets-bad.html <comment><USER2> Terrible article, in my opinion. The thesis is not supported in the slightest. This was just an unfocused rant about the new TLDs and a quick upvote grab by putting a trendy jab at free markets in the title.

What are free markets making worse here? He agrees that participants should be allowed to buy and sell TLDs at whatever they are willing to pay. How is that not free market? He suggest we fight this buy not paying for it. How is that not free market? His only complaint seems to be that the price is ridiculous, and ICANN should be "better than that".

The price of something is what someone will pay for it. If you don't have a problem with people choosing what they will pay for, then you don't have a problem with free markets.

Complaining about confusion for users, cell phone towers dotting the landscape (?), and that some other people would spend their money on something else (free market), do not help your claim that free markets make it worse either.

<comment><USER3> The new TLDs are a scam by the domain name registrars. If you are a company that owns trademarks, you have to defend them or lose them. That means buying the domain name - in every TLD - and now a whole TLD for a 6-figure sum! And what does it cost the registrar, a few bytes of storage? It's a license to print money, is the charitable way to look at it, I would say it's a protection racket.

<comment><USER4> New gTLDs are required to support both the UDRP and trademark clearing houses. These two options provide trademark holders with protections that are unavailable in any other sphere of the market. With clearing houses trademark holders don't need to buy domains, they can block their trademark from being registered, albeit with a one off fee.

The trademark lobbyists have managed to garner a priori chilling of speech and yet this doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy.

<comment><USER5> _With clearing houses trademark holders don't need to buy domains, they can block their trademark from being registered, albeit with a one off fee._

So pay us, or... pay us? Those are the two options?

<comment><USER4> There is no such thing as a free lunch; if you want a government backed monopoly on something you can surely bet it will have to cost you X. Whether X is a figure that is too much for you is a free market decision you will have to make.

Is a few thousand a year too much for a limited government backed monopoly on a name? I would say no.

I would also like to point out that I haven't discounted the social benefit of trademarks, but the registrant pays model is probably the best practical model.

<comment><USER5> I would definitely agree that there _is_ a social benefit to trademarks (much more significant than that of patents or copyrights).

I don't think I object to the cost in the general sense, from the registrant's perspective. But from the other side, the registries have the potential to make a decent chunk of change off this, which really feels like they're making money not for providing a useful service, but by exploiting features of trademark law. It just feels a little dirty to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think TLDs solve a problem, to some extent, but not the one ICANN seems to think they solve.

You can have puppies.com and puppies.org — I suppose that helps if you run an organization to help puppies, and I own company that sells puppies. But that does not help when there's another organization that helps puppies in some other country.

Ah, but we have ccTLDs — you can be puppies.us, and the other guy can be puppies.in. That's a different naming convention entirely, awesome!

But, really, if you tell a bunch of people about your great new puppy venture, most of them are just going to go to puppies.com (thanks for the business!) or search for something on Google.

TLDs are _meaningless!_ They're just semi-random bullshit that we stick onto domain names so there can be more than one of each domain, to reduce the chance of someone getting stabbed over who owns the one true "puppies". (All of the above taken? Be hip and get puppi.es!)

Of course, in the _real_ real world, puppies.com, puppies.org, puppies.us, puppies.in, and puppi.es are all taken by domain squatters, so you and your dogs' dreams are fucked anyway…

Unless you want to race me to puppy.dog.

<comment><USER7> "Ah, but we have ccTLDs — you can be puppies.us, and the other guy can be puppies.in. That's a different naming convention entirely, awesome!"

But the point is that it shouldn't have been like that. puppies.org.in, puppies.org.us, and so on. But unfortunately the US didn't go down that road, so we end up with a total mess.

That said, the international nature of the internet makes country-based TLDs a little inappropriate anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Who cares?

Personally, I think search engines beat DNS at its own game a long time ago. Maybe not for some of us but if you ever watch many others, they search and click (or QRcode scan). The URL bar is currently just some magical text to most people and might for that reason, completely go away in future browsers.

Besides, the best way to get people to a site is to get a link planted somewhere they already are. Post a tweet. Post to your Face+ profile. Pay for an ad. Get a well known blog to review something. All of these seem to be much more effective than caring about domains being hard to say or type.

<comment><USER9> The internet is not just web.

<comment><USER8> Right, but the article was about sites and specifically users getting to sites on something we all like to call the web. Especially once the article pulled out the <http://> thing.

More to my point above, the people the article is complaining about probably don't bother distinguishing the internet and the web in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting article. One concern is that the steep cost of the new TLDs might make it more difficult to establish a domain name that has "credibility". For instance, second-level domains under .com might eventually be seen by some consumers as "second-rate" ("inferior goods" in economic terms, perhaps the way some users view non-.com domains like .biz now).

Sites with their own TLD might be seen as more credible consumer destinations, establishing 2 different tiers of credibility, and reinforcing the standing of incumbent e-commerce sites.

You can imagine that having your own TLD might factor into your search engine rankings at some point or might be given more leeway by spam detectors.

The steep $185K registration fee for a service whose cost to provide and maintain is pretty miniscule in comparison does not level the playing field.

Simultaneously this weds ICANN even more strongly to the interests of deep- pocketed clients and would make it even harder for non-commercial entities to get fair treatment.

Wealthy organizations should not have special privileges when it comes to naming rights. Especially when the supply of naming rights is essentially unlimited. This is a good example where a quasi-public good with nearly limitless supply is privatized and made artificially scarce for the benefit of a few.

And what about users who register second-level domains within a privately- managed TLD? Would they be subject to even more sweeping seizures and shutdowns for objectionable content? ICANN may find it easier to deflect both the responsibility and blame for such "oversight" onto privately-managed TLDs once the number of such domains increases. "Sorry your domain was snatched, but you'll have to take it up with .SomeTLD."

Hopefully P2P-DNS and namecoin will gain traction.

</comment><comment><USER11> So we're talking about a free market, yes? Ideally, if folks didn't like the pricing scheme that ICANN has presented, they'd go to a competitor. Then you could "fight with your wallet", to quote the article. Where is ICANN's competition?

<comment><USER12> Ah but now you're bringing up so many more profound issues, such as centralized versus decentralized DNS, what a decentralized DNS even means, whether there should be a DNS, the SSL certificate authority man-in-the-middle fiasco, etc.

In the current situation, a domain name is property, which means it can only have one owner, which means that someone must maintain a title registry, somewhere.

 _Given_ the current situation, it's hard to think outside that box. But the newer ideas I've heard, such as including a hash digest of a public key inside the URL itself, and even the methods employed by TOR with no central registries, are promising. With those methods, I don't think you'll end up with domain names that are universally unique and universally recognized and easily typed (see Zooko's Triangle), but maybe that's not such a bad thing, given the use of search engines and bookmarks.

To answer your question directly, there _are_ alternative top-level domain registries. But most computers and browsers are not configured to query them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article was more nuanced than I first thought. I figured it would be yet another screed against "too much choice", as if the fifteen brands of mustard in the grocery store throws shoppers into a fetal position, sobbing.

Thankfully, the author does not advocate the use of force to prevent this. As he says:

 _So should it be legal? Of course, they can do what they want. And that's better than the other extreme; I'd rather live with too many products and companies making money off other company's ignorance than the reverse, where regulation stifles progress, controlled by the only entity capable of more waste and more ignorance than even the largest company: government._

With the threat of force off the table, I am far more likely to hear him out and be amenable to his suggestions. I for one will not be buying a new top- level domain, but anyone who wants to shell out $185,000 is free to do so. It makes no difference to me which account number holds that $185,000, since it's not my money to begin with.

<comment><USER13> What force? As far as I know, ICANN only manages DNS on behalf of the US government, as stated in contract. They can simply not renew their contract, no force needed. In fact, the current contract expires in September.

<comment><USER12> I was referring to his question: "So should it be legal?" He answered: "Of course, they can do what they want." Therefore I conclude that the author does not advocate that government employees use force to stop this new TLD business.

<comment><USER13> OK, but in reality the question is irrelevant, because the govt. can stop it without making it illegal or use force.

<comment><USER12> Oh! You just blew my mind. You meant "They [the US GOVT] can simply not renew their contact [with ICANN]." For some fool reason I had that backwards.

Interesting scenario, but then my questions would be (1) who would the U.S government use besides ICANN, or even (2) could ICANN just keep doing what they do with the U.S. government's sponsorship?

Shows you how much I know about what goes on up there.

<comment><USER13> Well, even now the DOC¹ has to approve any change in the DNS root zone, so ICANN can't unilaterally do whatever they want. My guess is that the govt would simply cut ICANN out of the loop and implement the policies themselves.

As for who would run it besides ICANN, well, before 1998 IANA² was run by Jon Postel, so it's not absurd to consider they could find someone to manage it. This is purely speculative, though, I really don't know nearly enough to be sure about this.

¹ Department of Commerce ² The organization (nowadays, set of functions in ICANN) which actually manages DNS and such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I hate the domain registration system as a whole, but I love the idea of TLDs. It's likely my anger is misplaced since I scarcely understand the business of it, but I find it infuriating that most ".com" domain names are taken by squatters. Perhaps squatting is just too hard to enforce (I think somebody could come up with an anti-squatting policy), but more likely I feel a lot of people decided it better to make an easy buck and have the "market" sort itself out.

However, I really like the new concept of TLDs. There are a few reasons why I think this will benefit the internet as a whole.

First, if it catches on, then TLD's will mean a whole lot less. ".com" will lose it's ubiquity, and I (along with thousands of entrepreneurs) will finally be able to register suitable domain names. No more need to make up names. No more need to negotiate with professional squatters, domain name dealers, etc.

