QuickBasic64: Basic for the Modern Era - <AUTHOR> https://www.qb64.org/portal/ <comment><USER2> I was playing with the version of QBASIC that comes with MS-DOS 5 last weekend, and it was a lot of fun. Part of the reason may have been nostalgia. (I deliberately choose that version since that it what my first IBM compatible had.) I think a more important reason was the simplicity.

Take graphics. You aren't searching for a library to handle graphics since it is built into the language. Initializing graphics takes one line, so you aren't creating a separate function to handle an over-complicated process. Heck, there's less documenting of what you're doing since the language's documentation usually does that better than you can. You simply dive into the next task, which is always doing something more interesting than over- engineering a project that you originally set out on to have some fun.

I understand why complexity has grown in modern development tools and how much of a hindrance simplicity would be for professional software development, but it would be nice if there were more modern options out there to facilitate programming for pleasure. (I don't really count languages designed for education, since they're usually designed to deliver a curriculum. Something like Arduino would be a good example, since it is designed to facilitate creative projects.)

<comment><USER3> I'm not vouching for anything in particular, but there are "8 bit"-type machines running BASIC which are very accessible like this. Here's one which the 8 Bit Guy reviewed recently (it's actually a 32 bit ARM part): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA7REQxohV4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA7REQxohV4)

I have the Gigatron which is a bit similar but you have to solder it together.

<comment><USER4> If you have a Raspberry Pi (<=3B) you can load up Risc OS Pico which boots straight into BBC Basic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Based on pg's request[1] I've been working on a Basic and while I started with Classic Basic as I've been improving by dropping line numbers and currently adding labels I think I've reinvented QBasic!

Anyways, here it is if you want to play with it:

repl: [https://repl.it/languages/basic](https://repl.it/languages/basic)

docs: [https://docs.repl.it/misc/basic](https://docs.repl.it/misc/basic)

some community programs: [https://repl.it/talk/share?lang=basic](https://repl.it/talk/share?lang=basic)

[1]: [https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1256526589300441093](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1256526589300441093)

</comment><comment><USER6> I made my first every game using qbasic when I was 11, and learned just by RTFM, no-one to teach me, no internet tutorials because no internet. Such a simple language and great way to start programming. I think we're missing something like this. Scratch is too easy. Javascript needs too much setup.

In case you wondered, it was called "Dancing Dobbins" and was a horse racing and betting game. It generated Random Horse names and odds, you placed bets and the horses ran across the screen, each drawn very jaggedly with vector lines.

I just kept adding to it and adding to it and it eventually got quite strange, some of the horses would randomly go mad and start attacking adjacent lanes. I believe there was alien abduction during some races.

</comment><comment><USER7> Ah good memories. Once BASIC got rid of requiring line numbers and supporting function calls it really wasn't too bad of a language from what I remember.

I started out with TRS-80 BASIC, then assembly language on the TRS-80, then using BASIC on the PC, and then assembly language on the PC. After that was C.

But I still have fond memories of BASIC as my first programming language.

<comment><USER8> Basic was also my first introducing to programming. And nowadays i still think its probably the best language to teach programming. I don't think it should be used to create professional programs, as its pretty limited for that, and doing modifications to turn into an able environment for this would only create a creepy language, inflicting misery in people that have to maintain large codebases of such a thing.

What i really want to point out, is that, if you look into Basic for what it shines, i think things like "GOTO line" are very good, because it teach you how the computer works under the hood (the native code will point to memory, stack, registers, program offset, call hard defined OS syscalls, etc..)

You could deal with the soft/logical and hard/physical paradigms at the same time, understanding that the logical ones are built through abstractions over the hard ones.

Later if you decide to code, than you can choose if you want/can be spoiled and use more abstract and easy languages like Python or Javascript, but also with a good understanding/intuition of how things work under the hood.

And all of this can be done in a easy way, like with jumps to a giving code position. (It alsos teach you to think over indirections, why some things are good or bad, and have the power to teach you to move on to better things, but only after you really know whats going on).

The basic GOTOS and other techniques might be bad for coding in real life, but im against taking them out of languages that can serve to teach programming to kids, and even creating more of this sort of instructions, that teach how to reason about code, where you can start with "bad practices" but that are pretty easy to use at a beginning level.

Stupid little things like taking graphics and sound for granted and not having to import libraries, using things like 'CIRCLE' or 'BEEP' or 'GOTO 10' is what your eight year old self would think its pretty cool and would run to your parents to show them with confidence in yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I started out with Basic on a C64, patiently entering the programs from the back of the manual.

In 9th grade we had to choose a company for work practice. I chose Oki, since I figured printers were close enough to computers to be interesting.

Turns out the task was burning EPROMs, basically pushing a button once every five minutes. Luckily, the computer controlling the burner had QBasic installed. I remember some of the employees looking over my shoulder and oohing and aahing while I was making time pass by writing code.

Fast forward 30 years and here we are. Haven't touched Basic since then but I've written substantial amounts of code in most languages out there. Even created ten or so of my own.

As much as I respect the guy; when it comes to Basic, Dijkstra was wrong. You have to start somewhere.

<comment><USER10> I think if it was up to Dijkstra you'd never have been allowed to program. Instead you'd be still pushing the button and I'd probably be attaching the label.

Also I feel the pain, at one time I was the guy hitting enter every couple of minutes, then applying a label and putting the programmed eeprom in the tube.

<comment><USER9> Probably, cranky old fart :)

Damn, now I remember the tubes.

Once a day or so a tube came back because one or more EPROMs where faulty which meant they all had to be verified.

<comment><USER10> Slips first eeprom into the tube. Falls out the other end. Another 5 minutes of life gone.

Dijkstra would have been even crankier if he'd lived an another 15 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you're looking for "basic for the modern era", also check out freebasic and appgamekit studio, the latter of which is a descendant of darkbasic and the "tier 1" version uses a basic dialect. What made appgamekit better for me than qb64 or freebasic is the runtime debugging. While qb64 and freebasic compile down to native code, appgamekit uses bytecode in a vm, allowing you to use the same step, watch, breakpoint stuff as quickbasic of old.

<comment><USER12> FreeBASIC is a great descendent of QB, which is suitable for serious, even commercial projects. It has seperate "qb", "fb" and "fblite" dialects. "qb" is very highly compatible with QuickBASIC, while "fb" (the default) is a modern language which has almost all the features of C++98 except multiple inheritance and templates.

I'm co-maintainer of a large RPG creation engine written in FB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> qb64 is great for an intro to programming. I am teaching a young child to program. One of the things I noticed, is that they had difficulty with "if" and "else" blocks. The concept of a block of code that gets executed together versus another block of code just wasn't intuitive. I changed to basic "if ... goto" and they immediately grasped the code. It was just a labeled linear set of instructions that you just followed starting from the top and going down unless you encountered a "goto".

Once they get more facile with programming BASIC in this style, I will introduce them to more structured programming.

BASIC is a great intro language for non-programmers cause it is so linear and there are few extraneous noise (for example the parentheses in Python 3)

</comment><comment><USER14> Funny to see this posted today. I was just listening to an interesting QB64 interview with a developer who recently published his QB64 game to Steam. It's episode 3, here:

[https://qb64.buzzsprout.com/](https://qb64.buzzsprout.com/)

</comment><comment><USER15> This is interesting from a historical perspective, but honestly I'm really glad that the era of Basic is gone. Having had a handful of opportunities to work with legacy Basic code from a wide variety of programmers, it's just a disaster that always leads to unmaintainable garbage. I'm not even sure it is possible to have well architected Basic. Structuring and modularizing code is ridiculously difficult. The very principles of the language somehow lead to pervasive use of globals and gotos. It's neither functional, nor object oriented. Everything ends up as blocks of mutable procedures, tightly coupled, with red flags everywhere.

