Inverse Live Coding: A practice for learning web development - <AUTHOR> https://computinged.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/inverse-live-coding-a-practice-for-teaching-web-development/ <comment><USER2> Not meant to be an attack and possibly I am missing something but if I paid to take a course at a university and the person teaching it was only ever a step ahead of me at any time... I'd have never taken the course.

This style of teaching (I feel) gives the illusion of confidence that the student is on the right track although its barely more than blind leading the blind.

Possibly an unpopular opinion but I have been tricked by folks like this in the working world and academia...I feel it is the source of much of my frustration with CS as a profession.

</comment><comment><USER3> > I finished my first semester teaching at the University of Michigan. I > taught EECS 493 User Interface Development all on the Web. It was a tough > class for me since I had never before this class used JavaScript, jQuery, or > CSS. I learned a lot, but I also had to teach it.

> I could not live code in this class. I didn't know the material well enough. > It took me too long to code, and I couldn't recover from mistakes in front > of the class.

Does it bother anyone else that the author was teaching something they weren't proficient in? Is this normal for colleges?

<comment><USER4> Yes, this bothers me greatly, particularly since in 2018-19 you could throw a pebble in any direction and hit someone who knows JS/jQuery/CSS/HTML. You almost have to go out of your way to find someone who doesn't. I'm sure this guy is great at other things but students are paying thousands of dollars for this education.

I only remember having one prof who clearly didn't know the material. He spent most of every class just copying code onto the board by hand, then trying to talk about it a bit. I really didn't learn much in that class. Unfortunately it was the foundational C++ class at my university and really kind of handicapped me in successive classes that were also taught in C++.

My alma mater? The University of Michigan.

<comment><USER5> > in 2018-19 you could throw a pebble in any direction and hit someone who > knows JS/jQuery/CSS/HTML.

You could, but they all have jobs doing actual programming. Universities pay sub-poverty wages to adjuncts to teach most of their classes and so this is what they get. It sounds like this person at least cares and is working hard to teach the material.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a format that I've thought for some time would work exceptionally well in technical interviews: rather than ask a bunch of questions, have a small set of problems that start from a working piece of code in need of work.

This removes some of the subjectivity from a completely open-ended coding assignment, as well as reducing the amount of effort required, because you can do a few small problems rather than a single huge one that typically involves working over a weekend.

The only downside is it's a lot more effort to set up than either an open assignment or a standard Q&A-based interview. You don't want to throw anyone into real production problems for a variety of reasons. The initial setup has to be understandable within a few minutes of code review.

<comment><USER7> Everything I've ever read or heard about technical interviewing in the past 5 years basically says your idea (and other work sample-type things) is the way to go. And it's kind of obvious when you think about it. Seeing how someone works in practice is almost always going to tell you a lot more about their potential effectiveness as an employee compared to only asking them a bunch of questions or having them solve a puzzle or whiteboard a CS algorithm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Thanks for all the great comments!

It's true that I was just a step ahead of the students. However, I was using course materials designed by people who knew the material, I had veteran TA's (who could answer the questions), and I do have over 30 years of teaching experience. This was an advantage when teaching this class. I could figure out when the lecture slides weren't enough for _me_ to understand, so I added more to them to make them understandable for the _students_. My expertise is in teaching: Figuring out how to make things learnable by students.

In the end, the Web programming part was only a portion of the course -- the rest of it was on design and development process, architecture, and issues like accessibility, all of which I am more familiar with. (For example, because I'm an old Smalltalk programmer, I can explain where MVC came from and strengths/weaknesses better than many.)

The course evaluations were very positive. I think the class worked.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have struggled with the speed at which I can write code live in class. It is hard to do it fast enough to keep students interested. It is also difficult to show even moderately complex programs from start to finish.

I have created a tool that allows me to move quickly through my code where students can still see how the solution evolves. I can comment at interesting points in the development of the code and attach hand drawn pics and screenshots. Here are some examples:

[https://ourcodestories.com/markm208/Playlist/All](https://ourcodestories.com/markm208/Playlist/All)

(Click on the >> button to move from comment to comment. These work best on a big screen)

I show some of these in class before asking the students to work on a related problem. I require the students to view the rest outside of class.

My students really like these. They prefer them to textbooks (no surprise) and videos covering similar material.

The tool to create these 'playbacks' is free and open source (currently a VS Code plugin). I have also created the site to share these with others. I am looking for feedback.

<comment><USER10> What's the name of this VS Code plugin?

<comment><USER11> [https://markm208.github.io/storyteller/install.html](https://markm208.github.io/storyteller/install.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been involved in coding education for about 7 years and this is the approach I've always taken. It works!

At [https://www.missionbit.com/](https://www.missionbit.com/) I taught a web development class for a while and we'd start with a pre-built but very simple web application. It was a "social wall" that displayed a list of messages and had a textbox that let people create new messages.

It used a real database, was ready to deploy on day 0, but did only that one thing (two endpoints, one database table, etc.).

Over the class students would add new features (liking, sorting, user authentication, etc.).

It works well if the project(s) connect!

</comment><comment><USER13> I had exactly one prof who would live code in class, and I learned the by far the most in his classes. Highly recommend this approach to anyone teaching anything code related.

<comment><USER14> Do you attribute your learning the most to the live coding? If so, what was it about it that helped you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really think the inverse model of teaching is a great one.

The classic model just seems so turned around. Using class time for live teachers to deliver static content seems insane. And then making sure during the time when students have the most questions(at home doing the work) is also the time when they it's the hardest to ask teacher's questions.

</comment><comment><USER16> I can only adore live-coders. If somebody watches my screen I get paralyzed.

</comment><comment><USER17> In college: They give me options for the implementation (theory first, then practice based on that theory).

In real world: They give me the goal, let me find the theory.

It's the finding the right theory for the implementation a goal is the toughest part here for a graduated.

</comment><comment><USER18> I really enjoyed this method and feel that I benefitted alot from the peer programing aspect - that part was key.</comment>


Riot.js 1kb client-side MVP framework - <AUTHOR> https://moot.it/riotjs/

<comment><USER2> > No "Backbone way", "Angular way" or "Ember way". Frameworks come and go but > classic programming skills are forever.

Finally somebody gets it. Building on top of some giant abstraction over abstractions is not an investment in the future, it's just a timebomb of technical debt. The landscape changes so fast the ability to easily replace a tool is a very desirable feature. This author has the right attitude, everyone else seems to be going around with blinders on, searching for a silver bullet.</comment>


Video interview with Ed Freyfogle, founder of real estate search engine Nestoria - <AUTHOR> http://www.realpundit.com/home/2014/ed-freyfogle-the-exclusive-interview-with-real-estate-search-engine-nestorias-co-founder

<comment><USER2> Great to see this interview with Ed - he's one of our angel investors, very smart, and a top guy all round!</comment>


The Inexplicably Fascinating Japanese Art of Being Useless - <AUTHOR> http://www.messynessychic.com/2018/09/21/the-inexplicably-fascinating-japanese-art-of-being-useless/ <comment><USER2> True factoid: one remarkably useless chindogu was a device that lets you hold a camera at arm's length so you can take a photo of yourself -- now known as the selfie stick.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfie_stick#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfie_stick#History)

<comment><USER3> > True factoid: one remarkably useless chindogu was a device that lets you > hold a camera at arm's length so you can take a photo of yourself -- now > known as the selfie stick.

A selfie stick with a film camera would have _truly_ been useless. You'd probably only get a photo of some random thing behind you, and only learn of your mistake a week later. It took the invention of digital cameras with front-facing screens to make them practical.

<comment><USER4> Lol! It's not digital cameras that created selfie sticks, it's social media. I had a Konica disposable super wide angle camera with a mirror on the front that showed the field of view. And an Olympus with a recessed LED that was only visible if your face was in the field of view. Self portraits are way older than digital cameras!

<comment><USER5> Self portraits are even older than photography. For example, I saw a self portrait in a gallery painted 200 years ago and realized that it can be called a selfie too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of The Uncomfortable, a more recent project. I really enjoyed these!

[https://www.theuncomfortable.com](https://www.theuncomfortable.com)

<comment><USER7> Reminds me of coffeepot for masochists (c. 1969)

[https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/impossible- objects](https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/impossible-objects)

<comment><USER8> As featured on the cover of Don Norman's book "the design of everyday things", which I'd recommend to anyone involved in designing or building things to be used by people

<comment><USER9> And strangely enough it gave the title to the book in some countries, in Italy it is "La caffettiera del masochista".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hmm somewhat scary that I thought "hey, those earrings with earplugs, and the funnel glasses for eye drops, those seem pretty useful!"

And while I don't think they sell that "lipstick mask", an eyebrow stencil is an actual product that is basically the same thing for your eyebrows.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm pretty interested in the real products that millions of people buy that are actually useless.

Like all the cosmetics and supplements that don't actually improve anything.