Second, it's not just about the _name_ of the TLD, but a lot about the policy. Imagine if ".startup" was just $1/yr, but you have 1 month to put up a _real_ site or your domain gets put back onto market. Or you could have strict rules of inclusion: Imagine a TLD called ".realperson" that requires a video of you to be sent doing a backflip before registering the domain. Of course, the authentication of doing a backflip would likely be replaced by something meaningful.

Third, as alluded to in my second point, it creates opportunity for businesses built off of the concept of TLDs. There really is a ton of room for innovation.

Finally, I think there is _a lot_ in a name. .tv, .info, etc didn't fail to catch on because nobody cares about names. They failed because all of the .tv and .info domains weren't owned by the same entity. If you add cohesion to a TLD, I think it could become quite powerful, and I think there are actually a lot of cool things people will come up with. For example, if .info were created under the new system, "foo.info" might be able to send you to a wikipedia summary of "foo". Alright, that example is not entirely useful, but you get the picture.

* Disclaimer, I scarcely understand the domain business. Any correction or insight is greatly appreciated.

<comment><USER15> If it catches on, yes. Did you note the price? $185K for a domain name. I agree with you about the domain-name squatting - it's a real issue - but I don't see how this makes things any better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I agree, but:

"I know you're already with me. The next step is to fight the leeches. Fight with your wallet and your words."

How do you fight with your wallet against ICANN--a monopoly?

<comment><USER17> I think the idea is that some of the new TLDs will be created as registrars who sell individual domains to third parties. So, for example, someone might register .camera and then try to sell .camera domains to other people and companies.

If, like .biz or others, .camera domains never catch on (i.e., if people who buy domains don't buy those specific domains), other potential TLD creators will be less likely to do so in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I see new gTLDs as a _good thing_.

Obviously the registrars are in it for the money but this will be like the new .com domain but with several advantages:

1\. The high price will eliminate squatting;

2\. The lack of squatting will greatly reduce phishing through real-looking domains;

3\. The price is low enough that startups with serious series A/B funding will probably buy their gTLD; and

4\. gTLDs may well be out of the jurisdiction of ICE and the US government (unlike .com and .net domains as witnessed by recent seizures).

Bring it on, I say.

<comment><USER19> Firstly, squatting is a problem that ICANN itself created (or at least contributed to creation of) through their broken reseller policies. Since squatting drives domain prices up, it might even be financiall beneficial to ICANN.

Secondly, squatting is mainly a problem _because_ it drives the prices up, especially for small website owners. Sure, you can buy a cool domain you want, but it will be $1k, instead of eight dollars. A corporation could simply sue for their brand name. How will thse new expensive gTLDs solve this problem?

Thirdly, I would argue that the same effect you describe could be achieved simply by creating .corp domain that is more expensive and has some checks in regards to business legitimacy. That would be less disruptive for everyone.

New gTLDs _could_ have been be a good things, but not when they are "released" like this.

<comment><USER20> _Firstly, squatting is a problem that ICANN itself created (or at least contributed to creation of) through their broken reseller policies._

Would you mind elaborating on that? I'm curious what you think they should have done.

<comment><USER19> There are two issues that, in my opinion, contribute to massive squatting problem.

First, squatters can buy domains in bulk and pay next to nothing for each of them. (Sometimes they pay nothing at all, abusing trial periods and renewal rules.) This is what makes squatting on such a massive scale possible.

Second, modern DNS structure is effectively a global namespace: there are only a handful of TLDs that matter and they are awfully generic, so they collide. TLDs do not classify anything, and they should. Also, if someone bought the name you want, there are no equivalent (but different) alternatives. That's another thing that makes squatting profitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Are there a security and usablity problems with having to maintain an ever growing list of TLDs? Browsers need to know what the TLD in a URL is so that they know how to stop cross site cookies being created, as well as for lots of other reasons that affect useability[1]. If the TLD list gets too long could it slow down web browsers?

1\. <http://publicsuffix.org/learn/>

</comment><comment><USER22> It surprises me that compared to the huge fuss over IPv6, custom TLDs feel like they've popped up from nowhere - but they will potentially cause very similar widespread problems with any kind of CMS or web form or shell script with email or URL validation, or webserver, proxy or rewrite engine, framework, etc. being unable to handle them.

Have I just missed the fuss and planning, is it a non issue, or has it not happened?

<comment><USER23> Dozens (maybe hundreds) of lawyers and bureaucrats have spend about five years arguing about new gTLDs. It's been meticulously documented (i.e. deadly boring) at places like <http://www.circleid.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm a bit more optimistic about the new TLDs, I hope multiple TLDs are created with a fairly generic name, .site or something, and domains sold for pennies each.

While they will never be .com, these new TLDs will hopefully devalue .com and the other old TLDs, making the existing hoarded domains into more general use

</comment><comment><USER25> From my reading of things, you can't just fork over the cash and obtain "blah.mysite" - your new TLD needs a business plan - and that has to be approved. You need to sell (or otherwise distribute) domains beneath that - you can't just keep the TLD for yourself.

IBM can't just register ".ibm" and keep it to themselves - that won't fly.

</comment><comment><USER26> "But the market isn't wise. It seeks immediate gratification over long-term utility. It seeks profit for the few instead of optimizing for the many. The market has a child's proclivities, not an adult's wisdom."

Obviously true now. Has this always been the case or has something changed?

</comment><comment><USER27> Why do we even have TLDs in the first place?

I guess really I'm asking why we have 2nd level domains. Why not just charge everyone $9/yr for a word at the top level? This seems unlikely to be a technical issue.

</comment><comment><USER28> There's only one new TLD that we need, and it's ".app". If I had the money, I'd be building a registrar for it right now. :)

</comment><comment><USER29> If people want a TLD, there is a market for it. How is it a bad thing to profit from providing something people want?

<comment><USER30> Uh, don't you mean within reason? What if I wanted you to be my slave? And markets can have negative externalities, especially on the existing markets they're dependent of, so I think some of the concern is justified even though I'm typically pro-free market.

<comment><USER29> Of course I mean within reason, why wouldn't I.

I don't see how your statement that if you wanted me to be your slave applies. But, say you did want me to be your slave, if I could profit from it and held the reward for doing so as greater than doing my own thing, then yes you can pay me to be your slave (not that that would ever happen). In that case am I still you slave or have we entered into an voluntary agreement? If you plan to use force to make me your slave, well then we don't even have a market do we!

Yes I do agree that there may be a negative externality, but why is of any concern to ICANN unless they violate others rights. Have they violated someones right to only have a dozen or so TLDs? If so, prove that there is such a right.

There is a market, there is demand. So again, why is it wrong for someone to profit by providing a solution that does not violate someone else's right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The publicsuffix.org list is about to get incredibly messy and annoying to keep updated.

</comment><comment><USER32> Free markets stopped being a means to an end and became an end in itself early in the Cold War. Whether gTLDs spur "innovation" in whatever space ICANN is defining for us is irrelevant. At any rate, if ICANN was serious about "the magic of the free market" or whatever other nonsense, they would implement distributed DNS and then dissolve permanently. One quality of a healthy free market is that power is distributed such that no one entity can grab control of the entire economy. That's not the case here. Rather they are interested in: scamming money out of trademark-holders, and keeping enough power that they can act as the tool of the US government when the need arises (the need will continue to arise more and more frequently).

</comment><comment><USER33> It seems like it's been said already, but to make sure it's stated correctly, let me specify:

This is not the free market at work: The free market would be multple DNS hierarchies being run simultaneously, and users choosing which ones to use.

Our 'choice of DNS' is non-existent; we're just getting forced into using a shittier product.</comment>


Austerity and mental health in the U.K. - <AUTHOR> http://mosaicscience.com/story/life-and-death-austerity <comment><USER2> Department of Work and Pensions had to create a document for staff in JobCentre+ because so many "customers" were declaring their intent to die by suicide.

It's good that they have a policy. It's scary that they need it.

[https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/70850/response/174789...](https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/70850/response/174789/attach/3/FoI%201264%20Annex%20A.pdf)

It's pretty annoying to hear Priti Patel (and people in this thread) deny the reality: benefits sanctions cause suicide.

[http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/one-in-five-benefit- rel...](http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/one-in-five-benefit-related- deaths-involved-sanctions-admits-dwp/)

(And people who are sanctioned aren't all knowingly doing something wrong. They've been open and honest and declared everything to DWP. But currently DWP will suspend your claim, then send you the letter asking for more information. You don't get that letter? The first you know is when your benefits are suspended.)

Edit:

> In the UK, suicide rates rose in 2011 and 2012 (the most recent data > available).

Newer data is just coming out. Small rise in deaths by suicide in women, small drop in deaths by suicide for men.

EDIT2: link to data sort of here. [http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about- ons/business-transparency/fr...](http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business- transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/published-ad-hoc- data/health/september-2015/index.html)

<comment><USER3> From that DWP advice to their staff on handling suicidal clients:

"Expressions of suicidal thoughts are common amongst the general population. This does not mean that they are never serious statements of intent."

What the fuck? No they're not common.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You have to love how austerity has been redefined. What austerity? The UK total budget expenditures have gone up every year. They might be lower versus GDP but that is the result of a recovering economy.

You do not have an austerity problem if your budget is increasing. You have a spending problem. The UK's mental health woes are simply an issue that their government managed health care didn't deliver on promises and overspends in other areas.

So sorry, there is no problem cause by austerity here. Always scoff when you see such claims as your more than likely to find government expenditures have increased.

<comment><USER5> +1

The UK is one of the few shining beacons in Europe at the moment.

Why do the left think we've so many "asylum" migrants illegally trying to cross using heavy goods vehicles and the Channel Tunnel?