I'm a very opinionated person about programming languages, and there are plenty of modern language trends that have been bothersome to me. But none of them will be ever as bad as any of the Basic code I have interacted with. I'd rather read and maintain code that went through a unicode-permitted Haskell code golf competition than anything written in Basic.

<comment><USER16> Were you dealing with BASIC or QuickBasic or VisualBasic?

Also, consider that it may not be the language but the fact that most BASIC programmers tend not to know much about programming...?

<comment><USER15> It was BASIC, and a little bit of QBasic. In a different realm, I also worked with VBA, which wasn't much better, but I think that was more due to programming inexperience. Admittedly didn't have much exposure to Visual Basic or VB.Net.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been following a few different BASIC projects over the past few months, it seems that there is a sudden rise of them. Whether nostalgia, or just fun/learning/experimentation is to blame I can't say.

My own BASIC is very simple, but easy to embed/extend:

[https://github.com/skx/gobasic](https://github.com/skx/gobasic)

I sometimes consider extending it with WHILE/WEND, named functions, and similar. But then I remember the constraints are part of what makes it interesting to me.

I still remember the Christmas when I received 48k Spectrum, with my sisters. The tape-deck didn't work, so my sisters lost interest. I worked my way through the (spiral-bound orange) manual, typing BASIC and having a blast.

Later we got a cassette recorder which worked, and I started playing games, and hacking them for infinite lives. I think my initial love/enthusiasm for typing in BASIC programs directly lead to my career.

</comment><comment><USER18> _$NOPREFIX_ is an welcomed improvement.

As for modern era, a though that crossed my mind a couple of times was having QB target WebAssembly as well. :)

Porting those MS-DOS samples into a browser canvas.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h > Porting those MS-DOS samples into a browser canvas.

I feel obligated to point out that [https://copy.sh/v86/](https://copy.sh/v86/) has been able to do this for quite a while now. Of course, having a more native option is an extremely welcome improvement.

<comment><USER18> Yeah I am aware of it, that was my point. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Oh man, they taught QBASIC in my first programming class in high school as a freshman in 2001. We had to make a game, we had to learn about loops using WHILE WEND, and now I can show my kids what I used to learn programming because it still works. This is exciting!

As a continuation of the story, the next year I took AP computer science and we learned using Borland C++. the year after that we learn Java 1.4 for AP computer science. Blast from the past, no?

</comment><comment><USER20> Does this mean I can finally run NIBBLES.BAS and GORILLA.BAS natively on macOS?

<comment><USER18> Probably PureBasic, RealBasic, Xojo would have been an option, although with code having to be changed for them.

<comment><USER21> Xojo seems interesting (is that what used to be called RealBasic?). Do you have experience with it?

<comment><USER22> Xojo did used to be called RealBasic (and briefly Real Studio). It's more like Visual Basic than QBasic/QuickBasic though.

I've used it for a long time to make tools for myself that will run cross- platform Windows / Mac / Linux.

<comment><USER21> thank you for the answer. can you give some examples of the tools you built with xojo?

<comment><USER22> My main Xojo program is a business database front-end for my indie software business. It parses sales notifications and inserts them into an offline database (ie so no customer data is ever kept online). It has a business dashboard for key performance metrics, generates charts for various sales / demographic queries. It also lets me generate serial codes for customers when giving away copies of my apps in promotions. I've been using that for about 20 years.

I also made a cross-platform Twitter-esque client (similar to Tweetbot) to work with the Micro.Blog social network. I had it fully working with Mac, Windows and Linux before I got disillusioned with Micro.Blog and didn't release it.

For internal use, I made a project estimation app for solo/indie developers like myself, that uses Monte Carlo estimation to predict an actual ship date based on the (in)accuracy of your previous task estimates. It had charts of percentage confidence, so you could give an 85% or 95% confidence of shipping a milestone by X date. The tasks & milestones were structured like an outliner and could be moved just with keyboard navigation. It was able to load project files from a discontinued Java program called Mr Schedule that I loved. That Xojo app was cross-platform Windows & Mac too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> RapidQ was my stepping stone from QuickBasic to Windows GUI and server CGI programming. I could not afford VisualBasic and didn't have a computer with enough disk space to install it. It's still around online as abandonware and while it's not "modern" any longer, the bang for buck in getting a simple application going is pretty high.

It compiled to bytecode so you could even compile (at least console and CGI) executables for Linux, and there was something similar to P/Invoke so you could call system functionality for advanced extending.

The author of RapidQ went on to develop RealBasic, but for a long time afterwards (and still today?) there's a large community of people making extensions and addon components for it.

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

</comment><comment><USER24> I actually taught QBasic for a 100-level class at a college. It was very interesting to see how close it actually was to the "grown-up" languages they used for the Comp Sci curriculum.

</comment><comment><USER25> If curious see also

2010 (1 comment) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161656](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1161656)

</comment><comment><USER26> It's QB64, not QuickBasic64.

</comment><comment><USER27> Excellent addition to the arsenal of languages for bringing beginners onboard as well as letting advanced/adventurous people solve problems in a forgiving environment - its much easier and less invasive to install qb64 than say a VSCode or VisualStudio or even NetBeans.

More languages and IDEs like this will make easier for more people to find an on-ramp that suits them and their interests and ways of thinking.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think this is the core of QB64 (written in C): [https://github.com/QB64Team/qb64/tree/development/internal/c](https://github.com/QB64Team/qb64/tree/development/internal/c)

Kinda difficult to read hehehe...

</comment><comment><USER29> IBM PC BASIC can be emulated through [https://sourceforge.net/projects/pcbasic/](https://sourceforge.net/projects/pcbasic/) PC-BASIC to run classic BASIC programs.

</comment><comment><USER30> Basic is still the sweet spot for kids to move past Scratch but aren't quite ready for the complexity of a Python.

</comment><comment><USER31> I knew about Basic but never got to use it. My first languages were machine code, assembly, C and Turbo Pascal

</comment><comment><USER32> I used to love this as a kid. The language is horrible though. A python version would be nice :)

</comment><comment><USER33> It crashes on launch for me on macOS Catalina. :-(

</comment><comment><USER34> OMG QBASIC FLASHBACKS!!!!!!!!!</comment>


Can You Fly Without an ID? (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/04/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-can-you-fly.html?m=1 <comment><USER2> This is a little bit of a tangent...

Why, in the US, are IDs immediately ignored when they expire? You often read about people being unable to vote, buy alcohol, or travel because their driving licence expired last week.

But realistically the whole point of ID checking is to determine if someone is who they say they are. If they have a picture ID, expired or not, which clearly proves that then why not accept it regardless of expiry?

The only reason these IDs expire at all is to force you to update the photo and other personal info.

PS - I understand why with international travel and passports. Since then you're subject to the foreign entities' rules/stupidity (and airlines can be fined for letting someone travel without a valid passport). I'm mostly asking about inter-US travel.

<comment><USER3> People can sell or give away expired licenses when they receive a new one. You can't trust an expired license because it implies there's one which _isn't_ expired.

<comment><USER4> As a twenty-something, I've never heard of anyone selling or giving away an expired ID, as nobody will take it. Instead, you go to DMV and say you lost your ID – they'll charge you $X, and you sell the original for $X+P (where P is your profit margin).

> You can't trust an expired license because it implies there's one which > _isn't_ expired.

This is also untrue. Just because my ID has expired doesn't mean that I've already gone through the steps to get a new ID. An expired ID means that the ID has expired; nothing more, nothing less.

<comment><USER5> Can confirm. Did this all through college.

Speaking of 'things that should be tracked' \- I'm blown away that it didn't raise any red flags when I 'lost' ~50 Drivers Licenses over the course of a year or two.