</comment><comment><USER12> I am of a generation of Brits that have known about chindogu since childhood in the mid 90s thanks to the excellent children's TV program It'll Never Work - a program about inventions.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27ll_Never_Work%3F](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27ll_Never_Work%3F)

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm pretty fed up of seeing the "noodle bib" image recycled constantly.

It's actually just a shower cap/hat to stop soap getting in kids eyes that's quite common in Japan. Somebody just put it on their face... I guess as a joke in this instance.

<comment><USER14> Surprisingly they didn't have the "breastfeeding"-device for dads to let infants suckle milk from dad's "breast".

And, while one of the requirements for chindogu is to not be humorous, some made me chuckle, so maybe it's in the eye of the beholder.

<comment> Digit-Al I may be interpreting it wrong, but I don't think the requirement was "don't be humorous", I think it was don't do it just to be humorous. In other words, if the idea is humorous to some, that is fine, but you shouldn't try to create an idea just to fit a joke. Not sure if I've explained that clearly, but hopefully I've got my point across :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was useless long before it was hip! Once again, I am a man ahead of his time.

</comment><comment><USER16> I recently found a very practical "thing strapped to shoe". While cleaning your hardwood or tile floor, strap a flashlight to your foot and allow it to cast oblique light across the surface. Dirt will immediately be evident on account of the shadows the dirt makes.

</comment><comment><USER17> [http://www.laboiteverte.fr/les-objets-introuvables-de- jacque...](http://www.laboiteverte.fr/les-objets-introuvables-de-jacques- carelman/)

1969\. I cherish my copy

</comment><comment><USER18> Chindōgu is one of the joyful things I love about Japanese culture (along with purposefully odd Engrish on shirts, drunk karaoke, washlets, and walls and walls of vending machines).

</comment><comment><USER19> One of the delightful things about taking the train in Japan is the mail order catalog you will sometimes find in the seat pocket. It's guaranteed to have several amazingly weird innovations for sale, in line with the toilet roll helmet or the floor mop baby onesie. I've often thought, "I get that this thing can on occasion be somewhat useful to someone somewhere, but how can it possibly be profitable to mass-produce?"

</comment><comment><USER20> the last one (the "coke pocket protector") has a very functional AMERICAN cousin:

[https://bevbuckle.com](https://bevbuckle.com)

<comment><USER20> Huh apparently my autocorrect thinks AMERICAN should be all caps.

<comment><USER21> Lol

<comment><USER21> I meant LOL

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I instantly thought of Ron Popeil (Ronco) when I saw this...

1 - Pocket Fisherman, around 1975 2 - Buttoneer, around 1977

I wonder how much effect Popeil had/has on Kawakami.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fh_YwAnv7w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fh_YwAnv7w) [1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN2ttNu3F_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN2ttNu3F_M)

</comment><comment><USER23> Pretty decent tribute (?) site: [http://www.chindogu.com](http://www.chindogu.com)

</comment><comment><USER24> Reminds me of the Masochist's Teapot

[https://goo.gl/images/Wq1Jr1](https://goo.gl/images/Wq1Jr1)

</comment><comment><USER25> In the west we have the pizza pouch.

</comment><comment><USER26> Helps to prevent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori)

<comment><USER27> Idk, I can see someone drawn to introvertism seeing these creations, seeing culture embrace what wast supposed to be ironic self-ridicule as just another commodity. I am not confident that would draw them from the warm embrace of the familiar and unthreatening self-controled domain they choose to occupy.</comment></comment>


Brendan Eich's Homepage 15 Years Ago - <AUTHOR> http://web.archive.org/web/19990128210124/http://people.netscape.com/brendan/

<comment><USER2> Oh hey, it's the dancing girl gif! [http://contemporary-home- computing.org/1tb/archives/2466](http://contemporary-home- computing.org/1tb/archives/2466) The animation isn't actually from Chuck Poynter [http://contemporary-home- computing.org/1tb/archives/2559](http://contemporary-home- computing.org/1tb/archives/2559)

</comment><comment><USER3> This seems really random. What was the point of posting it now?

I thought I was going to see something strongly relevant to his recent travails, but I didn't notice anything

I guess... posting this amateurish old page for this particular guy at this particular moment in time could look a bit like mockery, though I'm sure that wasn't intentional.

</comment><comment><USER4> He says very kind words for Chelsea Clinton:

I think that Chelsea Clinton is the coolest first daughter ever. I've been so impressed by how she has been able to put all of the Washington scandals behind her and focus on her studies at Stanford. I've been thinking of starting a Silicon Valley chapter of the Chelsea Clinton fan-club. Chelsea if you ever read this send me some mail!

Doesn't sound like the rantings of a die-hard Republican. Maybe he is a Democrat who just doesn't support gay marriage? Could liberals have been attacking one of their own?

<comment><USER5> I remember running into a couple guys/geeks in the late 90s SV that had a variation on a fantasy involving them white knighting Chelsea into a torrid love affair. I think the mocking of her appearance earlier in the decade made her seem more attainable. Also, she was going to Stanford, so obviously she's into nerdy dudes.

I specifically recall overhearing a guy giving another advice about where she might likely appear on campus and at what time. One had a rather detailed plan for how he'd approach her. It was a weird time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What, no Webrings? :)</comment>


Navajo Code Talker John Pinto Dies, Age 94 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-24/urgent-john-pinto-long-serving-navajo-lawmaker-in-new-mexico-dies <comment><USER2> Interesting, their names, "Navajo", "Pinto", "Padilla" suggest quite a lot of contact with Spanish conquerors before the English got there.

<comment><USER3> A few hundred years worth as part of New Spain and Mexico, yes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo)</comment></comment>


The Book vs. The Kindle - <AUTHOR> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/07/book-vs-kindle <comment><USER2> I think that the Kindle would be much more successful if it allowed many more formats than just the Amazon approved books (in Topaz format i think).

If I could carry around all of my kindle books and a pdf of my homework assignments and free e-books found online etc etc I would be much more interested in buying a kindle.

Also, I never actually read the Terms & Agreements for services, but for the kindle it apparently does matter because Amazon is remotely deleting books that people have legitimately purchased. There is another post on HN with an article about it. If Amazon could delete things on my Kindle I would never get one and stick to the good old paper versions.

<comment><USER3> _If I could carry around all of my kindle books and a pdf of my homework assignments_

New kindle supports pdf (and anything you can translate into pdf).

 _Amazon is remotely deleting books that people have legitimately purchased_

If you defined "legitimately" as "gave money for", yes. Legally, no. Just because I pay money and think a transaction is legal doesn't make it so.

<comment><USER2> _Just because I pay money and think a transaction is legal doesn't make it so._

That is true. However, that is again Amazon's fault because they sold him the book without having the rights to do so. Instead of admitting their mistake and using excellent customer service to fix the problem they just deleted the book without any thought for the customer. They could have sent him a paper copy without him even asking, notified him before the deletion so he could save his notes and/or dealt with the publisher directly and obtained the rights to avoid the whole situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wonder if the authors consider it thinkable that even given the negatives (which exist), I'm (sometimes) willing to give up some rights for the convenience of starting to read a book immediately and having it always available?

</comment><comment><USER4> As a book collector, I love print editions of books, but digital books are inevitably going to become more prevelent. And while I don't think paper books will be going away any time soon, ebooks will take their toll on bookstores.

Just as digital music (arguably) has not hurt record sales, it has (again arguably) had its toll on bricks and mortar music stores. It is a way of life, and love it or hate it, it is inevitable.

<comment><USER5> There is a big difference between books and music/video. With books, it is not only the content but the medium that is part of the experience.

A paperback is lightweight, cheap, durable and independent of other resources. Most importantly, a book as an experience is a long, drawn out affair. Books take hours to enjoy, so it's of little importance how many I can carry at a time.

Music/movies have the opposite effect ~ they are shorter durations of entertainment, so the more I can carry, the more I can enjoy the experience. The major advantage of digital music is that I can carry my whole library with me in my pocket. Even if I could do this with my bookcase, there is little reason for me to do so. This defeats one of the major advantages of kindle.

I don't disagree with anything you say, but I don't think the death of the book will happen any time in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime to be honest.

<comment><USER6> It depends on how you read. I am often reading several books at any one time (obviously not simultaneously) so having the ability to read one book for a while and then effortlessly switch to another at any time/location is a big plus for me. Having had the kindle dx for a while now, I find it pretty much equivalent to reading a paper book and I don't miss the paper versions at all.

<comment><USER7> I do the same. I read easier books that don't require in-depth understanding on the iPhone Kindle app, and I go ahead and buy books that I know I'm going to have to look back to again and again.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Transitioning from engineering management to a business role? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I'd like to transition from my current role as an engineering manager at [major SV hardware/software company] to a more strategic, business-oriented role at a startup (note: I want to remain deeply involved in the product).
However, I have no business experience other than some minor contracting work several years ago.
Has anyone here made a similar transition? What types of things should I focus on or avoid?
Thanks!
[Edit: whitespace] <comment><USER2> Being "business oriented" means generating revenue. Find ways of becoming part of the process from marketing to sales. The closer to the sales end of the chain, the more valuable you will be to your company.