Many "asylum" seekers reach Greece, Hungary, France, even Germany (!) and declare "this isn't good enough, we want asylum in the UK!".

<comment><USER6> > Many "asylum" seekers reach Greece, Hungary, France, even Germany (!) and > declare "this isn't good enough, we want asylum in the UK!".

Illegal immigrants drive down unskilled labour costs, which is beneficial to the economy... they don't get welfare, or have access to non-emergency healthcare, and they typically live in cramped shared accomodation so put much less strain per head on housing than all the Russian oligarchs who buy Chelsea investment properties to leave vacant.

So I'm not really sure what your objection is... unless it's the obvious one.

Oh wait, maybe it's ZOMGTHETERRRRRRRIZM! Not sure that's a huge bother to be honest, all our recent terrorism has been home-grown.

<comment><USER5> Please quote where my objection was :) Observation, reasoning != objection.

But yes, for the record, I do object and the current UK government objects to it. Which is why we haven't opened up the flood gates like Germany, stupidly, did.

<comment><USER7> When you add scare quotes to the word asylum it's pretty obvious what your political leanings and corresponding objections are.

<comment><USER5> No it isn't? And "scare quotes", good lord.

I put it in quotes because these people aren't interested in following the standard asylum seeking procedures. They want to go around them. Which means they aren't actually an asylum seeker. It makes them an illegal immigrant.

Not many governments in the world will tolerate illegal immigration.

<comment><USER6> > I put it in quotes because these people aren't interested in following the > standard asylum seeking procedures

So it's illegal immigrants you're talking about, rather than asylum seekers?

> Not many governments in the world will tolerate illegal immigration.

On the surface that's a reasonable position. After all, surely if they tolerated it then they'd be _legal_ immigrants.

But tolerate is a simple word for a complex situation. There's a difference between how much a government talks about immigration and how much they're willing to spend to stop it (and willing to spend to fix any negative knock-on effects either from reduced migration or blunt-instrument policies).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We've still got the war on drugs, in the UK. If that was ceased, there would be savings of around 5B (conservatively, from what I've seen).

It, mainly, fucks two lots of people;

1) Those caught up in the "war". 2) Those who would otherwise have the money spent on them (broadly, the disadvantaged).

Note, those two sets don't make up the majority, and have the least ability to enact change.

I think it's fair to characterise democracy as two foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner!

<comment><USER9> >I think it's fair to characterise democracy as two foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner!

Given the nature of the original quote ("Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." \- Benjamin Franklin), does that imply that the poor need more guns?

<comment><USER10>
      > more guns

The armed insurrection in Northern Ireland did eventually, after 30 years of human rights violations, 3500 dead and 47000 injured, mortar attacks on Downing Street, the near-annihilation of the government in a Brighton hotel, and the assasination of the Queen's cousin, result in improved treatment of and economic opportunities for the Catholic population. This really isn't the best way to handle budgets.

Democracy is about achieving better results without having to kill people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There was an interesting discussion on the topic of people dying after being declared fit for work on the BBC Radio 4 show "More or Less" that examines statistics in the news [1].

It's a few weeks since I listened, but part of the argument would be that you would expect the death rate to be higher as by definition some of this population is in less than perfect health. The death rate for those that weren't declared fit for work was higher as well.

Also between 2010 and 2014 total spending on welfare increased by £28 billion so austerity seems to be as much a PR exercise as anything <\-- just to make clear, this wasn't part of the show.

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06810qc](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06810qc)

<comment><USER12> The increasing in welfare spending seems to be a result of increasing spending on pensions though? [http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2006_2016UK...](http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2006_2016UKb_15c1li111lcn_40t00t)

<comment><USER11> It looks like it from that chart, yes. However, increasing pensions isn't a sign of austerity either.

<comment><USER13> Austerity is a macroeconomic thing. I've not seen any definition of austerity that states or implies that it has to affect everybody equally, or that all people have to be negatively affected. So it makes little sense to argue that it isn't austerity just because one type of spending went up.

<comment><USER11> By that definition, barring utopia, the world would be in a permanent state of austerity because some group or other is negatively affected by any change.

<comment><USER13> Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Austerity is a macroeconomic policy, and its presence or not is identified in macroeconomic indicators (e.g. government spending as a percentage of GDP). I would have thought that was obvious. The relevance of austerity to the article and other discussions of this type is that austerity is used as the justification for cuts to social services and the welfare state (even in cases when the amount of money being spent/cut is tiny so the difference it makes to the budget is negligible) and that these cuts cost lives (for no gain, since austerity doesn't work).

You can argue about whether there was ever any intention to actually reduce the deficit at all, since the results of austerity are well known to macroeconomists, but that just leads to the conclusion that the government is killing people (and tanking the economy) for purely ideological reasons (i.e. reducing the size of the state, at any cost). Which is hardly any better than the up front reason of "tough decisions" where some people supposedly need to die to save the economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've had mental health problems and, family aside, nothing--not exercise, medicine nor therapy--has helped me more than having work to do. There's a lot to be said for having a job to set your mind to.

</comment><comment><USER5> This leftist idea that the UK operating an environment of "austerity" is laughable.

<comment><USER15> It's not a "leftist idea", it's official UK government policy.

<comment><USER5> See Greece as an example of what a governmental policy of austerity looks like in Europe. The UK government has a policy of saving costs where possible and improving efficiency of public services.

<comment><USER15> I agree that Greece is another example of austerity, and one with more extreme measures than the UK.

The current UK government hasn't done anything substantial to improve the efficiency of public services. Instead they've generally reduced the level of service. It's not more efficient, just worse.

<comment><USER5> So we've gone from "outright austerity" to just "reducing the level of service". That's okay by me and by the UK public that secured the current government an overwhelming majority in the recent election.

Those people experiencing the reduced level of service never deserved the red carpet and gold plating anyway. A 4 star hotel is still good; but yes I can see why one might be upset if they were forced to downgrade from a 5 star hotel. Running out of analogies now.

<comment><USER5> @geographomics

Give an example of a public service where service levels has declined, as clearly you have some in mind?

The only obvious one I can think of is welfare, which of course involves handing physical cash to the claimants. The only reasonable measure of welfare service level is of course the £ value of those hand outs. So yes, the welfare service level has declined. But it is within public expectations; it is after all what the UK public voted this government into power for. Indeed, the UK public opinion intensified as before that they were only happy with having a Con/LibDem coalition.

<comment><USER2> > Give an example of a public service where service levels has declined

A&E departments missing max 4 hour limits

Entire towns not having any but locum GPs; people having to wait more than 48 hours to get GP appointment; people not being able to see GP of choice; junior doctors choosing to leave UK.

Social care being delayed, causing people who could be discharged from hospital having to stay there

Social care being delivered by people on zero hour contracts, and making flying 5 minute visits.

I could go on.

<comment><USER5> The NHS is ring fenced from the cost saving measures. So yeah, please go on ;)

<comment><USER2> Do you really believe that, or are you trolling?

The NHS needs increased funding to stay where it is. And that's not including new things like 7 day working ("Do what you're doing now, but do it better, and do it over 7 days a week, and do it for the same money"). And the NHS is clearly seeing budget cuts - Hunt has gone back on his "everything they need" pre-election pledge. (The two year pay freeze and junior doctors leaving in their thousands are clearest evidence, but the gaps in provision for children with mental illness (some children are sent out of the country to get treatment (and not exotic treatment) which isn't something that happens anywhere else in health).

We now have NHS England suggesting that staffing levels should be "proportionately safe", while also seeing CQC give damning reports because of unsafe levels of staffing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The UK welfare model has succeded in creating a generation _completely dependent_ on the government and with a high sense of entitlement

No wonder the immigrants have a higher level of employment and literacy

<comment><USER17> [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7491b154-0850-11e5-85de-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7491b154-0850-11e5-85de-00144feabdc0.html)

"In the US labour market participation rates now lag five percentage points behind the UK."

"In Britain, however, the workless family – perennial preoccupation of politicians, policymakers and tabloid newspapers – is as rare as it was it was 30 years ago, unless a member of the household is disabled."

<comment><USER16> Note I'm not against welfare per se (I can't read your article because paywall)

And to be fair [http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/character...](http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/characteristics- and-outcomes-migrants-uk-labour-market)</comment></comment></comment>


Dear Recruiter - <AUTHOR> When receiving job openings from recruiters asking me to forward, I've been replying thusly.
"Dear Recruiter
I would be happy to forward your opportunity to all of my friends and qualified contacts, but only if it's at a professional development environment. Specifically the employer needs to offer the following to their developers.
1) First Rate Development Equipment
Typically adequate dev hardware consists of a high end PC/laptop fast processor, maximum RAM allotment, and a high resolution large screen monitor, or preferably two monitors.
2) A quiet work environment Typically this means the developer will work in a private one person office. If that can't be accommodated, no more than two devs per office. An open floor plan is a fail.
3) an intelligent interview process The interview process should not include any coding tests other than paired programming exercises with existing team members on real world problems. Interviews should be with technical people, contact with HR should be minimal.  All candidates should receive timely, honest feedback.
4) A managed development process either Agile or a written process with organized schedules/milestones/testing periods with task time estimates written by the people who will implement the tasks.  One that allows devs to produce high quality code on reasonable schedules without accruing excessive technical debt.
If any of the four is not true, your clients don't value good development process and I can't recommend their position to anyone."
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> I think it's pretty valid. Honestly, I think a lot of those myself. As for #3, unfortunately, that eliminates like 90+% of the software companies in existence.

</comment><comment><USER3> And have you received any responses?