<comment><USER6> Do you really not care about people running around with your identity?

Also, I call shenanigans!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A few years ago I lost my ID on the way to visit a friend in Oakland. I did have a extremely old drivers license that was basically faded to nothing. On my trip home, I presented this to the TSA agent. He proceeded to pull a jewelers monocle out of nowhere, examined the ID, and let me through. That was a weird experience. I hadn't even considered that I might not need an ID at all.

</comment><comment><USER8> The official TSA blog...did not look anything like I expected it to be.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. And the tone is surprisingly lighthearted.

<comment><USER10> Surprising and, I found it, very annoying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's nice to hear that from the horse's mouth, but it kind of misses the point that a lot of the folks who would try to fly without showing ID are trying to make which is that you shouldn't have to ID yourself (at least not to the gov't) in order to fly.

</comment><comment><USER12> I had some family come out recently and my brother lost his ID a day or 2 before the trip. When going through security on his return flight home, I watched him get taken to the front of line for the scanning machine, ran through these databases right next to the scanners and was cleared a lot faster than other members in my family going through the normal process.

</comment><comment><USER13> IIRC this is powered by an Experian product called PreciseID. It's interesting tech. You can read about it here: [http://www.experian.com/assets/government/white- papers/ident...](http://www.experian.com/assets/government/white- papers/identity-proofing.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER14> A couple weeks ago I flew from NY to SF without any government photo ID. I brought my social security card and school ID (which has a photo)...the TSA agent looked over the cards and said it was fine, as long as I wasn't going overseas.

(didn't even get an additional patdown or luggage screening)

<comment><USER15> Isn't a Social Security card a type of government issued ID? It didn't mention anything about a photo.

<comment><USER14> Not necessarily...when taking on a new job, you have to fill out DHS forms that establish:

1\. Identity [http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable- documents/list-b...](http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable- documents/list-b-documents)

2\. Authorization to work: [http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable- documents/list-c...](http://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/acceptable- documents/list-c-documents)

A SS card (and birth certificate) falls in that latter category. It cannot alone establish identity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> imagine if you didn't have to tell the airline your identity until the day of the flight (eliminating change fees). I'm guessing airline ticket prices would (ultimately) become less volatile with the introduction of ticket brokers.

</comment><comment><USER17> Who's in charge of the the design of that site?

Terribly resized image containing the URL, horrible font...

<comment><USER2> Looks like it is a Blogger template.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> You totally can. Buddy lost his ID in Vegas, and flew back. Rattled off his CA DL#, got a putdown, and was good to go.

<comment><USER19> > Rattled off his CA DL#, got a putdown, and was good to go.

Can I opt for the non-putdown line?

<comment><USER20> No. You get the special line staffed by TSA agents who moonlight as cynical standup comedians used to dealing with hecklers.</comment></comment></comment>


How does YC's moderation system work? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> You have to pay something like 29.99 USD for every bump up on the front page you want. The guys who have their stories at the top pay somewhere close to the thousands, if I'm not mistaken.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm sure everyone knows but me... or maybe it's one of those 'competitive advantage' secrets... I was just curious how the ordering on the front page works, etc.

<comment><USER3> I would like to know the exact front page algorithm as well. It will help me clone YC News that much easier. :x

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I figured that might be the reaction, but to use an idea of Warren Buffet's, YC News has a natural competition 'moat' in that it's backed by YC itself... why would you go to another startup news site? Unless Sequoia starts it's own news site, I think YC News is safe. I know I come here because I know the content will be reasonably related to what is going on at YC, not because I think the moderation system is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

On the other hand, if it uses the same system as Reddit or something, I could see the reluctance, since Reddit gets to fight it out with a bunch of other sites and doesn't really have a natural monopoly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Up arrow, down arrow.

</comment><comment><USER5> it's secret</comment>


Show HN: Collection of 90+ FREE Open Source Intelligence Tools - <AUTHOR> Http://workinukraine.space/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi fellow hackers! This collection is manually curated #OSINT directory. Digital footprinting, fake news detection, governmental fraud & world terrorism related investigations, market intelligence/information gathering, penetration testing and more! So definitely will be useful for infosec guys, penetration testers, security researches, journalists or just a fellow nerds ;) Check it out and let me your feedback! Cheers, Denis (@SourcingDenis)

<comment><USER2> Nice one Denis ;)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Suggestions on helping socially awkward developer get a job? - <AUTHOR> Hi All,
I currently volunteer at a software engineering apprentice program where we take folks who have recently graduated from college, coding bootcamps, and even self taugh folks to give them real world experiences by both giving them a real project for a real client and teaching them software engineering principles. We've been around for about 2 years now and have a 90% job placement rate. Our developers that do get jobs, usually get it within 6-12 months into the apprenticeship program.
However, I have one developer who's been with us for the entire two years and he still has not received a job offer yet. He is hands down one of our most talented and productive developers. He's even lead a few projects. Whenever he goes to interviews, he crushes the technical challenges, questions, and brain teasers. When it comes to the "behavioral round", every single recruiter will tell him he's not a right fit for the team. He is definitely an awkward person, but not any more awkward than any other weird developers I've worked with in the past. Most of his personality quirks revolve around taking some things too literal and going off on tangents from certain conversation points. I can totally see this being an annoying quirk to deal with, but I feel his talent way outway his weirdness.
Is there anything you would suggest he should start trying? I would really like to see him progress with his career and have a job that he deserves. <comment><USER2> I can relate to this a bit and can suggest a couple of things:

First, get him to talk less -- at least until he's more familiar with the people around.

Second, make him aware that people see him as peculiar. This is probably a 2nd order effect of what makes him so technically brilliant, but he can prepare his partners in conversation by saying that he is "very technically minded" like Spock". People will generally be much more comfortable interacting with him having this expectation set early on.

</comment><comment><USER3> Personal skills and good communication ultimately count for more in any team environment. Maybe suggest the awkward person get some coaching, attend Toastmasters, something like that. Regardless of technical skill, no manager or team wants to add someone who is hard to communicate or work with. Team cooperation and harmony are first-order drivers of productivity, much more than technical skills.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow, that's really disheartening and resonates with me personally. I think it is a disgusting inefficiency of our economy that hiring is still a high-school popularity contest rather than a judgment of merit.

I worked a sales job for 5 years that I acquired through a University career fare. After 5 years, my team and I were fired for political reasons, because another manager and his team wanted to assume ownership of our customer base and product line (large corporations do this).

Over the next 9 months of sales interviews, I was denied from about 20 face to face interviews with absolutely no explanation as to what I was doing wrong.

It wasn't a failed background check or anything blatant-- middle managers repeatedly denied me round after round.

It wasn't until I took an interview with the Founder/CEO of a 5 person firm that I was immediately hired on the spot and praised for my sales acumen and personality. Wtf??

My point here is that it's not the fault of your candidate-- it's the fault of the people you are putting him in front of.

Barrage him with simulated behavioral interviews. Coach him on how to be more "likable and normal" (yuck).

But ultimately, once you've optimized for those things... get him in front of better people who are deliberately and specifically looking for talent, not sociability.

</comment><comment><USER5> How about running mock interviews with him? That way you can see exactly what's tripping him up and he can get quick feedback.</comment>


Mac People: Safari or Firefox 3? - <AUTHOR>

I've stuck with Safari till now for performance as well as aesthetics.  I like the new firefox look on mac, and the performance is better as well.  Anyone switching over?  Why or why not? <comment><USER2> I'm still sticking with Safari. Firefox's faster, but there's nothing that beats the speed of Safari on Mac, and in addition it is Cocoa (while Firefox is Carbon.) For some reason, this makes Safari _feel_ like a more solid browser, and Firefox feeling like a typical Carbon app (whatever that is - just a weird user experience using it.)