So you'll need to come up to speed in both theory and practice on that side of the divide. I did it by volunteering to do business development and getting out of the office and generating sales. At first it was very hard, being technically oriented it was quite a shift to move across to the client's side in looking at the product range.

In general terms "consultative sales" is the descriptive term. There are many good books on the topic and you would do well to read Steve Blank's blog and books. But the real crunch comes with putting all the theory into practice and constantly evolving as a BDM.</comment>


The cult of rotary mixers - <AUTHOR> https://www.residentadvisor.net/features/3275 <comment><USER2> I've been playing records for a few years and have had the pleasure of playing with a DJR400. Some personal additions to the article I'd like to share:

1\. The physical feel of the device is amazing. Every knob feels and looks both smooth and incredibly sturdy. It's like the difference between driving a Mazda and a Porsche. Madza might be more versatile, practical, and cost- effective. But which one of them is more fun to use?

2\. Simpler design. Sometimes less is more, especially at DJ gigs. The article kind of hints at this, but part of the feel is not just the quality of the parts but how little (visible) parts the device has. Just compare how the Xone (one of the most respected lines of mixers) looks: [https://i.pinimg.com/474x/35/52/dd/3552dd4fbb206be6a4425523e...](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/35/52/dd/3552dd4fbb206be6a4425523e9a26b10 --dj-animation-dj-sound.jpg) to the DJR-400:[http://www.electronique- spectacle.com/media/DJR400.jpg](http://www.electronique- spectacle.com/media/DJR400.jpg) Yet the tools in DJR-400 are just fine. I definitely wouldn't want a DJR-400 for a 10-hour minimal techno set, but for blasting out house music in a packed club there might not be anything better at that price point.

3\. You can do amazing tricks with the above mentioned Xone mixer (you could argue that it's almost a musical instrument of its own), but the way of operating reminds me more of a computer than an analogue device. There's a reason why so many DJs still prefer vinyl. The digital XDJ stations are even "worse" in this aspect with their LCD touchscreens and endless configuration options behind menu trees. After a long day sitting on a computer, the last thing I want is to feel like going to stand next to another computer.

4\. If a problem occurs on an analogue device there are only a few things that could have gone wrong; there's some dust where there shouldn't be, some cable is loose, there's problems with electricity or some part is physically bent. But with these increasingly digital tools it's more like debugging and fixing a computer with proprietary software. There's an endless amount of error modes and although the reliability of the high-end models is still excellent, it's just another thing to keep in the back of your mind when you're trying to focus on your music and expression. The new rotary mixers are a statement against this trend of increasing digitalisation that has entered the mixer market, too.

<comment><USER3> > After a long day sitting on a computer, the last thing I want is to feel > like going to stand next to another computer.

Utterly tangential, but this is why some of us still love shooting 35mm film.

<comment><USER4> ...or why some of use shoot on manual-forward digital lines like the Fuji X-Series. :) I basically never look at the menus, and have never once felt like I had to 'debug' my camera.

<comment><USER3> Yes! Have you seen the Leica M10-D? Oh man I'd like that.

[http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M10-D](http://en.leica- camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M10-D)

No screen. It has a wind lever! (I asked in the shop, it just functions as a thumb-stop. Shame it doesn't have a true Leica fabric shutter...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought this was gonna be about blenders :(

<comment><USER6> I expected it to be about Kitchen Aid. They have cult like following.

<comment><USER7> Same here. KA stand mixers are a de rigeur status item / badge that says "Hey, we've attained a certain socioeconomic status but we're not flashy about it! We just wanna make some pizza dough."

I'm a victim of this cult myself, and like everybody else I know who has one, ours gets used probably three or four times per year, max. It's such a cumbersome appliance to deal with that most of the time, I just use a fork and mixing bowl.

edit : also the noise is awful -- can't use it after bedtime unless I wanna wake the bambino

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One feature that faders have is clear visual and haptic feedback - a thing that is not as clear with knobs. For rotary controls not only are the markings smaller if they exist at all but you have to deal with angles instead of distances, for which we know from studies of pie charts for example, our brains are not well equipped for. Then there is the problem that for haptics you need a marking on the circumfence which you can't see in every position, so you need another marker on top - I,ve rarely seen this design. I assume a blind person could use a fader easily but not necessarily a knob.

Where all of this becomes relevant is when we consider digital controllers. If we accept knobs without any visual and physical markings at all we gain an important feature - we can save and recall pot positions. Visual feedback can be regained with a display or a ring of LEDs around the knob or both. With a physical fader all of this is hard to achieve. You need motorized faders, which exist, but are expensive and have a bunch of disadvantages.

<comment><USER9> I think you've covered the real crux of it. Any DJ worth their salt can switch between faders and rotaries but faders do offer an additional visual feedback plus are a little easier for doing some turntablism effects (which is why I tend to favour faders when given an option between the two). However rotaries really come into their own on digital mixers / MIDI controllers.

<comment><USER10> First it signal's "I don't do superfluous effects and scratches even if I wanted." The boutique type mixer has a whole different niche market than most comparably mass market mixers.

Also with faders it's easier to do audible mistakes (especially when not sober) since smooth linear motion seems harder to control, than a mapping to rotary motion. And they're harder to accidentally move, (and kids stay away from them, since they dont know what to do).

Let just look at the recently announced Denon Prime 4 all in one solution. Looks great on concept, specs and useful features, but still manages to look like a flashy plastic toy in.

<comment><USER11> > First it signal's "I don't do superfluous effects and scratches even if I > wanted."

I wish that included the kind of DJs that can't resist driving their isolators hard every 30 seconds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> All mixers use almost all rotary controls — the only non rotary controls on most mixers are the channel faders and the cross fader. The primary advantage of a channel fader not being rotary is that you can see at a glance where it's at, and quickly move from one setting to another to a rough level of precision. When you're doing hip hop or certain kinds of house mixing (think your classic Chicago house style like Bad Boy Bill), that's essential. You're just banging through records a couple minutes at a time, and your hands are off the mixer all the time in your record bag or whatever.

I used to be a progressive house or trance dj, though and I was playing 10 minute records with 3-4 minute transitions and I tended to have my hands on the mixer all the time making minute adjustments, so a rotary mixer with the finer control made more sense.

All the nonsense about sound quality is just bullshit. Nobody at a night club gives a shit about sound quality, as long as like your record needle is clean and you aren't doing obvious bullshit like pushing the sound into the red.

I was a DJ for five or 6 years— I played everything from dive bars to mega clubs for thousands of people. I've talked to hundreds of DJ's about djing, including very well known names. I've never once had a conversation with any of them about audiophile stuff in the context of a club. Some of them are into it in their home studios, but when you're talking about mixers and turntables— it's only about user interface issues (or the quality of the effects add ons)

<comment><USER13> There has been a renewed focus at parties over the last few years, particularly within the minimal techno scene and especially in the Romanian subset of that genre, on quality sound at parties.

Granted, those parties and that music are designed specifically for "the heads", so they're few and far between in the larger picture of club culture, but they do manage to throw a lot of festivals (see: Sunwaves) with thousands of people that have impeccable sound.

<comment><USER14> 20 years ago UK raves/festivals used to advertise what systems they had as much as the DJs playing. It's not a new thing. I remember deciding that I would rather go to certain places not based on who was playing but that they had a Turbosound rig.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Audiophile stuff is so often a bunch of baloney, but a vintage Bozak or Urei rotary actually does sound superior to modern mixers in a pretty noticeable way. Even for colder electronic stuff like minimal techno, I think the discrete components make things sound rounder and just more pleasant.

Maybe the best rotary mixers being built today are by a guy in Adelaide, Australia (1). You'll have to wait 3 months (at least) for him to build it.

(1) [https://condesaelectronics.com/product- category/mixers/](https://condesaelectronics.com/product-category/mixers/)

<comment><USER16> This reminds me of the best Midi sequencer in the world that is being built by Sequentix: the Cirklon (1): a no compromise hardware sequencer hand built and built to last, with unique features. The waiting list is around 6 to 10 months!

(1) [https://www.sequentix.com/shop/cirklon-hardware- sequencer](https://www.sequentix.com/shop/cirklon-hardware-sequencer)

<comment><USER9> I've never spent more than £150 on a MIDI controller and have taken mine on the road on many occasions for live performances too.

<comment><USER17> The Cirklon is not a midi controller, but a sequencer. There is nothing else on the market with its same feature set and build quality. It is a wonderful device and there's a reason they are so crazily popular.

<comment><USER9> It's still just a MIDI controller at its heart. But in any case MIDI sequencers aren't a new thing. You could achieve the same thing with an Atari ST.