<comment><AUTHOR> LOL, no. Im tilting at windmills here, because recruiters have no clue what makes a good development environment.

In my minds eye, i imagine tens of thousands of highly sought developers sending out similar emails, causing thousands of crappy software development organizations to re-evaluate what they are doing. But I know that's silly.</comment></comment>


Snowden recommends switching to SpiderOak for cloud storage - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/07/17/snowden-says-drop-dropbox-use-spideroak/?mod=trending_now_4

<comment><USER2> ...or keep your cloud data outside the USA entirely.

Jottacloud is a Dropbox clone based in Norway and subject to their much tighter data privacy laws. Their datacentres are also powered by green hydro- electricity (if that floats your hippy boat).

I've been using Jottacloud since Dropbox really flicked everyone the Vs by appointing Condoleeeeezzzzaaaa to the board. At first it was a bit flakey and didn't always sync changes instantly, but it's definitely got a lot better over the last couple of months and seems pretty much on a par with Dropbox now. Biggest drawback for me is no Linux client yet, but this is supposedly in the pipeline.

[http://www.jottacloud.com/signup?referer=2166DD2B220919EFE10...](http://www.jottacloud.com/signup?referer=2166DD2B220919EFE102857971D91B22)

DISCLAIMER: Above is obviously my referral link. Using it gets us both an extra 5GB. Strip the referral ID if you don't want to use it.</comment>


Netflix's latest effort to make inroads in India: Support for Hindi - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/07/netflixs-latest-effort-to-make-inroads-in-india-support-for-hindi/ <comment><USER2> Disney+ Hotstar had 8 million paid and 300 million active users and has support for Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi and Bengali.</comment>


Covid-19 SMS Service - <AUTHOR> https://coronafight.online/ <comment><AUTHOR> I made this to help people get SMS of any change that happen nearby them.</comment>


FTC Wants More Obvious Mobile Privacy Options - <AUTHOR> http://www.hasoffers.com/blog/ftc-pushes-obvious-mobile-privacy-options/

<comment><USER2> Personally, I want advertisers to have as much information about me as they can, as long as they use it so they can serve ads with the most relevancy possible. If I have to look at ads (a necessary evil in the current market in many contexts), I want the ads to be for something I'm interested in so the ads become closer and closer to 'content' rather than ads.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think there's definitely a need for more privacy options, but I have doubts that the FTC or any federal agency really understands the issue well enough to be anything more than a hindrance to making it happen.</comment>


Burgernomics 101: Crunching the data on Burgers and Obesity - <AUTHOR> http://blog.locu.com/post/67059925381/burgernomics-101-burgers-and-obesity

<comment><USER2> More burger variety = less obesity. This is a very counterintuitive result.

I would like to see two other breakouts:

1) Quantity of Burgers ordered (as opposed to Burger options) versus obesity.

2) Fast Food Options versus Obesity.

My guess is that populations that eat at McDonalds and Burger King tend to be more obese, no matter how many options they have. I would enjoy seeing data on this.

Econometrics can be very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER3> I suspect that "burger diversity" is just a proxy for wealth. The wealthier a county is, the greater the availability of healthy food. Plus you can probably afford a gym membership and/or can walk/jog/bike outside without worrying about being mugged.

<comment><USER4> This seems very clearly to be a proxy for wealth, from the article "cheap burgers are more popular in high obesity counties". Map wealth to burger diversity and this result becomes far less interesting.

What IS interesting is the mapping between wealth and obesity. I'd love to see more data on that.</comment></comment>


Turning down Zynga: Why I opted out of the $210M Omgpop buy - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/167244/Turning_down_Zynga_Why_I_opted_out_of_the_210M_Omgpop_buy.php <comment><USER3> Like the guy said, he lost a job. Nothing more. A developer from a company that was bought for >$200 million surely won't have a problem finding a job somewhere else if he wants (not to mention he also worked for Blizzard). He deserves all the respects for not letting himself be carried away, and making a decision with his heart. That's something you don't see often nowadays.

You have my respect, Shay Pierce.

<comment><USER4> You now have my $0.99, Shay Pierce.

<comment><USER5> Apple has your $0.29 and Shay Pierce has your $0.70... unless you just sent him a $0.99 donation =]

<comment><USER4> A true, if slightly pedantic point. I naturally defer. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think he makes a particularly strong point about Zynga's unwillingness to change their standard contract to let him keep control of his iPhone app.

If a company's not willing to be flexible about something like this, then it is the last place you want to be working.

It makes Zynga look arrogant, inflexible and downright mean.

<comment><USER7> I don't have any experience with acquisations, so I'd like to ask how common this is.

If a big company buys a small company, how common is it do contract negotations with the employees of the small company? or is the "take it or leave" approach the norm?

<comment><USER8> In all honesty, from Zynga's point of view, in this specific case, it wasn't worth the headache of dealing with a non-standard contract.

Sometimes, acquisitions are for talent reasons, sometimes it is for product reasons. In the former, you buy a company specifically to acquire a person (or people). Those people are aware of this & have some negotiating power. Similarly, in the latter, the acquiring company might want to keep the product team in tact (at least for a short while), so they might have some power, but in both cases, the other people are more or less on their own with a "take it or leave it" type of offer with very minimal room for negotiation. There will be examples counter to this, but this is in my experience (mostly from the "big company" POV).

<comment><USER9> Exactly - it makes zero sense for Zynga to accept all kinds of special requests and addendums so that everyone is on board. Big companies do bend but only in cases when there's no alternatives.

<comment><USER10> I call bullshit. A contact is always between separate parties and is always able to be adjusted and changed. Their 'you don't matter enough for us to take your needs into account' approach is totally reflective of their culture of behaving badly, if they valued the team as people not just numbers there is no way the few dollars it would have cost a lawyer to clarify the intent of the wording of a single section of a single contract would not have been totally reasonable.

<comment><USER11> I'd also say that the expected cost of recruiting a new programmer to replace him - assuming they want to do so - is likely to be significantly more expensive in both money and elapsed time than negotiating the contract addendum.

Of course, refusing to negotiate has the effect of establishing a particular kind of power relationship with the potential employee, which could be one of their goals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Excellent article and good on you for sticking to your principles.

"But I exhort game developers: don't join a company whose values are opposed to your own. Values aren't just for idealists -- they matter. If a company's practices make you uncomfortable, pay attention to your instincts and be true to them."

Replace "game developers" with "developers" or even "humans" and it still works.

<comment><USER13> Unless you're broke.

<comment><USER14> Maybe. Back when the universe was fresh and new, I would call up spammers and talk with them. Every one had some song and dance about how broke they were. In their view, it wasn't their fault they were acting like assholes. It was just circumstances, just business.

Once you start screwing other people over for a living, it's a hard trap to get out of. Partly because that's now your expertise. And partly because your perception shifts. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Aren't employees protected from this kind of crap in the US? In the UK, when a business is acquired, the employees must be offered work on the same terms as before.

So in this case, if his prior contract did not have the objectionable clause, the new employer may not add it.

<comment><USER16> I happen to like the fact that the US does not work that way in most cases. Isn't it a bit humorous that UK laws so contort the employment relationship that an unwanted employee has to "be made redundant?"

<comment><USER6> No. People can be sacked for not doing their job in the UK, but if they've been employed for a certain length of time it is harder than in the US.

But then again, employees can also legally expect to receive a decent amount of holiday, and a number of other rights not accorded to those in the US.

And I think the state needs to stand up for employees, because (especially non-unionized) employees in most professions are never going to have the bargaining power to make it a fair relationship.

(I say this as an employer not an employee)

<comment><USER17> Don't you think that's changing quickly in the tech industry? Can you imagine one of your key developers leaving? Employees should earn their bargaining power by virtue of their merit, not because of inefficient unions or state- action.

<comment><USER6> Absolutely- in the case of the tech industry you're right.

But we have to remember that not every other industry works the same as ours.

Imagine an average mother working at the tills at Walmart. Is she ever going to be good enough at that job that she is going to earn 'bargaining power' by virtue of her merit?

No. Some jobs can be done without a huge amount of training, talent or skill. It is in the company's interest to push down pay and working conditions as much as possible (as the employee is easily replaceable). Therefore it is the state's job to set minimum standards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _"When that 11 p.m. call came, the decision I'd feared was exactly the one I was being forced to make: Connectrode or a job with Zynga. I got off the phone and called my attorney."_

This was the right move, although I wonder why it took until literally the 11th hour to make it. Now I don't know the circumstances so I don't know how long there was between the offer and the required acceptance, but I do know that the first thing you should do when you get such an offer, is take it to your attorney and tell them what you want out of the deal, and see if the agreement/contract gives you that. If not, you have your attorney draft an addendum and you add that. Then its a simple yes/no kind of thing.

Be aware that since most companies have already spent a bunch of legal $$ getting the original contract/offer written they are going to measure their willingness to accept it or negotiate based on how much they want you. If you are just one of the bunch, probably not at all, if you're special in some way, then perhaps some.

Take away is that you should not take it personally if they choose to say no, and it sounds like the author didn't take it personally. Lately at some big companies it seems like it would be best if your brought your attorney with you on the first day to go over the paperwork they ask you to sign, it is getting that complicated.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is it usual for an acquiring company to give an exploding offer with a timescale of days (in the US)? Especially considering a $200M acquisition will have taken (and may continue to take) many months to complete .

<comment><USER20> In my own limited experience, as well as what I've heard elsewhere, yes. I've never really gotten a good answer as to why, so my guess is that some M&A playbook somewhere says that giving people less time will make them less likely to try and negotiate.

I have a feeling this is more common when a big company buys a small one, and/or when it's not an explicit talent acquisition.