If the dealbreaker is extensions, then I have to say that the only extensions I use in Firefox are Web Developer Toolbar and Firebug, which are excellent extensions. I only start Firefox to a) test sites on Firefox and b) use the aforementioned extensions.

Safari has a good built-in alternative to Firebug, which is available by going to Safari > Preferences > Advanced and checking _Show Develop menu in menu bar_. Then go to Develop > Web Inspector (or the other tools there.) Good for quick Javascript troubleshooting, as it also has a Javascript error/eval console.

In Firefox, I've found that other extensions usually make the browser more bloated and slower to use. They're nice, and sure, you could have ForecastFox tell you the weather, but it's not worth the bloat, in my opinion. And themes... :|

If you're like me, you'll miss a lot of extensions, but realize in the end that you don't _really_ need most of them. del.icio.us was a favorite extension of mine. On Safari, I put the del.icio.us bookmarklet as the first bookmark on my menu bar. Then I hide the menu bar (apple+shift+b.) When I want to bookmark something to del.icio.us, I hit _Apple+1_ , tag, save.

Firefox is a great browser, and Firefox 3 makes it even better, but Safari is a fast, no-frills, and great web browser. Although Safari has less 3rd party addons (and most of them superb, like Inquisitor) it's a web browser that does what you should expect it to do, and fast - browse the web.

<comment><USER3> > it also has a Javascript error/eval console.

It even has tab-completion, which makes it feel even more solid than what I've experienced with FF and various extensions.

I only open FF for FF-specific testing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I switched from Windows, I went straight to Firefox because I felt comfortable there. But (3 years ago), Firefox started getting buggy and slow. I loved the add-ons, but I switched to Camino because it was more Mac-like and stable. But since Beta 3 for Firefox came out, I've switched back and been really impressed with it.

One feature that Firefox and Camino both have is the "Search for text when I start typing" which I use a lot for mouseless navigation.

I don't have any major gripes against Safari, I just prefer Firefox.

The GrApple Delicious theme for firefox is a must have for any Mac user.

<comment><AUTHOR> Safari has the search for text while typing now too. It's cool.

<comment><USER5> Really? How would I enable this? I don't see anything in prefs for Safari 3.1.1.

<comment><AUTHOR> Command + F then start typing what you're looking for on the page. Command + G will proceed to the next instance of your search phrase on the page.

<comment><USER5> Okay, I think there is a misunderstanding. I want a feature equivalent to 'find as you type' in Firefox. Just start typing while the focus point is on the content area of the tab, and the first search result gets highlighted. No need for command+F.

This is really the main reason firefox is my default browser.

<comment><USER6> This kept me on Firefox as well until I discovered SafariStand, which includes this feature.

<http://hetima.com/safari/stand-e.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Firefox is a -beast- on the mac. It drags and constantly seems to be using 5% of CPU, doesn't do fonts right, and hangs and lags a lot. So, i use Safari about 80% of the time.

However, it's got a lot of great plugins, so I use it for any questionable stuff and for proxied traffic, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you are just browsing, reading stuff, Safari rules. However, if you are developing a website, use Firefox.

<comment><USER3> I don't know. These days, Safari's Web Inspector is quite on-par with Firebug, with some things I like even better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Safari to surf, Firefox to develop because of Firebug.

So far though, I am very unimpressed with the interface choices they made with Firefox.

<comment><USER10> Webkit nightlies have an enhanced Web Inspector that's nearly as good as Firebug.

<comment><USER11> For me, it is far behind Firebug. I really miss keyboard shortcuts (at least for inspecting XHRs, please) and layout HTML/CSS inspection (not just highlighting elements while browsing tree).

<comment><USER12> It's certainly not there yet, but the Web Inspector in recent nightlies is a lot closer to Firebug than the one in Safari 3.1. That, and the advances the WebKit team are making elsewhere, gives me a lot of confidence that it's only a matter of time before Safari has a built-in web development tool and JavaScript debugger that matches or improves on Firebug in every area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am just totally enamored by Webkit. It's insanely fast. I usually run nightlies and haven't hit a nasty bug yet.

<comment><USER14> yep. me too. i got FF3 too but i'm sticking with WebKit as my number 1 browser!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> For security reasons you need more than one browser anyway. One for webmail, banking and all kinds of private password-protected stuff, and the second one - for the rest. Which is which doesn't really matter, although personally I chose Safari for important stuff and Firefox for the rest.

One of the reasons I do this, in case you are not aware, is the IFRAME flaw, that allows a malicious web site to load, say, your bank's page into a hidden IFRAME, check to see if you are logged in and then - you guessed it.

(I just thought actually, could be the other way around, because vulnerabilities in Firefox are better known and more often exploited by not- so-trustworthy sites. So maybe it'd be smarter to use Safari for "the rest" and Firefox - for your banking, PayPal, eBay, webemail, etc.)

<comment><USER16> Why not just use different profiles and run multiple instances of Firefox?

<comment><USER15> If I can run them simultaneously, then why not. Is it possible with FF?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Firefox 3- it's more stable, Del.icio.us integration is better on it, the awesome bar is awesome, and Greasemonkey works with it.

A lot of Greasemonkey plugins are pretty useless, but GoogleAutoPager is fantastic. It makes it so that Google searches are on an infinite page, as you scroll down the plugin gets the next page of results and slots them in so you never have to click next page

[http://lifehacker.com/software/google/download-of-the-day- go...](http://lifehacker.com/software/google/download-of-the-day-google- autopager-greasemonkey-252490.php)

Also, FF3 has Firebug. Game, set, and match.

</comment><comment><USER18> The main reason I stick with FF is for Firebug and the Del.icio.us plugins.

<comment><USER19> Those two and AdBlock---though I just discovered an ad blocker on pimpmysafari.com. (For the record: I use Firefox.)

<comment><USER20> Check out safariadblock (safariadblock.sourceforge.net) for an adblocker that is basically a port of adblockplus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm still sticking with Safari. Safari UX is just..nicer. To me, that is.

On the other hand, Firefox is definitely powerful and I love some of the addons, so I'll use it for development purposes - a lot of Firebug etc., have become moot with Safari's new and hot developer tools, but I still need to do some Firefox-specific things. But I don't want to spend so much time customizing how it looks/behaves.

</comment><comment><USER22> FF3. Apple developers succeeded in make Safari FEEL more solid but it crashes too often. I also wish Safari was as configurable as FF.

</comment><comment><USER23> If you like your keyboard shortcuts that (mostly) work across all FF installations across all platforms, go with FF. If you're a Mac-only person, stick with Safari if you already know it well.

Also, FF has extensions which although there are good alternatives on Safari, I sincerely doubt there are as many good quality ones for Safari as for FF.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I settled on Safari a while ago. I'll probably stick with Safari as my default, but make more use of firefox and it's plugins.

</comment><comment><USER24> Safari seems buggy to me. For example, go to Google Docs, open a document and tell me what key combination jumps to the beginning/end of the line. (The answer seems to be none.) Same for Firefox. Opera is the only browser where this simple "feature" works. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

</comment><comment><USER25> FF3, here's why: 1) Add-ons. I can customize more than Safari and plugging into the cloud today is more important than ever. 2) Safari is snappy but the new release of FF puts it on par if not over the top. Safari is way better for pr0n surfing, however :P

</comment><comment><USER26> Neither, really...OmniWeb is better. Technically it is now using the Safari engine, but the browser itself is superior to Safari.

It has very nice per-site preferences, really smart privacy options, plug-in management, etc.

</comment><comment><USER27> I use Safari for general browsing because it is fast and familiar. I use Firefox for web development because the add-ons and tools such as firebug and web developer toolbar can not be beat.