Your point about build quality is the crux of the matter. These things are essentially just clocks and like with clocks you could buy a £5 budget wrist watch or a Rolex. People who wear and use their watch daily will justify the price tag of decent watch because it's sturdier, prettier and they can afford it. But that doesn't mean one watch tells the time differently to another. And equally a sturdier built MIDI sequencer doesn't make a blind bit of different to the sound quality of hardware it triggers. Which was the point I (and the former poster) was making.

Now I'm not criticising those who do want nice audio equipment - we do the same thing in IT with dev laptops and give a whole plethora of "reasons" why. Like I said earlier, if you're going to use something regularly then why wouldn't you want to use something nice?

<comment><USER17> Just because it can send MIDI messages does not make it a "MIDI controller". In fact, you can use it entirely without sending MIDI messages at all (with its control voltage interface). You're drawing a long bow.

It's not just about the build quality. It's about the interface. It's a very elegant and thoughtfully designed sequencer and there's nothing else quite like it.

The Rolex comparison is ridiculous, because Rolex watches don't even keep good time. They're overpriced jewellery. The Cirklon is not even expensive for what it is.

<comment><USER9> > _Just because it can send MIDI messages does not make it a "MIDI > controller"._

Technically it does. In the very literal sense. Perhaps what you meant to say is that this is more than just a MIDI controller? In which case I'm still waiting for you to example how (without referencing "build quality", which was never in dispute).

> _In fact, you can use it entirely without sending MIDI messages at all (with > its control voltage interface)._

VC is just what people used before MIDI was a thing. Does anyone actually still use VC or does this device just support it for compatibility with 40+ year old hardware? In any case, citing VC as a reason it's not a MIDI controller isn't a hugely convincing argument given the two are equatable and MIDI superseded VC decades ago.

> _It 's not just about the build quality. It's about the interface. It's a > very elegant and thoughtfully designed sequencer_

Personally I'd still class that as part of the built quality if you're just listing off qualities like "elegant". But I will concede that there is a lot of profession gear out there with software that would make most techies scratch their head in confusion.

> _and there 's nothing else quite like it._

But what is it about that sequencer that is so unique? I've not played on that device so happy to take your word for it if you had but from what I've seen on their blurb it doesn't sound like it offers anything I wasn't already doing on my Atari ST in the 90s - let alone any of the hardware I've owned since.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I fully embrace people buying nice hardware if want. And I agree that 1.5k isn't significant for high end gear. But my point was that you can accomplish the same thing for a fraction of the price (with no dip in sound quality either) if you're not fussed about build quality. You claim you couldn't - and you might be right about that. But whenever you're pressed to give examples you just keep coming back to build quality, which was the one thing that was never in question.

> _The Rolex comparison is ridiculous, because Rolex watches don 't even keep > good time. They're overpriced jewellery._

I don't buy watches so you'd have to excuse my ignorance there but I do feel you've completely missed the point of what an "analogy" is meant to be (ie they're not a literal like for like in ever detail).

<comment><USER17> > But whenever you're pressed to give examples you just keep coming back to > build quality, which was the one thing that was never in question.

Huh? This is the first time I've been asked to give any examples.

The build quality is fantastic, but it's the workflow (the interface design) that makes the Cirklon special (and so sought-after). There are plenty of other sequencers that can get you the same result, but music is all about the process of getting there.

> VC is just what people used before MIDI was a thing.

You should look at what's happening in the modular (specifically Eurorack) scene. Control voltage is back, with a vengeance. Most Cirklon users I know primarily use its CV interface.

It seems like you're just really out of touch. Look up some reviews or youtube videos if you want to learn more.

> I'm not trying to be argumentative here.

You're failing ;-)

<comment><USER9> > _There are plenty of other sequencers that can get you the same result, but > music is all about the process of getting there._

Yes, I completely relate to that. I tried for a long time to make Linux DAWs work for me but I just hated the process.

> _You should look at what 's happening in the modular (specifically Eurorack) > scene. Control voltage is back, with a vengeance. Most Cirklon users I know > primarily use its CV interface._

> _It seems like you 're just really out of touch. Look up some reviews or > youtube videos if you want to learn more._

Yes, does sound like I'm out of touch. Thank you, I will do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This article has surfaced some of my current frustrations with the DJ Mixer landscape. I've been DJ'ing (mostly mixing at home) for 20 years now. Started with a cheap Gemini, and got a Pioneer DJM-300 shortly after

I used that DJM-300 from probably 99-2014. It was an absolute tank. Aside from two crossfader replacements, it didn't have any issues. If the RCA's didn't get smashed in as result of a drop, I'd probably still use it.

Since then, it seems like anything under $1000 is going to have extremely poor quality potentiometers and channel faders. Even with big names like Pioneer, their low end mixers are almost guaranteed to have scratchy pots and faders in under a year. And, brands like Numark will have scratchy pots in two months.

Which, is hard for me to understand. I built two mixers for my eurorack modular setup probably 5 years ago, and used alpha pots (which are considered cheap, and cost $1/piece). No scratchy pots at all; and they get considerably more usage than my DJ setup.

I've been passively looking for something to diy, but none of the offerings are aimed at a 3-band EQ DJ setup. I'll probably break open my current mixer and replace all the pots, but it's sad that I need to do such a thing. Especially considering the retail cost of parts will be $10.

<comment> dds-dds Just on the off-chance my long search for the _right_ mixer helps anyone else: I own the Formula One FF-4000, which can be switched from fader to rotary by just a few screws and then swapping the board. (Provided you bought the optional board). (1)

The sound is beautiful, the EQ/Filter is extremely smooth, though some prefer more bite to their EQ's (a la Technics SH-EX1200), this EQ is quite transparent. The build quality is high and solid, the pots feel weighty in a good way, plus I find the FX routing to be intuitive and flexible (which is one of my bugbears about DJ mixers). Yeah OK, they're not as cool as the DJM-400;) but for my setup it's a joy to work with. They build to order, so it can be a few weeks wait, well it was for me. Luckily I live close by their workshop and got chance to go in to check on the build. Oh, they also make a 6 channel version too.

(1) [https://www.funktion-one.com/products/ff4000-dj- mixer/](https://www.funktion-one.com/products/ff4000-dj-mixer/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Rotary knobs are great, I created a react component inspired by them. [https://github.com/hugozap/react-rotary- knob](https://github.com/hugozap/react-rotary-knob)

</comment><comment><USER20> And to think....all I want is a 6/12 channel stereo mixer with 3.5mm jacks so that I can combine my PC's and ham radio(s) signals into one common set of speakers.

<comment><USER21> This may just do it, and it has one of the smallest formfactors I've seen in a mixer that supports 18 channels.

<comment><USER21> Ugh, forgot to share the link: [https://reverb.com/item/6503874-midiman- micromixer-18-18-cha...](https://reverb.com/item/6503874-midiman- micromixer-18-18-channel-mixer-12-channel-3-stereo-pairs-ultra-compact-low- profile-mixer)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> By the title I expected the article to be about kitchen blenders, as they are called mixers in my mother tongue. Do native speakers have this confusion?

<comment><USER23> Yes, I thought that too hehe, Australian here. My friend uses a Thermomix in our kitchen to do everything - I can hear it now - they're absolutely a cult. :-)

<comment><USER24> We had a Thermomix, it died (started coming up with errors) and it was out of warranty so obviously I disassembled it. You would not believe how many cockroaches were living (and had died) inside it. Ick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Growing up my mum had a Kenwood. Massive beast of a machine. Fully analogue controls. Sounded terrible, but very loud. Could take your arm off if you weren't careful. Even had a mincer attachment.

Not really sure how you would make a non-rotary mixer TBH.

<comment><USER26> Do you mean a Kenmore? Because a Kenwood would be an audio mixer like this article is talking about :D

<comment><USER27> See [https://www.kenwoodworld.com/en-int](https://www.kenwoodworld.com/en- int), they're a pretty high-end brand.</comment></comment></comment>


The time has come for software liability laws. - <AUTHOR> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2030258&x=y <comment><USER2> It's actually much simpler, don't buy or use software from a vendor that has a track record of vulnerability issues and questionable ethical decisions. I don't use Facebook for this very reason. I did not like something that Zuckerberg said once about his users and decided I could do without the service. It really is that simple.

The whole if you deliver source code you get to limit your liability idea looks like a Trojan for open source. Companies should not be cohered into providing their code base to users via regulations. If you don't like that a company does not provide it's code for inspection, then don't purchase from that vendor.