<comment><USER21> They can also piggyback and associate themselves on Draw Something's success, and promote it amongst their own users - which they may have seen their some of their userbase switching over to Draw Something, a game they didn't own or control. What's the value of losing that mindshare? I guess potentially $200+ million.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is this magic process which always surprises me (really, I can't get used to it): the process of melting a well-performing team of strong and motivated individuals (not only software developers, but also including bizdevs, sales, etc.) into a monolithic sluggish disgusting structure promoting acquiescence and submission where you more value your payroll and pension plan than the actual work your doing every day.

It is really, really sad seeing these transformations affecting nearby companies almost every month. And it can be really sudden, it may take even 6 months to change your software think tank into a wannabe-corporation with timesheets and firewalls.

And I ask myself each time - is there a way to avoid this? I understand we need to standarize "the business" at some point to make it scalable but is it the only way? Can't we build seperate team of strong individuals and just allow them to do their best giving them some financing and office, and let them grow to a specific point of splittage? Wait, isn't it actually similar to what YC is doing?

What do you think? Don't we all dream of building a giant soul-eating monster at the of the road?

<comment><USER23> Not all. 37signals makes a common counter example.

I guess the message is simple: if you want your business to not either _become_ or _get acquired by_ a nasty big monolith, don't take VC funding.

I've yet to find another way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There's an interesting angle in there that I think people are missing.

To recap: Shay seemed intent on preserving control over Connectrode, even though it wasn't making any money and going nowhere. But after getting turned down by Zynga, he had an epiphany: he had never applied to Zynga even though they are right there in Austin.

I've seen this happen a few times. When we don't want to do something, our conscious mind will come up with some excuse ("their cafeteria is not good, and I'm a strict vegan", or "they use python, and I'm a Perl guy", or something inane like that). But deep down we already know we don't want to do that; we're just coming up with some overt justification for our decision.

I'd be willing to bet that even if Zynga agreed to his terms, he wouldn't have joined. His gut told him it was not a good fit for a variety of reasons, many of which probably he himself doesn't know.

Moral of the story is: we should listen to our gut more often. It speaks very softly, but it's usually right.

<comment><USER25> Exactly! The dilemma with Connectrode is what brought Shay's deeper misgivings to the surface of his consciousness.

A big takeaway from this article is what one can learn from the example of Shay's all-too-uncommon level of insight. He should be credited for listening to his intuition, then making a logical, rational, and moral decision based on it.

Too often, people ignore that "quiet voice inside", much to the detriment of their moral and personal well-being.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > _So what is "evil"? Can a company be evil?_

An interesting point, made by a friend [1] recently at dinner: companies can't be evil.

Companies can't love, they can't be loyal or caring; they can't be malevolent or heartless. Only people can be those things.

What we mean when we label companies that way is that their _employees_ have acted that way. It's ethical hackery to absolve someone of malevolent acts because they were in the service of an abstraction. We may still continue using that sort of short-hand, but it's important to remember that at the end of the day, a company that's being "evil" is really a bunch of individuals that are collectively and actively making decisions to hurt others.

1) <http://twitter.com/tilladam>

<comment><USER27> Corporations are (made up of) people, my friend! ;-)

The whole purpose of a company is to absolve the individuals involved of some legal consequences. I think right now we are having a debate over exactly how far that absolution extends.

I could imagine a situation where each individual was acting ethically, but the emergent behavior was still unethical. For example, each individual manager might be promoting the worker they feel is best-qualified for the job, but over-all hiring patterns end up being discriminatory due to small, unnoticed biases. Corporations are emergent systems, much like programs themselves. Race conditions, concurrency, stampeding herd dynamics, failing to have anyone be responsible for important considerations: all the downfalls of parallelism apply to human organizations as well.

<comment><USER28> "Corporations are (made up of) people, my friend! ;-)"

That's funny because for the past few months, my mind has replayed Romney's quote every time I've heard someone say 'corporation'. I don't know why, it just happens.

You make some good points, of course. A company is a single entity after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> >It views players as weak-minded cash cows; and it views its developers as expendable, replaceable tools to create the machines that milk those cows.

>Because the company's values are completely opposed to my own values, professionally and creativel

>An evil company is trying to get rich quick, and has no regard for the harm they're doing along the way

Why does he not give any examples of how Zynga is evil? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend them. I honestly don't even know and now I'm curious. The only thing I know about Zynga is from their stock revoking mess that occurred around the IPO.

<comment><USER30> Well, "evil" is fairly subjective and often times depends on what side of the table you are on, as I think he points out in the article.

As for specific reasons why they could be viewed as such, there are plenty out there already. Here's an AMA with a previous engineer that doesn't paint a pretty picture:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/pc6j9/iama_former_full...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/pc6j9/iama_former_fulltime_zynga_engineer_quit_6_months/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I purchased a copy of his game to support him as an independent developer. As developer who has released games in the Appstore I know what it takes to bring your projects to fruition and can understand why he does not want to let his game die. I must say it's actually a great game and deserving if you're 99¢. I wish him luck and I hope he does great with his company.

</comment><comment><USER32> You have to applaud the author for his due diligence.

Job contracts are frequently overly zealous and heavily biased in favour of the employer, rather than the employee. Conflicts of interest are sometimes hard to spot. I have been in this situation, and it isn't pleasant.

Always qualify and question everything. The OP has earned himself the right to pat himself on the back (in my humble opinion).

</comment><comment><USER33> Although any small game would like to be acquired by Zynga, if you're really good and have great ideas, maybe you should not - because your company might become as big as Zynga in just a couple of years.

This deal looks like win-win, but maybe it's a bigger win for Zynga, as it removes one potentially dangerous competitor from the market.

<comment><USER34> Maybe they'll have money/lawyers to run the awesome tetris (blockles) OMGPOP had and pulled out because of the Tetris-troll company which thinks it owns some sort of copyright on game mechanics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If I'm genuinely honest, I'm not sure if I would have made the same decision. I actually thought for a minute or two that Connectrode was a city, and he didn't want to leave his family. That I get.

But I mean, its OK to love something and we all love our creations, but I wonder if I'd have viewed the thing that I loved, as a platform that was moving me onto the fastest growing, possibly largest game platform of our generation. The biggest player of the industry "I" belong to.

It would have been a sad moment perhaps, but I'd have sacrificed it in a ceremony if it meant that much, but tailed it into a drinks of celebration and the start of a new zynga-charged chapter. Just my 2c.

<comment><USER36> I think 'Connectrode' is somewhat symbolic here. It represents something he is and does outside of his standard workplace. it sounded like signing the Zynga contract could potentially threaten everything that 'Connectrode' represented to him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This part has been alluded to, but I wanted to pull it out in its entirety because I think it's important. Whether or not people agree with it is also important.

"When an entity exists in an ecosystem, and acts within that ecosystem in a way that is short-sighted, behaving in a way that is actively destructive to the healthy functioning of that ecosystem and the other entities in it (including, in the long term, themselves) -- yes, I believe that that is evil. And I believe that Zynga does exactly that.

A "good" company is one which provides goods or services of real value in exchange for a fair price. A good game company recognizes that its developers are the ones who create that value, and treats them as valuable, especially if they are good at what they do. It follows practices that are sustainable. And it ensures that, at the end of the day, the world is a little better for having their goods and services.

An evil company is trying to get rich quick, and has no regard for the harm they're doing along the way. It's not making things of value, it's chasing a gold rush. An evil game company isn't really interested in making games, it's too busy playing a game -- a game with the stock market, usually. It views players as weak-minded cash cows; and it views its developers as expendable, replaceable tools to create the machines that milk those cows."

</comment><comment><USER38> Ooooh - I love a good bridge burning!

(I hope this wonderful rant gets you the boost in app sales it deserves. 70% of my 0.99c is headed your way - and I _never_ play puzzle games…)

</comment><comment><USER39> Can any lawyers comment on whether his concerns were legitimate? I can't imagine any standard employment contract claiming any sort of rights over all your previous work. Say it wasn't an indie game, rather some other company's game he was the sole developer of? Or if he had simply incorporated a company he was the sole owner of?

Certainly they could prohibit him from continuing to work on it while employed at Zynga, though.

</comment><comment><USER40> Full disclosure. I'm a Zynga employee. I run the Boston studio, which was built out of a startup acquisition and is responsible for Adventure World. This comment is 100% my own opinion, not that of my employer. I'm an engineer and entrepreneur at heart, a long-time hacker news contributor, and now a GM / product guy. Above all else, I'm not evil. I claim that no one I work with is evil either.

It's a shame Shay didn't join Zynga so that he could see how we really operate and how we really think about our players instead of taking on what is essentially an uninformed and cliched conventional wisdom opinion about the company.

I don't know anything about contracts, so I have no opinions about that part. I just take issue w/ the last half of his article that slanders me and my team without any first-hand knowledge in order to market his new dev shop.

<comment><USER41> > how we really think about our players instead of taking on what is > essentially an uninformed and cliched conventional wisdom opinion about the > company.

Judging a company by what they do publicly rather than what they might say or think privately seems like a smart move on his part.

If you want your peers to think better of Zynga, the onus is on you, not them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Pity he didn't release Connectrode for Android.

<comment><USER43> His app says "powered by flixel" which looks like some Action script library. Maybe a port is easier than most.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Good read. Here is my 2c:

Mr. Pierce: here is something you need to look into with a competent attorney - I don't see a reason, with your next game, why you should not use the term: "Programmed by 'Draw Something'(r) Developer". Ability to use this line alone (which is the truth), after all the media-steam Zynga/OMGPOP's deal is getting, should land you a dream job at almost any game-developing house around the world!