</comment><comment><USER28> Compartmentalizing helps prevent the possibility of total catastrophe, so for me it's Firefox for work, Safari for personal business, Opera for browsing, Camino for everything else.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've like Safari's text-rendering better then FF in the past, but FF3 is looking great, and I'm intrigued by the ability to tag bookmarks.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've switched back-and-forth a bit, but have settled in with Firefox. Not having the extensions I like is a killer.

</comment><comment><USER31> FF 3. Just hope they get the bug fixed QUICK. Safari is a huge resource suck and horks on a lot of sites I use.

<comment><AUTHOR> Safari is a resource suck? I always thought it was more efficient than FF.

<comment><USER31> It's fine on its own, but any time a site is using Flash or, heaven forbid, an applet, it would jump right to the head of the line, even with 70 or 80 tabs open in FF2.

<comment><USER32> Why would you have 70-80 tabs open in anything? When I have a lot of tabs open, I feel dirty and cluttered.

<comment><USER31> That's the life of a technology writer. I'm usually working several different stories at the same time. It's a mess, but it works better for me than trying to retrieve bookmarks. I keep meaning to check out one of the new research tools to manage it, but never seem to make the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> vimperator means that as much as i love webkit, i'll never leave firefox's insane quasi-native interface.

</comment><comment><USER34> I use both. Safari's still got a better look and feel, I think, so that's my default.

</comment><comment><USER35> Still running Safari, no reason or need to switch.

</comment><comment><USER36> used to do safari. now im on firefox because of speed, and better extensions. lets see if safari 4 can turn the tables

</comment><comment><USER37> Firefox + Foxmarks ^ no chance for Safari

</comment><comment><USER38> Camino

<comment><USER39> Camino has to be one of the worst browsers I have ever used. I don't know what they are up to. In my mind, Camino _should_ simply be Firefox with Webkit replacing the gecko engine... but it's not even on par with Firefox.

One thing I hate about Mac in general is their hate for navigating solely with the keyboard. A lot of third-party apps do a good job letting you navigate using your kb only (such as cmd+1, cmd+2... to hit tabs in FF) but the last time I used Camino they were seriously lacking in that department. Clicking links with the mousewheel is also very important to me (to open in a new tab).

<comment><USER40> Why is it one of the worst? Why should it "be Firefox with Webkit"?

Who are these mysterious "they"?

In Camino, I use the keyboard to navigate, and my third mouse button opens links in new tabs, with no problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Firefox. Definitely Firefox. The UI on Safari isn't really that good.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your shoe size? - <AUTHOR> Mine left feet is US 10.5 and right is US 10. Wondering if others in HN community has a different size of each foot. <comment><USER2> 12 to 13 depending on the style of the shoe.

Most of the guys I know are 12+ and have a hard time buying shoes. I wonder if people in China don't believe anybody has feet that big.

On the other hand, I often see that the smallest sizes are the last ones to be sold out in online women's clothing stores and I wonder if vendors underestimate the size of women.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is such a Saturday question - until I realised from your bio that you make shoes!</comment>


Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit-reports/ <comment><USER2> This advice works in other scenarios where companies string you along hoping you will give up and disappear.

Once my car was badly damaged by someone who ran a stop sign. It was clearly the other driver's fault. Her insurance was Allstate. They strung me along for more than a month "investigating" this obvious situation.

My car was an older one that was worth about the cost of the repairs, and they probably thought I would just give it up. But it was my only transportation and I needed it for work.

I did some research on California's insurance regulations and discovered their requirement that claims be settled within 40 days. After 40 days passed, I wrote a email similar to the letter examples in this article, giving then five days before I reported them to California's insurance department.

It was astonishing to see the immediate change in their behavior. The adjustor who had been playing telephone tag for weeks called me within an hour and arranged for a body shop near my home to start work immediately.

They laugh at angry bluster, but will move mountains to appease a focused person who can bring a regulatory agency down on them.

<comment><USER3> Similar experience with a telco in my state. As soon as I called the state regulator about being strung along over a bait and switch, the telco bent over backwards to clear up the issue.

There was also the time I took an airline to small claims court after repeated customer service calls and a demand notice failed to get their attention; the airline's chief counsel called me up at work after they received the notice from the court. They still failed to resolve the problem and also didn't show up for the hearing, so it was a summary judgement in my favor with damages multiplied x3.

Tip if you do escalate to a court or state regulator: Keep copies of everything including postage receipts with tracking info and records of phone calls (screenshots of call logs, notes about each call, etc.)

<comment><USER4> I've heard that even if you win in small claims it's hard to collect from these giant corps. Were you ever able to collect the damages?

<comment><USER3> The airline sent me a check about a month after the hearing for the full 3x amount.

<comment><USER5> Does that airline still allow you to fly with them?

<comment><USER3> Yes, it did. I never had any service denial or other problem as a result of taking the airline to small claims court.

ETA details

<comment><USER6> Then it didn't?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here is my identify theft story, also from 2017 (thanks, OPM): [https://chrxs.net/articles/2017/03/23/responding-to- identity...](https://chrxs.net/articles/2017/03/23/responding-to-identity- theft/)

I never got around to writing about it, but this also happened to my wife earlier this year. The fraudster opened a T-Mobile account with her data and we had an absolute hell of a time getting T-Mobile to do anything about it. After a few months and a letter threatening to send her "debt" to collections, my wife finally filed a complaint with the FTC and the matter was resolved a few weeks later. Good thing to keep in mind for issues with communications companies, at least when the damn government is functioning... [https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov](https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov)

</comment><comment><USER8> Calmly and shortly stating what happened and how you want it remedied is an all around great and underrated strategy for dealing with any organization and even individual relationships. Many people don't get what they want simply because they never ask.

In less acrimonious and regulated situations than dealing with debt collectors you can kindly ask if the other party would like a copy of your complaint by certified mail (that is, issue the least antagonistic of threats) and straighten things out by phone or email.

<comment><USER9> Calmly asking for your money back never works, in my experience, the other party are crooks preying on the naive and helpless, and they know they are crooks. Asking for a serviceable address and then sending the demand letter has always worked, it establishes that _you_ are not naive and helpless. What the other side absolutely wants to avoid is a public paper trail, they'll go to great lenghths to say away from the legal system, to continue to rip off the next poor sod.

<comment><USER8> I managed to get invoices paid simply by calling and emailing a duplicate. Sometimes these are complexities of large organizations, sometimes laziness that needs a jolt to action, and even among crooks there are levels of crookdom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting read, I was a victim of identity fraud a while back after moving from my rented apartment. I am very careful with my digital identity, however I was caught out by physical address fraud.

I didn't setup mail redirection and assumed updating my banking and important correspondence would be enough. However in the UK you get lots of spam mail to my old address, for things like credit cards etc. which someone managed to do.

In summary, I would setup mail redirection.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I reposted this today because somebody was looking for an old HN thread "Ask HN: Looking for an old HN post about how to effectively lodge a complaint" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18799453](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18799453)

</comment><comment><USER11> This belongs in a list of "strategies for adulthood" or something, along with the Art of Turboing and surely others.

What others, off the top of our heads?

[http://www.macwhiz.com/blog/art-of- turboing/](http://www.macwhiz.com/blog/art-of-turboing/)

<comment><USER12> Never heard it called turboing. It definitely works. When I bought my last car, it got lost in shipping and GM couldn't find it. I could tell them where it was because OnStar, but for whatever reason that never translated to success on them finding it themselves and getting it shipped along to me. So I sent an email to Mary Barra. I was under no illusion she would actually read it, but my wife used to have friends on the Wells Fargo Executive Response Team so I figured the odds were good GM had something similar. Yep! Couple hours later I got a call from a "Senior Account Representative" who knew everything about me, my car, where it was right now, and when I would see it on my doorstep, before she even called me. Magic! And she called back twice a day until the delivery actually took place. I don't recommend abusing the process, but it is very effective when things go off the normal rails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I feel compelled to mention: The actual crime in identity theft is fraud, and you are not the victim. E.g. a bank gave a loan to the wrong person. _They_ lost money. But they call it 'identity theft' to move the damage to you.