This type of regulation would fail in it's intent, the day it was enacted, vendors would raise their prices to reflect the new risks involved and the cost of the regulation would be passed on to the consumer. Further the markets would securitize the risk in the form of insurance and that risk and profit would be passed to the financial industry, who can manage the risk portfolio. So the cost gets passed to the consumer and the increased fees do nothing to further innovation but rather give the financial industry a foothold in software. So we up the cost of innovation by creating the artificial necessity of a middleman that brokers risk with no benefit to either the consumer or the innovator. This is how needless regulation kills a market and it usual happens due to those clamoring for regulation having a secondary agenda. Such as forcing code to be open. Don't get me wrong sometimes regulation is needed, but regulation should be looked at as a last resort measure.</comment>


Tesla Model 3 Invaded My Neighborhood – But It's Bigger Than That (GM Take Note) - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2019/12/01/the-tesla-model-3-invaded-my-neighborhood---but-its-bigger-than-that-gm-president-mark-reuss-take-note/ <comment><USER2> This is not the case elsewhere in the US nor is it in most of Europe.

Driving around Las Vegas for example, and you'd be hard pressed to find any electric vehicles.

With the exception of Norway (which is extremely rich), in Europe these cars are way too big. The rulers of the electric landscape are the BMW i3, Renault Zoe, and Hyndai Ioniqs and several others.

<comment><USER3> I wonder what will happen with the introduction of the VW ID3. The Up! is now electric-only too.

Here in the UK (Midlands) I see a few Teslas, very few Leafs, even fewer Zoes and the odd i3 (which you can spot from the rubberband-width wheels).

I see charging bays (normally 2 bays) in a car park of 100+ spaces, so I do not think the infrastructure is in place to support electric vehicles, nor the mindset that people would be happy to hang around for 1 hour waiting for their car to charge. They/we are too stuck on the immediate nature of the internal combustion engine and fuel refilling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is simply no contest on acceleration, ease of use and cost of ownership. In Europe gas prices alone should kick over the transition to EVs. Currently only basic emotions and resistance to change are holding back a flood.

Human behaviour (in numbers) being like that of herd animals it only takes a few neighbors to trigger the avalanche.

<comment><USER5> It's not a Matter of emotions, but where's the infrastructure, outside big cities? If you want to do a trip, you're almost in the pain and stress mode on where you can charge your vehicle. And charges take too much time at the moment.

Imagine going on a EV trip from South of Spain to South of Italy. You are almost doomed

<comment><USER6> evtripplanner.com routes you through superchargers. There are an astounding number of chargers. How about from Malaga, Spain to Reggio Calabria, Italy, here's a link [https://www.evtripplanner.com/planner/2-8/?id=99znsd1z](https://www.evtripplanner.com/planner/2-8/?id=99znsd1z). It's astounding to see all those superchargers covering all of Europe.

<comment><USER5> not in every angle. Take for example the right side of Italy...there are 2/3 Superchargers only and from Foggia to Lecce there's none (and they are like ~400KM + none around)

Also in Germany there's the same problem: if you see around Berlin, the capital, only one supercharger is there

<comment><USER7> [https://www.plugshare.com/](https://www.plugshare.com/).

Enter Berlin. Then, scroll to Italy. Superchargers aren't the only charging infrastructure in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For most of the electric vehicle revival Nissan has dominated the charts yet they still dont have anything but the leaf and I think they will also look back at it as their biggest wasted opportunity.

<comment><USER9> My brother bought a Leaf and loved the thing so much that he drove it over his BMW. He's now getting a Model 3 because Nissan has nothing else in its stable that's above the Leaf.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What happens when there is mass adoption for people needing to drive long distances?

This video seems to be the start of something [https://youtu.be/a1uFudf37JU](https://youtu.be/a1uFudf37JU)

<comment><AUTHOR> What will happen is that all EV manufacturers will move to a common charging standard and that will make more chargers available for EV drivers. CCS ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System)) is the obvious candidate for that.

<comment><USER6> ccs is likely to be the eventual standard. Of course stupid infighting between auto companies means the us and euro ccs standards are different (but similar). China has their own standard, of course.

The tesla standard is arguable superior to all others and is offered unencumbered by patents if the other company agrees not to use it. I've had one for 7 years without running into this problem, but it's not impossible. Tesla keeps building more and more stations, but they are selling so many model 3s.

<comment><USER11> The tesla patent free offer is a trojan horse though. To use tesla's charging port you have to agree to not sue them over patents not just regarding charging but everything. You also don't get access to the supercharger network at any price. No sane manufacturer is going to agree to terms that one sided.

Once things settle down a bit I'm pretty confident each region will regulate a charging standard and eliminate the confusion, but it's still too early since vehicle to grid has hardly been touched outside of Japan and actively cooled cables are not part of any spec.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I live smack dab in the heart of Orange County and Model 3's are like the new AirPods. They're everywhere.

<comment><USER13> Except that the Model 3s don't fall out of your ears :)</comment></comment>


Zombie.js: insanely fast, full-stack, headless testing - <AUTHOR> http://labnotes.org/2010/12/30/zombie-js-insanely-fast-full-stack-headless-testing/?utm_source=javascriptweekly&utm_medium=email <comment><USER2> First, great work on this implementation. I can't imagine all the work that must have gone into this.

To me, this seems to only solve a corner case in the main problem of JS testing - testing the DOM without a browser. The first question that comes to mind is, is a DOM even useful in a headless browser when it comes to JS? For now, grant that we're only testing presence and manipulation of DOM elements and no CSS manipulations or accuracy -- which I'd argue is a decent case for testing. Now, testing presence and manipulation of DOM elements in the abstract isn't very useful, as different browsers might treat DOM manipulations differently. Using a headless browser that no one actually uses doesn't solve this problem.

I'd see a case for this in running something like QUnit[1] test that just test JS completeness, but again, implementations differ so testing in one environment that no one actually is using isn't good enough.

The only thing that I've come up with for a solution for actually testing JavaScript in a robust, real-world way is using QUnit and Selenium[2] to define the tests, with Testswarm[3] actually running the tests. This setup allows unit tests to be run against JS by itself (QUnir), mock interactions to take place to ensure bindings work properly (Selenium), and have these executed against real browsers in a distributed manner (Testswarm).

I concede that this isn't an ideal solution, and I wish there were more people working on solutions like Zombie.js that would combine all of these in one so that JS could finally be apart of our continuous integration testing. The only (sic) thing preventing this solution is that it needs to have headless, identical implementations of all the browser's JS engines and DOM parsers in order to be valid.

[1] <http://docs.jquery.com/Qunit> [2] <http://seleniumhq.org/> [3] <https://github.com/jeresig/testswarm/wiki>

<comment><USER3> There needn't be One Test Suite To Rule Them All.

I like having something similar to zombie.js during dev, then Selenium during CI triggered on git push, perhaps with Testswarm scheduled to run daily.

<comment><USER4> Is test swarm even still up? I can't ever seem to get the website to load in a reasonable amount of time.

<comment><USER2> See the 'Setting Up Your Own Swarm' section on <https://github.com/jeresig/testswarm/wiki>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reliable headless DOM implementations are one of major obstacles for JS as a first class language. Kudos and thanks to everyone that is working to solve this!

</comment><comment><USER6> Does this load external styles, or javascript files? What about the images and does it evaluate any script tags?

I have done a few albeit scattered attempts at headless or semi-headless html/js unit tests. What I found out to be a good middle ground is running is this:

Run selenium server and firefox on a remote server. Trigger tests via a task queue, which at the moment is Gearman, have firefox draw to a virtual frame buffer.

What that does for me is cover pretty much every case that a real browser does, and completeness is key in my point of view. I would like to see how Zombie compares on the completeness side and then speed.

</comment><comment><USER7> Any chance this could run in Rhino or does the node.js dependency demand V8?

Feature for feature, how does this compare to HTMLUnit?

</comment><comment><USER8> As I understand it, the JS DOM implementation does not have the quirks of the different browsers. So theoretically, you could write a test that passes and works in browser X but does not work in browser Y.

My understanding is that jQuery spends most of its time dealing with these quirks.

</comment><comment><USER9> I like the cleanliness of not needing a browser.

But it seems like you'll have to duplicate a lot of functionality and as soon as there are a couple of things you can't test against or that don't produce the exact same result then this becomes unreliable.

Am I wrong?

<comment><USER10> Simulated-browser tests are more like smoke tests. It's an approximation of the environment you're running tests in.

Zombie and other simulated-browser systems can be useful because they're faster and convenient, but especially because they're faster. If you're not able to test quickly, like the article says, you lose the flow.

Nevertheless, you'll be burned if you don't also test in the browsers you're supporting.

davnola, posted above, has the right idea: use Selenium with your CI system in addition to Zombie.

Another idea: make real-browser testing for development faster. I'm working on a tool that does just that, if you're curious:

<https://github.com/yui/yeti> <http://reid.github.com/decks/2010/yuiconf/yeti.html>

Like it's peers, my project won't work for everyone, yet. But it's awesome to see so many people caring about testing web apps in dev _quickly_. Hooray! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How does this compare to env.js?

<http://www.envjs.com/>

</comment><comment><USER12> does this thing actually compute the rendered coordinates properly, as a browser would? Can I load jquery and call offset() ?