Good luck with your future endeavors. And let us know what you're working on.

<comment><USER45> 'I don't see a reason, with your next game, why you should not use the term: "Programmed by 'Draw Something'(r) Developer"'

You mean beside him saying he never worked on that project, right? Seems like a step backward off of the moral high-ground he's taking to lie about something like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Respect. The love for your work, your passion and having your own app out there is more important than all the money you can get.

If i ever start a company i want this guy on board.

</comment><comment><USER47> As a former Zynga employee, and someone who personally held patented IP and copyright ownership of code that still generates me personal revenue (as well as through my employment), Zynga was in no way threatening to it. His whole argument about "Connectrode VS Zynga" is really bias. He waited until the last minute to bring this up instead of being up front with Zynga about it from the beginning. I was, and there was no problem.

<comment><USER48> I'm not sure you understand the article. The difference between 'beginning' and 'last minute' was approximately 10 hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> The headline is a "little bit" misleading. I first thaught it is about Omgpop owner refusing to sell to Zynga for $210M.

</comment><comment><USER50> I think Omgpop made mistake of selling itself to Zynga: Omgpop could become bigger than Zynga in years if not months. Of course, I don't know anything about what happened internally but Omgpop looked like Groupon of games industry from outside.

</comment><comment><USER51> Key words: I lost a job, that's all.

He got paid for what he owned of OMGPOP, he didn't opt out of that. Title is deceiving. This is a post about someone who opted out of a _job offer_ because of a personal project he felt more passionate about.

</comment><comment><USER52> Liking the app, would be great if he kept up with the independent games.

</comment><comment><USER53> Respect.

I just purchased Connectrode, as well as his other game Great Land Grab Plus (mainly because I had a very similar idea for a game in the early iPhone SDK days, and wanted to check out his take on it).

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm really surprised someone hasn't already registered BoycottZynga.com by now. As computing professionals, we should be ashamed to call these people colleagues.

</comment><comment><USER55> Well balanced arguments with a very reasonable tone. Rare, and appreciated. Respect to this dev and I hope Connectrode 2 does change his life.

</comment><comment><USER56> I really detest linkbait titles like this.

He turned down the job offer at zynga not the equity, or the buyout itself.

</comment><comment><USER57> I believe good vs. evil is a poor way to look at anything. Using that formulation lowers your IQ by 10 points.

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/12/the...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/12/they- have-transcribed-my-tedx-talk-on-stories.html)

</comment><comment><USER58> This guy should be a hero to all indy devs out there.

</comment><comment><USER59> beautiful post - nice to see someone stand for something :)

</comment><comment><USER60> Should be clear from his comments that he didn't give the $210M figure... a gamasutra editor made this!

<comment><USER61> You're right, Shay posts:

 _One clarification: I didn't choose the title of this article and I am not confirming or denying any sum of how much the Zynga/OMGPOP buyout was for - <USER2> honestly was not privy to what that amount was, and I don't know anything more than the public information on that point._

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Big respect man. your actions reminds me of this quote; "A man who has nothing to die for, has nothing to live for."</comment>


How programming is taught in Indian engineering colleges - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Computer-Science/How-are-students-in-Indian-colleges-taught-programming

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is compounded by really bad textbooks that are adopted by different universities.

The book "Let us C" is preferred over K&R. Let Us C does not teach the "C" as in standard but sticks to the specific Turbo C compiler (I think the newer editions have improved). When I learned C using this book Borland had stopped supporting Turbo C several years back.

Even today many Universities continue use Turbo C, teach Turbo C specific syntax.</comment>


Cruz calls for criminal investigation of Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/exclusive-cruz-calls-for-criminal-investigation-of-twitter-3bec3098-3fbf-45b2-a5bf-cbda7cace940.html <comment><USER2> To me it is immediately fascinating. I am ignoring the political component to focus on something else.

Sanctions in US can be amazingly broad, if enforced. The only reasons most people are not aware of them even existing is the banks did a relatively decent job of ensuring general public is rarely inconvenienced by them. And here the hammer hits pretty hard too ( Twitter may actually end up bowing to that pressure ) . There is a reason Github blocked a lot of Iranian accounts[1].

[1][https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/29/github-ban-sanctioned- coun...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/29/github-ban-sanctioned-countries/)

</comment><comment><USER3> As political theater goes, it's unique. And harrowing in its foolishness.

</comment><comment><USER4> What really stands out to me is that what Twitter did to Trump's tweets wasn't even nearly censorship. If anything, it was exactly in line with the concept of free speech, and a model I think could be expanded upon. But in retaliation, Trump is imposing actual censorship, and claiming that it is the necessary fix for the so-called social network censorship.

It really makes my head spin trying to work out the logic and expected beneficial result.

<comment><USER5> You're assuming the free speech argument is in good faith. It isn't. Trump is upset because he expects everyone to utterly capitulate to him, and Twitter won't kiss the ring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> All of this because Twitter (a private company) had the gall to tag a misleading statement and threat of violence on their own platform.

With multiple racially related killings of black Americans in so many weeks, it is ridiculous that conservative lawmakers are standing by doing this instead of creating policing reforms and leading from the top with respect to racism. President Trump's statement on the murder of George Floyd was:

"I feel very, very badly. That's a very, very bad thing that I saw. I saw it last night and I didn't like it... what I saw was not good. Very bad"

<comment><USER7> It is equally ridiculous that conservative CEOs equivocate and wait to see which way the wind is blowing, for fear of being branded liberal or leftist. Twitter is making itself a real legal bellwether right now.</comment></comment>


The 421 Loop - <AUTHOR>

A Math-magical Loop
Pick a whole number and enter it into your calculator.

    If it is even, divide by 2. If it is odd, multiply by 3 and add 1.
    Repeat the process with the new number over and over. What happens?
    The sequence always ends in the "loop": 4.....2.....1.....4.....2.....1...
 Let's illustrate with an Example:
Start with 17 17 is odd, so we multiply by 3 and add 1. We get 52. (17x3=51+1=52) 52 is even, so we divide by 2. We get 26. (52 / 2 = 26) 26 is also even, so we divide by 2 again and get 13. 13 is odd, so we multiply by 3 and add 1. We get 40. (13x3=39+1=40) 40 is even, so we divide by 2. We get 20. (40 / 2 = 20) 20 is even, so we divide by 2 and get 10. 10 is also even so we divide by 2 again and get 5. 5 is odd so we multiply by 3 and add 1. We get 16. 16 is even, so we divide by 2 and get 8. 8 is also even so we divide by 2 again and get 4. 4 is even so we divide by 2. We get 2. 2 is even, so we divide by 1 and get 1. 1 is odd, so we multiply by 3 and add 1. We get 4. 4 is even so we divide by 2. We get 2. And so we begin the loop 4.....2.....1.....4.....2.....1... <comment><AUTHOR> <http://mathema-tricks.blogspot.com/></comment>


BitTorrent's Creator Wants to Build a Better Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/bittorrents-creator-wants-to-build-a-better-bitcoin/ <comment><USER2> Who doesn't want to build a better bitcoin...</comment>


The Power of a $15 Minimum Wage - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/21/magazine/minimum-wage-saving-lives.html <comment><USER2> Not in the article: how many people lost jobs when their employers couldn't afford to pay them.

"Under President Moon Jae-in, South Korea has raised taxes and the minimum wage in the name of economic growth. So far, it hasn't worked out as planned.

Growth has slowed, unemployment has risen and small-business owners like Moon Seung are complaining."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18885855](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18885855)</comment>


Ask HN: Have you found your dream town? - <AUTHOR> What are you looking for in the place you live? Have you found a place that satisfies your needs?
I'm getting more involved in my city, and like the HN crowd I am aware of issues like suburban sprawl. I'm communicating with public officials and researching development patterns in my small city, but few officials recognize lane expansions or the fact that we are car-dependent as issues.
My dream town is one where most people ride bikes, values quiet, and spends money on public space that makes us better human beings. Does such a place exist in the north eastern U.S.? <comment><USER2> "Dream" town in the most specific sense? No, not really. But have I found a place that's close enough in many ways? Yeah. I live in Chapel Hill, NC and I find that this satisfies the majority of my needs. One of the few things that I find lacking here is a music venue that caters largely (or entirely) to metal. The closest such place is in Raleigh, about 25 minutes away. Not the worst thing, but it would be great if there were a true "metal club" right in downtown CH.

 _What are you looking for in the place you live?_

In no particular order, some of the things I value (and how the relate to CH):

1\. Tech jobs, technology literate populace (CH is part of "The Triangle" region of NC which definitely has this)

2\. One or more universities nearby (UNC, Duke, NCSU, are nearby, along with many smaller colleges / universities like NCCU, Shaw, Peace, Meredith, St. Augustines, etc.)

3\. Places to mountain bike (Yes, in abundance, although we don't have the elevation change here to allow for serious downhill MTB'ing. But there's lots of miles of XC trails in the area)

4\. Bike lanes for road biking (some, but not as much as I'd like in this area)

5\. A "pace of life" that keeps things interesting, but isn't overwhelming (Yes, this is very subjective, hard to quantify, and may be as much about me as the place, but it is what it is)

6\. An active tech startup scene (again, part of "The Triangle" and there is lots of tech "stuff" going on here)

7\. Venues for live music beyond country music (yes - Cat's Cradle in Carrboro, for example. But see not above about wishing for a more metal oriented club nearby)

8\. Active night-life scene: clubs, bars, lounges, etc. (it's a college town, so yeah. See: Franklin Street)

9\. Not too far from the coast (I can drive from here to the NC beaches in about 2.5 hours)

10\. Not too far from more mountainous areas (I can drive from here to "the mountains" in about 3.5-5.0 hours depending on the exact destination)

I'm sure there's more I could talk about, but that's a lot of the key stuff to me.</comment>


Beware the Purists, Lest They Kill Your Innovation - <AUTHOR> http://joshuablankenship.com/blog/2011/09/24/beware-the-purists/ <comment><USER2> There's a big difference between a purist, which is someone who wants something to stay the same forever, and a perfectionist, which is someone who wants change for the better.