</comment><comment><USER14> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15206926](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15206926)

</comment><comment><USER15> This one needs a (2017) in the title.</comment>


'Unfixable' security flaw in Intel boot ROM - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/03/05/unfixable_intel_csme_flaw/ <comment><USER2> The useful gist:

> _" To fully compromise EPID, hackers would need to extract the hardware key > used to encrypt the Chipset Key, which resides in Secure Key Storage (SKS)," > explained Positive's Mark Ermolov._

> _" However, this key is not platform-specific. A single key is used for an > entire generation of Intel chipsets. And since the ROM vulnerability allows > seizing control of code execution before the hardware key generation > mechanism in the SKS is locked, and the ROM vulnerability cannot be fixed, > we believe that extracting this key is only a matter of time._

> _" When this happens, utter chaos will reign. Hardware IDs will be forged, > digital content will be extracted, and data from encrypted hard disks will > be decrypted."_

And this formidable response as usual:

> _Intel says folks should install the firmware-level mitigations, "maintain > physical possession of their platform," and "adopt best security practices > by installing updates as soon as they become available and being continually > vigilant to detect and prevent intrusions and exploitations."_

When will it stop? How deep run the flaws in Intel's platform? Is AMD equally exposed?

<comment><USER3> > "maintain physical possession of their platform"

That ship has sailed.

<comment><USER4> What about physical possession before you own it? Will this potentially sour a used/refurbished market?

<comment><USER5> this is more about the chipset on the motherboard.

to backdoor this you need to saddle a chip or a connector onto the PCH chip and win the race to takeover the bus.

or if your intel and you send a firmware update to modify the ME behaviour /state.

it would be fairly suspect in most cases but if this was done at the factory, it would be hard to tell for most people.

What really matters is just how much of a target you might be for someone to take the effort to engage in what really amounts to industrial/corporate espianage.

<comment><USER6> How far fetched would nation states performing this at airports be?

<comment><USER5> in socratic fashion...

how long does it take for a machine to be opened and booted up, and what sort of charade would be required to make the opportunity.

if someone flatout stole your laptop, how long would it take for you to notice its been replaced by a stand in? would someone have the opportunity to swap your real laptop back to you unnoticed?

and seriously it doesnt need to be a nation state that does this, as all you need to be capable of physically is to inject digital pulses into the bus crafting an exploit is where the skill comes in.

some people are motivated just by the opportunity to stir a pot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _This is used for things like providing anti-piracy DRM protections, and > Internet-of-Things attestation_

"Internet-of-Things attestation" ?? A poor attempt to stick a refreshing buzzword in front of a fundamentally unwanted user-betraying open-society- undermining technology.

Remote attestation does away with the basic foundation of _protocols_ for mediating between mutually-untrusting parties, making it so users must trust the remote party. Imagine if websites attempting to enforce (browser fingerprinting, no image save, anti-adblock, etc) could successfully implement their hostile restrictions!

This break is great news for everybody that wants their computer to remain under _their own control_ , rather than an increasingly locked down Big Tech WebTV.

<comment><USER8> > "Internet-of-Things attestation" ?? A poor attempt to stick a refreshing > buzzword in front of a fundamentally unwanted user-betraying open-society- > undermining technology.

While I agree with you at a consumer level, at the industrial level this is a thing. Like, imagine a vertical farm that is controlled by a thousand, networked on-prem robots. An "attestation" mechanism makes setting this up easier and less-error prone.

<comment><USER7> How so specifically, compared to say just imaging the devices? Are we really worried about rogue employees putting rootkits on said robots, and to what end?

Remote attestation in general does have positive uses, and would be freedom preserving if the signing keys were controlled by the device's owner. The problem is Intel's design of baking in privileged keys that they themselves control, such that hostile parties can require that you run software that they provably control.

<comment><USER9> > Are we really worried about rogue employees putting rootkits on said robots, > and to what end?

Not about rogue employees, but adversary states, just think of Stuxnet. Messing up a nation's food supply can induce everything from mild unrest to full scale civil war and mass migration. For now (!) we have the lucky advantage that most farm labor is still manual / the machines that exist can either be trivially replaced with older non-smart machines or by manual labor... but imagine 20, 30 years in the future?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Perhaps it sounds dumb but when I buy something I want to own it. It doesn't seem all that legally complicated? After I buy a thing it should stop doing things for previous owners.

</comment><comment><USER11> The labs team at work wrote a bit [0] about why this is over-hyped (more context in the full post):

> Arbitrary code execution is bad! But exploiting this vulnerability requires > local access at a minimum, compounded by the attacker needing to exploit a > relevant device to gain a foothold on the system. This list of valid > footholds is quite limited. For instance, an attacker would need to perform > code execution in the ISH or other Platform Controller Hub (PCH) devices — > exploiting PCIe devices (like GPUs or RAID controllers) wouldn't suffice. > Additionally, per the original blog post, other methods of exploitation > require physical access. Either way, this is limited to incredibly motivated > and well-resourced attackers (like a nation-state with a high-value target > identified).

[0] [https://capsule8.com/blog/ramming-down-hype-via-intel- csme/](https://capsule8.com/blog/ramming-down-hype-via-intel-csme/)

<comment><USER12> It is limited to any well-monied adversary.

So, every serious company should be concerned that their competition (maybe abroad) will be able to eventually decrypt a lost / stolen laptop with trade secrets. So every corporate laptop needs its full-disk encryption upgraded. It's large.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So ugly, I can't just replace all of our hardware. Remaining forever vigilant is tiring. CPUs are so broken that security is just a facade.

<comment><USER5> the problem is the hardware being replaced to begin with.

The ME is not needed for the end user to operate thier machine in a secure manner.

The ME is a trojan that allows intel to manipulate your system and lock you into the whole DRM nonsense. the only reason Intel platforms havent become as bad as mobile platforms is because there isnt enough fear of system compromise from the average user.

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

<comment><USER14> You know if your did less FUD there's a chance people may actually engage in a conversation with you.

Anyone from enterprise knows his much of a timesaver amt is. I make a call andi don't have to wait for the IT dude to appear on my desk- he clicks a few buttons from his desk and my problem is fixed.

<comment><USER15> Why does that technology, with attendant attack surface, need to be in consumer chips on consumer motherboards?

Besides, we already had a solution for this. It can be provided with add-in cards.

<comment><USER5> one thing that comes to mind is that the consumer-based wedge of the pie is handled as an enterprise deployment of its own managed by intel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Duplicate: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22495251](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22495251)

</comment><comment><USER17> "utter chaos" seems overstated. I've never heard of anyone protecting DRM with the TPM on any consumer platform.

<comment><USER18> TPM, no. I'm fairly sure that PlayReady's HWDRM implementation does integrate somewhat with ME though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> So it seems that the flaw can't plausibly be exploited by a remote or adjacent attacker or software. So what's the impact here? Warez scene wreaking havoc with lossless WEB-DLs?

<comment><USER20> A ton of warez groups (even a lot of P2P ones) already have a Widewine exploit that works for >=1080p anyway, some groups (BLUTONiUM, PETRiFiED ++) even have a 2160p exploit.

It's actually quite amazing that the 1080p exploit hasn't leaked and been patched yet, considering how widespread it is.