<comment> a-priori I would guess no, since it includes only a mock of the DOM. But really, are element locations something you want to test?

<comment><USER13> Definitely! But it would then also require a CSS renderer. Automated testing of something like Decal CMS (decalcms.com) where we provide javascript which manipulates the DOM but allows the designer to plug whatever markup/CSS they like into the system means that automated testing is incredibly difficult and does rely on actually checking for the position (and other computed styles) of an element after we've run certain pieces of code.</comment></comment></comment>


Google really doesn't want Honeycomb on phones - <AUTHOR> http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/03/24/google-really-doesnt-want-honeycomb-on-phones-wont-open-source-it-anytime-soon/

<comment><USER2> I'm also inclined to think that this is a pragmatic move by Google.

Sometimes you have to "close" the source for a period of time to satisfy commercial restrictions and all is well when it is opened again.

<comment><USER3> Maybe it is, but you really can't go around claiming openness when you don't provide it.

<comment><USER4> >Maybe it is, but you really can't go around claiming openness when you don't provide it.

How does "closed Honeycomb" reflect on any of the code that you previously would have considered "open"?

Before someone commits code to an open-source project, that code isn't available. No one would claim that the existence of that unavailable code says anything about the openness of the available code. And that wouldn't change if the unavailable code was shared with some of the author's friends.

So why does "closed Honeycomb" have that effect?

<comment><USER5> What if the author in your example and his friends shipped the unavailable code as a consumer product and called it _Android Smart Tablet_?

They've been making a lot of noise for years about Android the open source software stack for mobile devices. Now they 're releasing mobile devices, calling it Android, basing it on Android, and keeping the source to themselves; Weak.

<comment><USER4> > What if the author in your example and his friends shipped the unavailable > code as a consumer product and called it Android Smart Tablet?

Would you have not complained if they had called it "Banana" instead? Or, would you have complained when they open-sourced Banana because it was really Android.

They open-sourced a huge amount of code and you're complaining because they didn't open-source some other code because that other code has the same name?

Wowsers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No, they don't. They want Ice Cream (the 3.1 version that combines the tablet and phone "forks" of Android) on it. They don't want people trying to hack Honeycomb onto a phone when they know it's going to turn out horribly.

<comment><USER7> actually, the article says exactly the same thing...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> FTA, quoting Andy Rubin: "To make our schedule to ship the tablet, we made some design tradeoffs. We didn't want to think about what it would take for the same software to run on phones. It would have required a lot of additional resources and extended our schedule beyond what we thought was reasonable. So we took a shortcut. We have no idea if it will even work on phones."

I'm no Apple Fanboi (I'm a Linux fanboi, if anything), but this shows what a phenomenal job Apple has done with iOS.

<comment><USER9> Well, Apple did exactly the same thing with iOS. iOS 3.2 was a tablet-only branch that didn't merge with the phone branch until iOS 4.2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If they are truly only closing it temporarily for usability and user experience reasons (e.g. 3.0 won't work well on most phones right now), then I have no problem with it.

<comment><USER11> I don't see why they would or should care about "usability and user experience" for 3rd party devices.

Closing Honeycomb's source is not going to stop cut-rate handset manufacturers from shipping a terrible Android experience on their phones, it is merely going to mean the terrible experience will be built on Gingerbread or lower instead of Honeycomb. Either way whatever damage might be done to Android via the user's own bad choices is done and in any case that's a caveat emptor situation that Google can't and shouldn't try to control.

I'm not sure what the actual reasons are behind this but IMO the consequences are all pretty negative. This move makes Andy Rubin look like a bit of a hypocrite in light of his public twitter-spat with Steve Jobs, it generates ill will for them among the open source community, it mildly kneecaps one of the important things that make a subset of tech-trendsetters favor Android over iOS, etc, and for what purpose exactly? No good one that is visible from the outside looking in.

Ultimately Android is Google's thing and they can take their ball and go home for any reason, but if they are going to do so they should really give a better explaination of why they are doing it because the one they seem to be going with rings hollow.

<comment><USER10> > I don't see why they would or should care about "usability and user > experience" for 3rd party devices.

Because it degrades the users experience with Android.

Sure, some manufacturers will create a bad experience using Android 2.2. But, if Google knows that Honeycomb WILL have issues with most handsets, it would be prudent to hold off until those issues are resolved.

Just a possibility I'm throwing out there. Haven't read up on the issue yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cheap crappy manufacturers are rushing to get the latest version on their phones even if it doesn't work well, while big-name manufacturers use horribly outdated versions that don't work as well as the current one? It seems like only Google cares about actually delivering a good experience to the user.

Can someone with insight in to the industry explain this?

<comment><USER13> I assume that big name manufacturers don't care about updates because they already have the consumers' money. Underdog manufacturers are shipping bleeding edge Android to differentiate their product and then get your money.

<comment><USER12> People replace phones every two years. You'd think those big-name manufacturers would care about getting your money next time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Until Android is open-source in the public development sense there will always be hope and hype for a properly-free open alternative.

What the world really needs is for some small competitor to Google in some space to make a very public attempt to get some tech into the tree. For example, for one of the smallest mapping companies to try and make an API for in-app mapping-services.

Then Google will wake up.

<comment><USER15> ahem,

You are aware that OEM engineers who are open source comitters to android do have access, right?

<comment><USER16> That's more less closed than open though isn't it?

<comment><USER17> If it were open in the public development sense, how many more committers do you think there would be? 10% more? 50%? 200%?

In the context of the rapidly-changing ubiquitous computing space with open- source (or even commoditised) hardware nowhere to be seen, I just don't see what gains would come from an OSS project rather than Android's 'eventually- open' model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm surprised to find out that none of the reused components are GPL besides the kernel. Is the whole tree otherwise licenses like Apache that don't require releasing the sources?

<comment><USER19> That was one of the original design goals of Android. Apparently the device manufacturers & carriers wouldn't have played ball if this was not the case.</comment></comment>


NES Duck Hunt in just CSS - <AUTHOR> https://developer.mozilla.org/pl/demos/detail/duck-hunt/launch

<comment><AUTHOR> I see click listener attached on duck in the developer console. Does anyone a the script?</comment>


Is Your ISP Messing With BitTorrent Traffic? Find Out - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/is-your-isp-messing-with-bittorrent-traffic-find-out-140123/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29 <comment><USER2> Huh. Wouldn't have expected Cogeco to be that good, but I suppose it isn't surprising that it is as bad as Rogers or Bell.</comment>


Net Neutrality: The Fight Goes On - <AUTHOR> https://lawless.tech/net-neutrality-the-fight-goes-on/ <comment><USER2> Shattering net neutrality is a damaging force that benefits only megalomanic Internet gatekeepers and throws a monkey wrench into content providers. And at the end of the day money wins.</comment>


The CRC Wild Goose Chase - <AUTHOR> http://www.embeddedrelated.com/showarticle/669.php <comment><USER3> It is strange that the author stops short of making a recommendation for a CRC algorithm. He mentions he likes the one used in PKZIP and PNG, but out of the dozens of options in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_redundancy_check](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_redundancy_check) that is not the one I would recommend. Instead CRC-32C, named after its designer Castagnoli, is probably the best choice:

CRC-32C is the algorithm that Intel implemented in its processors ("CRC32" SSE4.2 instruction). CRC-32C is also used by both ext4 and btrfs for bit rot detection. The first and most prominent user of CRC-32C was iSCSI.

Its mathematical definition (at least one of the most "official" definitions) is found in [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3720#section-12.1](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3720#section-12.1) as a generator given in hex. The RFC gives 2 other references: an analysis where it was first published and discussed ([http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx1/26/5993/00231911.pdf?tp=&ar...](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx1/26/5993/00231911.pdf?tp=&arnumber=231911&isnumber=5993)) and another RFC ([http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3385](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3385)) that contains test vectors and implementations. However they are hardware implementations, not software. The number of documents you have to reference for a complete spec (definition + code + test vectors) is annoying... I share the author's frustration in regard to this.

If you need more than 32 bits for an integrity check, a CRC is probably not what you need (want to prevent intentional malicious data tampering? use a crypto hash function).

</comment><comment><USER4> CRCs (and other error checking codes) are routinely misused and misunderstood by the engineers that implement systems with them.

For instance, how do you know a CRC will detect the errors you care about? For that matter, do you have any idea of the most common errors your system will have to deal with?

Error-detecting codes have an implicit model for the kinds of errors they will effectively detect. They are valid for systems that fit this model, and less effective (possibly staggeringly ineffective) for systems that don't fit that model.

CRCs date from the days of serial communications, and they were well suited to the kinds of errors you would see: bit errors that were independent and randomly distributed, and short burst errors. If you conducted experiments to measure the probability distribution of errors on your communication medium, you could calculate the probability of an undetected error with a given code. Without that you have _no model_ of the reliability of your communication system.