It's very easy to confuse the two when you're receiving criticism and put on the defensive.

Purism isn't about logic, it's about nostalgia.

Perfectionism will generally be based in logic, or a point of view subtly or wildly different from your own.

<comment><USER3> as a perfectionist, i can safely say that it is not based on logic. the rational mind cowers to the emotions behind perfectionism, and then explains it as if it were its idea. a logical person would know when to stop, when the law of diminishing returns is about to turn negative or shortly thereafter, a perfectionist such as myself will not bother to start because the law of diminishing returns is _exists_.

a purist, on the other hand, may be completely open to new ideas within the framework of bebop or within the framework of "real instruments"—even if it ends up sounding bad. a purist with taste i think would be able to marry nostalgia with the new that is good, a purist without taste probably just wants to be safe, or can't be bothered to listen closely enough to the music to find out if it is any good.

the fact is, the streams of missives from the guy may have been because he was a purist or it may have actually been pretty bad and his derision was from the angle of a purist.

even if everything about a man is known, his intentions are forever foreign to us. it's the problem with subjectivity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _On and on (and on) he went. Hancock had "forgotten his jazz roots" and was "trying to be too hip". He should "never allow that electric bass on stage" and has to "leave all this weird synth keyboard stuff alone"_

Bless him, this must've been irritating The Purist for nearly 40 years; I mean, it's been nearly that long since Hancock released the revolutionary and synth-heavy HeadHunters:

<http://allmusic.com/album/head-hunters-r140166>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQsSQRWMhOs>

<comment><USER5> Thank you for mentioning Head Hunters. One of my favorite pieces of music to date. Also a great example of a record you can listen to straight through and enjoy every son equally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Medium-related comment (sorry), but I wanted to point out a _great_ video of Cantelope Island played by Herbie Hancock. This really is a good example of jazz fusion (With the C -> Ab transition)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgP1u5YWEg&feature=related

If I had the chance to see Hancock, I'd surely want to see some jazz like that.. So I somewhat can understand the 'purist' in the example. I wouldn't however whine about it as I'm sure it'd be some epic music.

<comment><USER7> I have seen Hancock recently, at a tribute to Miles Davis with Wayne Shorter, and Marcus Miller. And witnessed a different emotion, equally bad to innovation: people without a grain of critical thinking. In other words, they had to like the music, not because it was great, but _because_ it was Hancock, Shorter, and Miller.

Frankly, the concert sucked. There was no intimacy, it sounded cold, and the instruments were completely drained by arena-style drums. At the same festival, in tiny rooms, fantastic innovative music was made. But most people rave only about the things they can namedrop to friends.

<comment><USER3> it amazes me how much of what is subjectively good is based on reputation alone. like derek jeter winning gold gloves.

but there is a flip side, while you found it cold and lacking intimacy, the people who rave based on reputation alone actually got something out of it—even if just the equivalent to a cheap trinket—they saw someone famous play with other famous people, and thus may have _enjoyed_ it based on reputation alone.

it takes all sorts to make a world.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I made a better Secret Santa generator - <AUTHOR> https://www.secretsanta.run <comment><AUTHOR> Hi!

I was tired of all the existing alternatives so I built a better Secret Santa organiser. This one works with mobile numbers, so you don't have to bug your friends for their emails.

Once the participants receive their assigned Secret Santa they can message the app what they would like to receive and the person that will be gifting them receives that message anonymised.

I have been getting conflicting feedback regarding this SMS solution and the need for paying for the messages. What do you think? Does this improve the existing solutions or not?

<comment><USER2> I'm liking your no-nonsense interface but unfortunately email is still king imo.

Giving out phone numbers feels icky - a violation of privacy.

There needs to be an opt-in component which is very easy via email.

A nice to have would be the ability to recompute matches with minimal disruption when someone drops out.

Just something to consider.

<comment><AUTHOR> The recompute of matches is a really nice idea. I had to do it myself with my group of friends and it was a bit painful. I understand the privacy issue of sharing the phone numbers, I will try to come up with other solutions.</comment></comment></comment>


Human Rights at a Global Crossroads – Robert Tibbo and Edward Snowden [video] - <AUTHOR> https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10574-human_rights_at_a_global_crossroads <comment><AUTHOR> PSA: This is the live streaming URL. An archived version will be available a few hours after the talk with the rest of the archived talks, on media.ccc.de [0]

All talks at 36C3 are live-translated between English and German, and into one additional language (in this case, French)) [1].

If you find any talks on the schedule [2] that seem interesting but are in a language you're not fluent in, use the 'native'/'translated' switcher in the video player.

[0] [https://media.ccc.de/c/36c3](https://media.ccc.de/c/36c3)

[1] [https://c3lingo.org/](https://c3lingo.org/)

[2] [https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2019/Fahrplan/index....](https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2019/Fahrplan/index...).

<comment><USER2> You can watch the "Relive" here: [http://streaming.media.ccc.de/36c3/relive/10574](http://streaming.media.ccc.de/36c3/relive/10574)

Mods, might want to change to ^ until it's been proper released

<comment><USER3> Ok, we've changed to that from [http://streaming.media.ccc.de/36c3/halla](http://streaming.media.ccc.de/36c3/halla).

Edit: looks like there's a permanent link, so we'll use that instead.</comment></comment></comment>


Vim 8.0 released - <AUTHOR> http://www.vim.org/ <comment><USER2> One point worth noting on this new release: there's finally an up-to-date official Windows package.</comment>


Show HN: My first web app - HN Channel - <AUTHOR> http://www.hnchannel.com

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of the reddit.tv project. Its a cool way to experience video content that is posted on HN. Would be cool if you could extract videos from submitted links that aren't from youtube/vimeo, but are like a The Verge link with a video embedded.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback! Great idea! I will look into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice job for your first web app :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the kind words!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> one thing should be there, and is simple enough : The "Previous" video button!

since there is no drop down or side menu, a previous button should have been there !

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! Totally agree. I thought about using History API also.</comment></comment>


There's No Such Thing as a Brogrammer - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5910824/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-brogrammer

<comment><USER2> OK, so you've never seen one therefore they don't exist? DarkShikari and fuzzix here claim to have met them.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's not such thing as 'No Such Thing'. This pseudomeme has reached heights.</comment>


Rumor: Baidu Hires Stanford AI Lab Director - <AUTHOR> http://www.marbridgeconsulting.com/marbridgedaily/2014-05-15/article/74934/rumor_baidu_hires_stanford_ai_lab_director

<comment><USER2> This seems to be "reporting" from an unconfirmed rumor that was originally posted here and has been bouncing around the chinese net for the last 24 hours (I saw it a few hours ago)

Original source: [http://www.marbridgeconsulting.com/marbridgedaily/2014-05-15...](http://www.marbridgeconsulting.com/marbridgedaily/2014-05-15/article/74934/rumor_baidu_hires_stanford_ai_lab_director)

<comment><USER3> We've changed the url to that from [http://www.pingwest.com/will-andrew-ng- join-baidu-idl/](http://www.pingwest.com/will-andrew-ng-join-baidu-idl/). We're also going to bury this story until it's confirmed. Pure rumor doesn't make for a good HN post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> this rumor has been confirmed by a mail inside baidu, which is spreading on Weibo.com</comment>


Rendering Worlds with Two Triangles with raytracing on the GPU in 4096 bytes [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.iquilezles.org/www/material/nvscene2008/rwwtt.pdf

<comment><USER2> Discussion from last time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8070879](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8070879)

</comment><comment><USER3> Distance field marching has some pros and cons (the biggest downside is that it takes many steps when you get close to an object but not close enough to intersect it).

<self promo> If anyone is interested, I am presenting a new method soon that is a hybrid of distance field marching (explained in this paper) and some other pretty simple techniques. Preview here:

[https://twitter.com/gavanw/status/590884138871230464](https://twitter.com/gavanw/status/590884138871230464)

<comment><USER4> No shame in self promo, improving and sharing techniques is something very cool :)

<comment><USER3> :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Came upon the article while trying to understand how this example works: [https://www.shadertoy.com/view/MsX3WN](https://www.shadertoy.com/view/MsX3WN)

</comment><comment><USER5> The part where he shows the super simple blending of the monster's 'legs' with the sphere (page 42), opened up in my mind a lot of possibilities for procedural model generation I hadn't considered before. Eventually I understood why it was possible/powerful (via a certain generalization called 'FRep': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_representation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_representation)). Very different from the sort of 'polygon stitching' I thought was necessary (e.g. when I tried this: [https://github.com/westoncb/3D-Mushroom- Generator](https://github.com/westoncb/3D-Mushroom-Generator))

The fact that you can do such cool things in real-time with raymarching (as the Shadertoy website is largely a showcase of) is pretty awesome. I have tried building raymarched games on iOS and Android—but I've only gotten to the point of setting up basic scenes and estimating it's still not quite possible to do a full game this way, yet (on mobile anyway). Maybe something very simple at 30fps on a nice device.

<comment><USER6> If you want to do it in realtime, your best bet is to use Marching Cubes to tessellate the isosurface into a triangle mesh. You can either do that every frame, or cache the result and animate it via conventional means.