<comment><USER21> <=1080p content is typically only protected by code obfuscation. There aren't usually any "exploits", merely a moderately skilled reverse engineering effort - as such, nothing can be patched any time soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Seems like something like these start to make sense again if you can live with the limitations:

[https://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/result.php?model[]=973&...](https://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/result.php?model\[\]=973&model\[\]=950&) should be under 100$

</comment><comment><USER23> This reminds me of the recent iPhone bootrom vulnerability, which lead to Android on the iPhone:

[https://checkra.in/](https://checkra.in/) [https://projectsandcastle.org/](https://projectsandcastle.org/)

</comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone still trust their computers, or trust that secrets will remain secret?

I certainly don't.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is great. It might be able to be used by programs like me cleaner.

</comment><comment><USER26> How many can there be? (Stories about the same issue, I mean.)</comment>


Simulating a global Ebola outbreak - <AUTHOR> http://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/326240 <comment><USER2> Not very useful because it doesn't take into consideration the most significant causes (or restrictions) of spread of Ebola or similar diseases, which relates to cultural interpersonal interactions (such as handling and washing the dead), education, and poverty levels.

Take a dozen Ebola infected persons and drop them in New York. The infection will be eliminated in a few transmissions. Take a dozen Ebola infected persons and drop them in the poorest quarter of Monrovia in Liberia, and well... we're watching what happens.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point and the author kind of anticipates this with an umbrella "this isn't legit" clause at the end. Though I must say just as a demonstration of (albeit simple) predictive disease modeling in Mathematica, this article still stands on its own.

It would be interesting to see how organizations like the CDC characterize and formalize all the variables that this article is forced to ignore for simplicity's sake. Are there maps of health care quality in use? Are there other important factors related to transmission other than infectiousness and population density of a given area? etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Or you can do it properly with an actual (and well tested) epidemic simulator with zero lines of code: [http://www.gleamviz.org/simulator/](http://www.gleamviz.org/simulator/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Epidemic simulations, or contagion simulations, turn out to have pretty wide applications. For example, you can adapt a lot of the basic agent-in-a-grid logic many simulators use to model bushfires[1].

Similarly, if you take the S/I/R model and modify the states and infection functions to model the spread of ideas in a social network. Eg instead of an infection function based purely on proximity, you might also adjust for similarity (homophily) between two agents.

If you want to see a much less sophisticated epidemic model, performed on a simple grid, I wrote a crappy one as a student[2].

[1] [http://www.bushfirecrc.com/projects/a51/computer- simulation-...](http://www.bushfirecrc.com/projects/a51/computer-simulation- modelling) [2] [https://github.com/jchester/ruby-epidemic- model](https://github.com/jchester/ruby-epidemic-model)

</comment><comment><USER5> Meanwhile, in perhaps scarier reality... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_virus_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_West_Africa_Ebola_virus_outbreak#Timeline_of_the_outbreak)

</comment><comment><USER6> Its really impressive what you can do in very few lines of code within the wolfram ecosystem.

<comment><USER7> Except that to make a few diagram at the end required a lot of Wolfram code, although the model was very simplistic.

To me (working with complex models for work) I fear that complexity with Wolfram would shoot up to unmanageable levels once you start doing serious work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's false, Madagascar will be safe.</comment>


Socket.IO P2P - <AUTHOR> http://socket.io/blog/socket.io-p2p/ <comment><USER2> It'd be nice if the socket.io project spent less time adding features and more time just documenting what they have.

Does anybody have a small, fast, no-bullshit, modern websockets library they'd nominate for use with node?

<comment><USER3> Absolutely! I've had terrible experiences with vanilla socket.io regarding reconnections, performance, and reliability. This is even after the 1.0 release.

Lately, I've been using primus [1], which is an API unification layer for socket.io, sockjs, faye, and native websockets. Swapping one engine for another is trivial, and they've taken pains to abstract a core subset of functionality.

[1] [https://github.com/primus/primus](https://github.com/primus/primus)

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Mostly quoting myself from earlier this year: I don't normally like bashing open-source projects, but socket.io should not be used. It may be noob-friendly, but that's just because it does things so automatically that you can't really use it correctly. When I was a websockets noob, I used socket.io briefly, and it was a complete waste of time.

See, for example, [https://github.com/Automattic/socket.io- client/issues/572](https://github.com/Automattic/socket.io-client/issues/572) (closed without comment).

SockJS is much better, as is raw websockets. Presumably Primus, too, although I'm a bit surprised that one can come up with a sensible interface that can be layered over both Socket.io and anything else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Personally I think PeerJS is a much more mature, robust and better documented solution.

[http://peerjs.com/](http://peerjs.com/)

Last time I checked PeerJS also provides support for handling TURN/ICE/STURN.

<comment><USER6> What's the state of this project? This issue seems to suggest the project is dead. [https://github.com/peers/peerjs/issues/290](https://github.com/peers/peerjs/issues/290)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is it documented anywhere how they handle TURN/ICE/STURN for dealing with firewalls and routers?

EDIT: Looks like it doesn't. This is basically just a very small library on top of socket.io. Look forward to them helping solve the TURN/ICE/STUN issues :(

<comment><USER8> It's handled by simple-peer here: [https://github.com/feross/simple- peer/blob/master/index.js#L...](https://github.com/feross/simple- peer/blob/master/index.js#L126)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm humored by the fact that this example isn't working for me.

</comment><comment><USER10> Too bad the demo doesn't work, I was really excited for this. Regardless, big congratulations to the Socket.IO team for an awesome feature! And props to Feross for his simple-peer module, he is doing incredible work in the WebRTC world.

In other news, to address some of the comments here:

\- As others have mentioned, [https://github.com/sockjs](https://github.com/sockjs) is an alternative that is more lean with less features.

\- I've also written an inverse websocket tool that behaves like a regular HTTP request/response, but will proxy it through WebSockets or fallback to JSONP. I really like this approach because it feels more RESTful, has less overhead, and even allows the browser to do a `createServer`. It is currently pretty tightly coupled into a project of mine (next bullet), I'll try pulling it out into its own library if there is demand, but here is the source:

\- - Client library, [https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/gun.js#L1138](https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/gun.js#L1138) and onwards.

\- - Server library, [https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/lib/wsp.js#L8](https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/lib/wsp.js#L8) and onwards.

\- - Really nifty HTTP normalizer, [https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/lib/http.js](https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/lib/http.js) .

\- - Really nifty WebSocket normalizer, same format, [https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/lib/ws.js](https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/lib/ws.js) .

\- - Really nifty JSONP normalizer, same format, [https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/lib/jsonp.js](https://github.com/amark/gun/blob/master/lib/jsonp.js) .

\- If you do use the P2P Socket.IO feature, the next thing you'll need is a P2P database that can run in the browser! And that is what my main open source project, [http://gunDB.io/](http://gunDB.io/) is about. The previous bullet's code is my nimble websocket and fallback library I wrote for this project, and that is why they are currently tightly coupled - sorry about that. If there is enough demand for it by itself then I'll try making it into its own library.

Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER11> Neat, when can we expect a DHT (distributed hash table) for decentralization? ;)

<comment><USER12> [https://github.com/feross/bittorrent- dht](https://github.com/feross/bittorrent-dht)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can I use this to send udp+tcp between clients and servers?</comment>


The simple reason America is the only rich country with frequent mass shootings - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/node/21769135 <comment><USER2> I know this is one of HNs hot button topics, so I will try to steer clear of the usual stuff but two points leap out:

"""So far this year America has averaged one shooting in which four or more people are killed or injured every single day. """

Holy cow. Is it me or do these just not get reported or just don't "break through"? Is there a site listing these?

Years ago in Ireland the local news _always_ reported road deaths ("sadly two young people died in a collision yesterday ...")

the thinking was that by reminding people of the dangers, they would drive more carefully (at least that's how it was explained to me)

I wonder if a similar approach might improve the situation in USA?