For instance, with CD's (or DVD's) they didn't just slap a CRC on there - <USER2> made a model of the kinds of errors they expected, in this case they expected big scratches on a CD to create very long burst errors, and they need to be able to not just detect but also correct them. Based on the density of recording, they made a reasonable estimation of the length of errors they had to deal with.

To do this they used a powerful Reed-Solomon code, and interleaved the blocks in order to handle the extremely long burst error requirement, and meet their reliability goals.

Look at it another way. So you slap a CRC on a file. Great, now it can detect one- or two-bit errors, and burst errors as big as the CRC. Are those the most common errors in your file system? That is, what is the likelihood that the first file corruption you see will be of a kind that your CRC will detect with only a low probability? File corruptions are poorly characterized.

Still, a CRC is cheap and better than nothing, so we slap them on.

Anyway if you like math at all, I recommend delving into codes, it really is fun and fascinating.

</comment><comment><USER5> CRCs make sense for a quick sanity check for short messages sent over serial links. But nowadays there's a much better, very well specified, method for checking the integrity of data blocks or files, and that's SHA-256. I don't think that anyone has even found a single example of a collision for it. (Yes of course collisions exist, they're guaranteed once you go past 32 bytes of input).

SHA-256 is truly a "no brainer" for a lot of different situations.

<comment><USER6> This is not what CRC's are used for. CRC's are faster to compute, which really matters on Gbit network links. Also CRC's can allow you to not only detect errors but fix them within a certain threshold without retransmitting.

<comment><USER5> You're of course correct that CRCs are very useful for low level operations such as individual Ethernet packets.

But I was trying to respond to scenarios such as at the start of the article:

       You want to send data from point A to point B.
       ...
       you should use a CRC so you can detect errors.

I think that's obsolete thinking. Yes, you can use a CRC for checking individual blocks being transferred. But you're much better off also verifying a complete data transfer using something like SHA-256.

When, 25 years ago, PKZIP stored a 32 bit CRC together with a file, that was great for its time. But nowadays an archiver should use something more robust, such as SHA-256.

I've personally encountered miscorrections on the old ST-506 disk drives because the 32-bit CRC used was junk. People like Neal Glover gave us much better computer generated polynomials. The industry switched to better schemes such as cross-interleaved Reed Solomon. And that was the extent of the error detection and correction.

But now we know better. Given how close to the bleeding edge disk drives are, it's probably necessary that they continue to do error correction for each sector (although that _has_ been debated). But a _system_ is better off overlaying that with software such as ZFS which uses SHA-256 on individual blocks and continues up to the root node, thereby creating a Merkle tree which provides very strong data integrity guarantees.

That's the point I was trying to make. In the old days we used CRC for everything, because we didn't know better. Nowadays we can continue to use CRC at the lower levels, but we should add SHA-256.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The last time I needed to generate a CRC, I used this ([http://www.tty1.net/pycrc/](http://www.tty1.net/pycrc/)) to generate the code to generate the CRC.</comment>


The Art of Unix Programming (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ <comment><USER2> This is a classic text and an absolute must for anyone starting out on a programming career, IMHO. Any idea what the context of it appearing right now is?

<comment><USER3> Personally I found it disappointing as it seemed to take the view that the only UNIX in existence since 1992 has been Linux. A better title would have been the Art of Linux Programming or the Art of Open Source Programming. Not in anyway a classic or essential reading.

'The Practice of Programming' and 'The UNIX Programming Environment' are much better introduction to programming and the tao of UNIX programming than the Raymond book.

<comment><USER4> > Personally I found it disappointing as it seemed to take the view that the > only UNIX in existence since 1992 has been Linux.

Raymond had a significant financial interest in promoting linux vs other systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "Single-point failures in applications can corrupt the registry, frequently > making the entire operating system unusable and requiring a reinstall."

> Cygwin ... is the first thing many Unix hackers install on such Windows > systems as they are compelled by circumstances to make use of.

> The intended audience for the NT operating systems is primarily nontechnical > end users, implying a very low tolerance for interface complexity.

Things were pretty poisonous i 2003 I guess, I would suggest readers in 2015 bear this in mind. Just think if there was a world where you could use Unix _and_ Windows _and_ Max OS without having to feel bad...

<comment><USER6> When it comes to Windows, Raymond knows nothing. Never has.

<comment><USER4> It's not just windows.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there a mobi or kindle version of this somewhere?

<comment><USER7> Found it here: [https://github.com/downloads/danchoi/kindlefodder/unix.2012-...](https://github.com/downloads/danchoi/kindlefodder/unix.2012-01-22.mobi)</comment></comment>


Texas Supreme Court Quotes the Big Lebowski - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/texas-supreme-court-rejects-second-class-status-online-speech-finds-internet

<comment><USER2> Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, their opinion, man.

In all seriousness, it's good to see the Supreme Court (in Texas, no less!) helping to uphold freedom of speech on the internet.</comment>


Microsoft is doomed, but first it's going to make a ton of money - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/24/microsoft-is-doomed-but-first-its-going-to-make-a-ton-of-money/

<comment><USER2> This constant 'Microsoft is doomed' meme is really beginning to annoy me. Yes, their heyday has past when everyone had a PC running Windows in their homes, but that does not mean the end of Microsoft.

"Tablets and smartphones are the future of computing" to which I say bollocks. If I'm working a 9-5 job and need a computer, I don't want to be two finger tapping on a virtual keyboard. Can you imagine the epidemic of RSI that would ensue. I want a keyboard, a mouse and a monitor, and I don't give a shit what they,re plugged into, but I highly doubt it's going to be a £400 iPad with no access to the file system. I'd rather use a Raspberry Pi if I have real work to do.

Yes, the vast majority of users just want access to Facebook and Twitter, but in business you want a Windows, OSX or Linux PC.

If developers were to actually start developing all iPad apps on iPads I might consider the battle lost, but as far as I'm concerned the PC maybe in decline, but that's to be expected after a boom. It will level out eventually.

<comment><USER3> imho that's the point, the consumer market will rely almost exclusively on smartphones and tablet, while the business market will remain just the same. So, in the worst case, Microsoft will became a purely business company, a new IBM if you will. Microsoft will do just fine.

<comment><USER4> That's called retreating 'upmarket' and it usually (historically) fails. IBM is the exception.

As clichéd as the Innovator's Dilemma is now, I find very few folks who have actually read it and processed all the strategies, and case studies in the book.

Spinning off a wholly independent entity that can compete at the new price level/market is Christensen's recommended approach. It's all in the book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >Businesses are not going to put iPads on peoples' desks any time soon, nor are they going to ditch Microsoft Office in favor of Google Docs.

That's interesting, because at MPoW we've been using Google Docs for several years and at most meetings I attend, you can look around the table and not see a single laptop; everyone is using a tablet or smartphone.

It's amazing how fast it's changed too. When I started here ~4.5 years ago, Office documents shared on network drives or emailed back and forth was the norm and if you had a meeting of n people, you can be sure there would be n laptops around the table.

<comment><USER6> Yep. It's changing really fast. BYOD is so popular here with big companies; clunky laptops are unopened for months at a time while employees happily use iPads for everything. Even if the company didn't pay for them. I myself cannot imagine how you do a lot of the work (or play) on tablets; but I know many people typing entire documents (books, (white)papers) on their tables in favour of laptops/desktops. So I see it changing fast; some people will not drop their keyboards, but when I get into a train now full of business people, you can count the laptops on 1 hand; the rest having iPads. That was completely different a few years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Or to give it a slightly less linkbaity headline:

"Microsoft's current strategy and product range has a limited lifespan, but it's so cash rich it could just buy it's way into growth markets"

So, really, it's not doomed or dissimilar to most other mature large companies.

</comment><comment><USER8> Microsoft is far from doomed, but it is interesting to see Digital compared to them. I have said since the iPhone came out that if Microsoft fails to compete within the mobile devices market that it would become another IBM or it would be merged into some other company. So far all signs point to failure on usurping the market from Apple or Google.

I think that we are still a ways off from this situation, but I cannot see Microsoft as its own entity in two decades.

</comment><comment><USER9> Doomed is obviously used for dramatic effect. Needs to, and is struggling to adapt, yes.

Nevertheless, as the article hints, work (and even consumption and creation at home) is routinely done at desks. Whether we continue to call that "desktop computing" or "using a PC" or any other untrendy phrase is a matter of language. I believe tablets are sexy because of what they do, not necessarily that people like having to hold them or like small screens. They are great on the go, but when I am at home or at the office, I want large form-factor. I would prefer immersion.

I feel Microsoft needs to steadfastly improve their principal area of strength: work and play at desks [1]. I also think that with the nascent swing back to users recognizing the value of control, Microsoft should take the (daring?) position of being the only tech titan to encourage a decentralized cloud.