<comment><USER5> That's an interesting idea. Thanks. Though, personally, a big part of what appeals to me about rendering with distance fields is the simplicity of it: no triangles and, most everything is in the shader so I don't have to waste time fine tuning how my buffers are pushed around for OpenGL.</comment></comment></comment>


Old-school desktop using Debian Jessie - <AUTHOR> http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/osd.html <comment><USER2> I tried to live in this world. I still have the puppet modules I used for it up on Github [0]. Start from the base system, disable installing recommended packages, and set up _exactly_ what you want. Marvel at how you can run `pstree` without the output scrolling and that you know what each process does and how to configure it.

I'd switched to this setup after getting fed up with bugs that I couldn't get a handle on troubleshooting. Things like NetworkManager forgetting I had a wireless network interface until I restarted my GNOME session. After a while though, constantly tweaking my setup to cope with new needs became tedious. A "stock" linux distribution and desktop environment may have felt opaque, but it offered a lot of integrations and polish that I struggled to replicate.

So now I'm running Ubuntu GNOME and sticking with the LTS. Thankfully I haven't had any serious issues. If I do, I'll roll up my sleeves and try to learn more about modern linux plumbing instead of running away from it.

[0] [https://github.com/sciurus/personal- puppet/tree/master/modul...](https://github.com/sciurus/personal- puppet/tree/master/modules/software/manifests)

</comment><comment><USER3> I run a similar system, but with OpenBSD. I don't have to fight systemd and DBus and PulseAudio there. I find OpenBSD to be a much better put together system in general, at the expense of some desktopy things I'd rather do without anyway.

</comment><comment><USER4> That's how I always install my systems. A few differences in my process:

\- If you will have net access during installation, get the netinst image instead of downloading 500MB of stuff you won't need.

\- Instead of sprinkling "\--no-install-recommends" on every apt command, you can configure it as the default: [http://superuser.com/a/615583/93821](http://superuser.com/a/615583/93821)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I follow that process too. I almost always use netinst. There is also a mini iso.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seeing the systemd removal steps, it seems like a lot of what has been said about systemd being 'optional' is becoming less and less true. It's spreading tentacles rapidly in the core. If systemd is the direction they (Debian majority) want to go, then go for it, but they falsely placated opposition to get it in and it's not surprising to see the departure of developers. I've been left with a bad taste and am jumping off the Linux train for good.

<comment><USER6> Devs on both sides of the issue has left, largely because politics went before engineering.

Then again, systemd seems like a very political project...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> One way to manage the boundary between "minimal" and "supported" is to use a VM-based system like Qubes.

You can simultaneously occupy multiple "timelines", e.g. hand-built Linux from scratch, Ubuntu LTS, bleeding-edge Debian, and even Windows -- each in an isolated VM.

</comment><comment><USER8> "mpg123 has no controls..."

It does with the -C option:

        -C, --control
            Enable  terminal control keys. By default use 's' or the space bar to
            stop/restart (pause, unpause) playback, 'f' to jump forward to the next
            song, 'b' to jump back to the beginning of the song, ',' to rewind, '.'
            to fast forward, and  'q'  to quit.  Type 'h' for a full list of
            available controls.

It's actually a very competent player, even able to play streams. Mplayer and cmus are also very good for audio playback in a minimalist environment.

</comment><comment><USER9> That's what passes for "old school" these days? No systemd, dBus or an all- encompassing GNOME Politburo? This is my normal Linux installation process. I shudder to think what the "new school" looks like.

I was expecting kernel 2.0.30, libc5, ext2, ipfwadm, FVWM 1.0 (not that FVWM2 stuff) or CDE.

</comment><comment><USER10> xterm? urxvt scrolls so fast its invisible.

Also xmonad beats icewm.

I haven't used a USB stick for anything other than OS installs in many years... ditto playing music on a desktop, a thing of the past.

I do need my emacs. (edited to add, and my vnc and rdesktop clients to access other machines)

And I personally chromium although I can respect the firefox choice.

When I read desktop I thought physical desktop as opposed to laptop, but laptop users need wifi... I've personally found that setting up a wifi gui is harder than just manually editing simple and straightforward config files.

[https://wiki.debian.org/WiFi/HowToUse#WPA- PSK_and_WPA2-PSK](https://wiki.debian.org/WiFi/HowToUse#WPA-PSK_and_WPA2-PSK)

You probably only set up one wifi network, unless you're one of those coffee shop people.

<comment><USER11> > I've personally found that setting up a wifi gui is harder than just > manually editing simple and straightforward config files.

Wicd-curses is very usable.

<comment><USER4> I like the idea of wicd, but it has given me a lot of pain when in less-than- stable WiFi environments. It also doesn't (or didn't, at least) support multiple simultaneous connections, like wired + wireless, which are occasionally useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I guess I'm "old-school". Get off my lawn.

</comment><comment><USER13> I wound up with something resembling this installation by going in reverse. I installed Ubuntu, confirmed that all my hardware was working, including suspend, volume buttons, etc (Thinkpads) and then started uninstalling or disabling things, leaving me with no desktop environment, dwm, and a very responsive experience on old hardware.

</comment><comment><USER14> Similar philosophy, except archlinux, systemd, wmii (no destkop), no office suite. Emacs, Chromium, mpv, moc, transmission.

</comment><comment><USER15> "How to make Debian sorta more like Slackware?"

I just thought it was funny how much the end result resembled the default Slackware install. Also for power management I'd recommend tlp[0] over laptop- mode-tools.

[0] [http://linrunner.de/en/tlp/tlp.html](http://linrunner.de/en/tlp/tlp.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> Old-school is not particularly old. I was expecting something like CDE.

</comment><comment><USER17> I run a similar setup, on a X60, with more "modern" adaptations :

\- systemd allows me to have insanely fast boot, and perfect control on what get started at boot. Debian likes to start everything and the kitchensync by default, after you installed it. My systemd is compiled with a non-standard path so only the .services I put there get run.

\- coreboot replaces the bios, likewise for the added freedom, the hackability, and the speed gains. At the moment I can boot to a command line in less than 5 seconds (because of grub and stuff), but I want to optimize that further (the kernel and systemd each take less than 1 second, coreboot a bit over their total - 3s is feasible now by removing grub menus, but I'd like less than 2s so I guess I'll have to dig into things :-)

\- xorg is nice because it's like having an almost infinite number of VTs. Yeah I know screen and the likes, but there're other nice things you get from X, like the ability to display many different fonts, a very large unicode range, graphs, etc.

\- lxde is quite minimal and non intrusive, yet you get modern things like default application, .desktop file to start programs, etc.

\- for all my office needs, I use Microsoft Office in wine. Runs very fast, fully unicode aware. That's cool because I'm using a xmodmap for mathematical greek letters in the 3rd level, it all works!!

¬∞ / ¹≈ / ²≠ / ³∇ / ⁴∀ / ⁵∪ / ⁶∩ / ⁷∈ / ⁸⊂ / ⁹≽ / ⁰≿ / ⁻ ⃗ / ⁺±

θΘ / ωΩ / ɛƐ / ρϱ / ꚍꚌ / ψΨ / υϒ / ι∫ / ϖϵ / πΠ / ̂ ̈ / ̃ ̧ / ̊ ̀

α∂ / σΣ / δΔ / φΦ / ɣΓ / ηϘ / ϕϑ / 𝟀κ / λΛ / ̅ ́ / ̆ ̇

ζϟ / ξΞ / ςϚ / √⊥ / βϐ / νͲ / μϡ / ≤≺ / ≥≻ / / ⃝

I fully agree that starting from a minimal debian install is the way to go to avoid too much cruft. There are many things I'm glad I'm not using, such as NetworkManager and the likes (hopefully to be superseded by systemd some day) but my setup is generally modern enough to do everything I need, while fast enough even on 2006-era hardware, and old-school enough as in "if there's a problem, I can pinpoint where it comes from and fix it"

It even replaced a very-recent macbook as my default computer.

There're many gains from using "modern stuff". I'd have killed to get something as good as systemd and the current support of wine in the early 2000.

My take is to take the best free software has to offer, whether it's old or new, to match your needs.

EDIT: I boot my laptop whenever I want to use it, because a few seconds is a rounding error, and this saves more power than software suspend. I do suspend when I take a short break. Congrats on the fast boot time without systemd, but it's not the easiest way :-) My systemd starts a minimal debian testing in 700 ms. The kernel takes a bit above that.

<comment><USER18> How often do you boot?

I'm of the old-skool Unix generation when 500 day uptime on a SPARC or similar was normal and even 1000 day wasn't considered particularly impressive. And we never worried about what was or wasn't started at boot, cos that was easy.

<comment><USER19> That's great for my home server, which only gets rebooted when something goes wrong and/or I swap hardware.

But I've yet to experience those kind of uptimes for my laptop - either I forget to plug the charger in, or I've dropped it, or it's decided to shut down because "someone" in my house decided that covering the went with a blanket was a good idea.

It just lives a much harsher life, and as a result boot times matter because these things have a way of always happening when I urgently need to do something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Also interesting the debian package "usbmount": auto mounts plugged in sticks as "/media/usb"

</comment><comment><USER21> Is Debian Jessie part relevant? I could do it on Wheezy or Ubuntu?

<comment><USER22> The first step is 'replace systemd with sysvinit', so there is some relevance.</comment></comment>


Planet Earth doomed to become 'hellish death world' like Venus, Nasa says - <AUTHOR> http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/19/planet-earth-doomed-become-hellish-death-world-like-venus-nasa-researchers-warn-7479777/ <comment><USER2> Not that I'm surprised, but there's a terrible mismatch between the article title and its content.

"Venus may show us the possible future of Earth" is very different from "Earth is doomed to become like Venus".</comment>