Reviewing my blog rant on Microsoft again, though, it's the nearly-last point about MSDN pricing that just has me shaking my head in disgust. The pricing is so unbelievably out of whack with today's development model.

[1] [http://tiamat.tsotech.com/microsoft](http://tiamat.tsotech.com/microsoft)

</comment><comment><USER10> It's doomed because Windows on PC is losing ground. Linux gaming is on the rise and it will push Windodws out even more.

<comment><USER2> Gaming is a tiny niche market in reality. Microsoft runs almost everything. Have you ever seen an ATM crash - yep you get a BSOD, or a ticket machine at a cinema, or a checkout till. Most of these machines are still running XP!

<comment><USER11> "Gaming is a tiny niche market in reality" Yes, it's just the biggest medium industry in the world, ahead of hollywood and music.

<comment><USER2> I was talking in regards to PC sales. Microsoft has gaming covered with the XBox, and to a certain extent IE. When I said niche, I was referring to gamers that buy PC gaming rigs. These consumers are not important to Microsoft, they have bigger fish to fry.

<comment><USER10> Microsoft doesn't care that much about PC gaming these days and this is another thing that will bite them. Linux will emerge as PC gaming leading platform in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > "Microsoft is doomed, but first it's going to make a ton of money" ...

... by milking the trapped, a.k.a. raising the price of client access licenses here and there - which incidentally explains why it still looks like a profitable company on the enterprise side of the equation.</comment>


Coherence: Reducing data breaches for modern web apps - <AUTHOR> https://coherence.liesware.com/ <comment><USER2> Nice exit link to StartPage - very cipherpunk!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, please let me ask you what do you think about the project?</comment></comment>


Is Android really free software? - Richard Stallman - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman

<comment><USER2> _Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux), even though executables have been released to the public. Android 3.1 source code is also being withheld. Thus, Android 3, apart from Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple._

I was under the impression that this wouldn't be possible due to their use of git, and so while they aren't making a big deal of it, you could, if you so desired figure out at which point they branched for 3.0 or 3.x and create your own version, they're just not going to make it easy because they'd rather you use the newer code built on top of that.

I assumed he was going to say it's not free software because they've not yet released the code above the linux level. If he's saying that it's _only_ not considered free software by him because it will _never_ be released, then I'd be interested in what he'd think if it's simply delayed and semi-obfuscated as part of a later version release.

Also, is Replicant targetting the Galaxy S II? I thought I read that it had the best support for the hardware without binary of proprietary chunks, but I don't see any mention of it on their site.

<comment><USER3> If effort has been made to obfuscate code, then it's not free software. Free software doesn't hinder your ability to share, run, modify and or share modifications. That's what makes it free.

<comment><USER2> It's not the code that's hidden though, it's exactly which revisions correspond to the various releases. That's still not in the spirit of free software, but if later versions are better, freely available and almost entirely a superset then it becomes a bit of a pedantic distinction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the article:

> Thus, Android 3, apart from Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple.

Couldn't agree more, happy to see Stallman call it: Android 3.x is clearly _not_ open source.

<comment><USER3> I don't think he cares about open source. He's saying it isn't free software.</comment></comment>


What to Wear - <AUTHOR> http://www.deliberatism.com/blog/what-to-wear/

<comment><USER2> This post completely misses the point that clothing can be an enjoyable form of self-expression, and that picking out what you're going to wear need not be some onerous chore. Instead of acting like it's completely unreasonable of "society," writ large, to judge you by your outward appearance, consider taking ownership of it. Strapping on the most boring thing you can possibly find and wearing it until it disintegrates isn't going to solve the problem that people aren't judging you by your "intellect, actions, or humour."

Distilling clothing down to its original "purpose" and saying "don't use it for anything else" is naïve and dismissive of the human experience. I suppose the author also doesn't keep any art on on the walls of his shelter and eats nothing but flavourless meat and vegetables?

I realise that a lot of people, and programmers especially, just aren't that into clothes, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean you /have/ to be bland. I love how the piece ends by essentially saying "wear the same uninteresting clothes every day, blend into the crowd, and THEN enjoy as the mundanity of your life somehow _decreases_." I hope I'm not alone in thinking, "Wat?"

If this is the solution to a problem people are having, it sure is a depressing one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, I used to really enjoy clothing. At a certain point, though, I realized how much time and money I put into it. I then asked whether it was really worth all the effort.

I do keep art on the walls (in fact, I used to be a painter). I eat many varied things, and find a great deal of pleasure in doing so. I read a wide variety of books, watch a great many films, and make lots of different things.

If you love clothing, indulge that passion. There are a number of other forms of self-expression, though, and many that are much more gratifying/useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Dislike. I used to have an unhealthy obsession with fashion. While I'm over that, I still love clothes. Being fashionable has had a huge impact on my life. It sounds superficial, but clothes really do make the man.

People really do treat you better if you can dress competently. Even if that sounds shallow, and it probably is, the boost that looking good gives your confidence can be very profound.

I don't advocate that everyone devote time to following fashion on a daily basis, but learning to put patterns and colors together goes a long way. You can learn the basics of "How to dress" in less than a day.

Really. I don't see why people make such a huge fuss about this. Especially if you're a man. Being fashionable takes almost zero time. If you're afraid that you're going to spend 2 hours getting ready, like a girl, realize that most of the time that women spend getting ready is put into makeup and hair. If you have a few good outfits, you just throw them on like any other clothes. Unless you can't operate a zipper or buttons, it's not much harder than pulling on a hoodie...

<comment><AUTHOR> Well selected clothing can bring certain benefits, but listen to what you're saying: Do you really believe that they "make the man"?

We keep hearing these things in advertising, and then we start to actually think they're real. We've been led to believe that the underwear we buy will somehow make us better, or more desirable people. This is pure bullshit.

If you like buying nice clothes, fine. Just don't overestimate their value.

<comment><USER3> Obviously I don't believe that clothes literally make the man. But your "internal" value always needs selling. Clothes are a major way we represent ourselves to other people.

If you don't like buying nice clothes, fine. Don't underestimate their value.

Sassy-ness aside, couldn't resist the jab, our clothes really do make us better and more desirable. At least in the way other people see us. Certainly wearing nicer clothes won't make you a better programmer. It might get you a better programming job though.

<comment><AUTHOR> It cuts the other way too.

I'm a partner in an agency. We used to wear suits to meetings. After not winning a contract with one organization, I asked why they didn't choose us. (During our meetings, we seemed to have established a good rapport.)

He explained that everything we said made sense, but that we were "too corporate."

We have many more clients now. I wear the same understated thing to almost all of our meeting. Our sales have never been higher. Turns out, our clients care more about how good we are than the way I choose to dress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> An odd post for HN, it seems to me. Kind of like a post arguing that science fiction is worth reading: you are preaching to the choir here.

Myself, I've had this aesthetic since childhood. Not only does function-over- form clothing save time for more important activities, it prevents accidentally clashing colors (and other such faux pax that people like me are largely blind to). A couple of years ago I went out to a special occasion wearing a button-down shirt and an xkcd tie. Over the course of an afternoon I got complimented by three attractive strangers.

I cannot in good conscience endorse this post.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Function over form." But the form of clothes is very functional: it determines who you can easily associate with, what strangers think of you, who is attracted to you, what sort of jobs you can have, your promotion potential, and your general likability. There's a lot to be said for "looking good" and how it can positively impact your life. And regardless of how you might wish to treat clothing, know that others will treat it as important.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Doing so will allow you to blend, and when it comes to dress, this is a good thing."

Why would one want to blend? Sticking out and being different is a great thing. Displaying self-expression and individualism is important to who each of us are. I have found this to be true in my profession and I would encourage people to spend more time on what they wear. It can drastically impact ones success. Simply put, don't look sloppy.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're in a culture filled with people wanting to stick out and be noticed. That's part of our collective problem.

<comment><USER7> what's the problem exactly?

<comment><AUTHOR> One part of the world uses up most of the (rapidly diminishing) resources, because everyone wants to be special.

<comment><USER6> What is wrong with wanting/encouraging someone to be special?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In William Gibson's _Pattern Recognition_ , the main character (Cayce Pollard) subscribed to this aesthetic. Her wardrobe consisted of primarily garments that could not be tied to a brand, trend or a period. This is partly a result of a upchuck reaction to fashion and is also a side-effect of her rare allergic reaction to bad branding.

Great read.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayce_Pollard#Apparel>

</comment><comment><USER9> I like this idea and have heard that Einstein did the same thing.

I'm doing it with my fridge too. I eat the same thing for breakfast every day. I just need to fuel up and get to work.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's a little like wondering "what music to listen to."

</comment><comment><USER11> I've been thinking the same thing. I'd rather have a root canal than spend a day at the mall

</comment><comment><USER12> Choice of clothing is always an expression of one's personality.

</comment><comment><USER13> Fine idea but I don't spend any time on my clothes anyway.</comment>