Secondly, I usually respect the economist but i don't think the article lived up to it "one simple trick to solve mass shootings" title - I came away with a reasonable view that it's a complex mix of nut jobs, overton windows and gun availability. but there is no simple fix

</comment><comment><USER3> I think this is the best article I have seen on this topic: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-things-to- know-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-things-to-know-about- mass-shootings-in-america/)

Specifically the graph about halfway through the article that show the relationship between the number of guns and frequency of mass shootings, clearly the USA is a significant outlier.

It's pretty compelling IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER4> paywall :( what's the reason according to the article?

<comment><USER5> See [https://archive.is/3S2ur](https://archive.is/3S2ur)</comment></comment>


Only 4% of Languages Are Used Online - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/only-4-of-languages-are-used-online/

<comment><USER2> One of the problems is that linguists care more about languages than people. Turkey switched to the latin alphabet from an arabic script. They found it easier to learn and it helped boost literacy rates.[1]

Minor languages die because they're a detriment to native speakers, it's not a bad thing when they do.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a list of some of the most thriving languages, measured in the study by their OS support: English, Japanese, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese (both Brazilian and European), Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian (Bokmål), Danish, Finnish, Russian, Polish, Chinese (both Traditional and Simplified), and Korean.

Taken from [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077056#pone.0077056-Ad1)

</comment><comment><USER4> It's hard for me imagine that there are 7,000 different languages spoken around the world! There are only 195 countries so it seems like 7,000 is an unsustainable number of languages. The number of languages "thriving" online is 170 which, to me, feels like a reasonable number. Perhaps it's my English- speaking hubris to think this way.

<comment><USER5> > It's hard for me imagine that there are 7,000 different languages spoken > around the world! ...Perhaps it's my English-speaking hubris to think this > way.

Indeed it is. First of all, there are 7Bn people on the planet, and many languages have a small number of speakers. Loosely, today, less technology, the more languages (because there is less intercommunication). What we call France used to have hundreds of not-particularly-mutually-comprehensible languages until the Louis XIII and XIV made a point of eliminating them -- but it took the television to pull it off. Likewise, incomprehensible English dialects survived well into the 20th century.

In India there are _dozens_ of languages that have never had a written form that gain an alphabet each year.

BTW What's a "language" and what's a "dialect" is a very political issue. It was said in the 1800s that you could walk from Paris to Rome, with each village speaking a dialect that its neighbors could understand, but by the time you arrived you'd gone from French-speaking Paris to Italian-speaking Rome. Also, politically, there is one "Chinese" language with other Chinese languages called "dialects." As a kid I heard Mandarin and Cantonese daily, and never would have called them the same languages, but I had neighbors who would have virulently argued the opposite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems suspicious that "not used online" languages are declared dead, whereas it might as well be the case that they haven't been truly "born" on the Internet yet.

The main reason is that the places with the greatest variety of languages also happen to be poorly developed areas with lack of Internet access. As their ability to access the Internet improves, the languages might find a way to thrive (or be defeated by the overwhelming amount of foreign-language content).

Another reason is poor Unicode/browser/font support for various languages. Even some thriving languages suffer from it like Japanese with no vertical writing and furigana support in most browsers. To say nothing of something like Mongolian script. This might also be fixed, which will increase the affected languages' usage on the Internet.

<comment><USER7> >no ... furigana support in most browsers

Chrome, IE, Safari and Opera have all supported the "ruby" tag, which is used for furigana, for a while now. Firefox has finally added support in version 38, released in May.

Now, I can start complaining about the number of sites that misuse ruby and break highlighting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> That plot is terrible. I had assumed that it was butchered by the journalist… but it's exactly the same in the paper. Which axis is the number of speakers? What is the "real ratio"? I expected better from PLOS ONE.

<comment><USER9> The axis are described in the text

> The x axis (log scaled) gives the number of speakers (plus one, so as not to > make dead languages fall off the scale). The y axis, also log scaled, shows > the adjusted wikipedia size.

As is the real ratio

> real ratio, defined as the number of 'real' pages divided by the total page > count

Not sure why they couldn't put the above in the figure legend (or better yet label the plot directly). I agree it is poorly done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> 4% being about 300 languages

</comment><comment><USER11> Is the context "digital" really important here, I hardly believe that publication overall, analog and digital, happens in more than 300 languages, or are there books, newspapers, magazines, roadsigns in 6000+ languages?

</comment><comment><USER12> these are the languages most people will speak in 100 years based on my predictions: English, Mandarin, A spanish portuegues hybrid language, Whatever they mainly speak in india, Arabic, and Japanese

Most countries will pick up english or chinese for their official language. Most european countries will lose their native language due to the influx of immigrants polluting their culture.</comment>


Why does HN care so much about Jeff Immelt being Uber CEO? - <AUTHOR> I don't understand this - could someone explain?  What am I missing?

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14870495 (48 comments)
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14871625
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15054876
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15056196 (132 comments)
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15111234
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15111281
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15111285
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15111299
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15111363
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15111449
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15111571
 I'm happy to believe that it's important to people, but I don't understand why, and would welcome an explanation. <comment><USER2> Because Uber is a hot topic company. A giant "startup" with a lot of controversy surrounding it. Will they right the ship? will it collapse?

I personally think an Uber collapse would have larger ramifications in the startup/VC world. I believe society / media is looking for a scapegoat for all that is wrong with the current "bubble." Like Pets.com 20 years ago, people are chomping at the bit to put blame on someone to epitomize all that is wrong with startups, out of control investing, breaking rules/laws, etc.

And as members / interested parties in this society/network, we care about it.

Edit: spelling

</comment><comment><USER3> Same reason people watch car crashes on YouTube: you _know_ it will end badly but don't know how.

</comment><comment><USER4> The story today is the pulling-out-at-the-last-minute, which implies something has gone unexpected (as has been the case with Uber lately).</comment>


The Lost Futures of Mark Fisher - <AUTHOR> https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/the-lost-futures-of-mark-fisher/ <comment><USER2> Do checkout "Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?", It's a concise book that talks about capitalism and its effects on culture and public thought. I haven't read lost futures yet but I found this really good video discussing Mark's idea by Cuck Philosophy called "Hauntology, Lost Futures and 80s Nostalgia" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSvUqhZcbVg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSvUqhZcbVg)

<comment><USER3> Of course recommended reading on capitalism's effects on culture and thought are the works of Adorno and Horkheimer, and Marcuse - who seems to have fallen a little out of favor but his work is as important as it was in the 60s.

<comment><USER2> Do you have any recommendations on what books I should pick up? , I've only read about the authors you mentioned on [https://plato.stanford.edu](https://plato.stanford.edu) and also through some philosophy podcasts..

<comment><USER3> "One Dimensional Man" by Marcuse certainly, "Escape From Freedom" by Erich Fromm and for more contemporary review, Mark Fisher of course. You also can't miss Guy Debord (his Society of the Spectacle) and, although I haven't read him yet, Henri Lefebvre's "Critique of Everyday Life" is looking promising from what I've seen so far. I'd suggest browsing the Verso catalogue for old (republished) and new books, almost all of them center around cultural critique of capitalism[0].

[0] [https://www.versobooks.com/series_collections/5-radical- thin...](https://www.versobooks.com/series_collections/5-radical-thinkers)

<comment><USER2> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The opening paragraph of this piece mentions (but does not link to) Fisher's 2013 piece "Exiting The Vampire Castle". If you haven't read it, you probably should: [https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting- vam...](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire- castle/).

It's a critique of the progressive liberal left from the traditional far left. Central to Fisher's thesis is that by emphasizing race and sex, class identity (which he feels is crucial) is ignored: "I've noticed a fascinating magical inversion projection-disavowal mechanism whereby the sheer mention of class is now automatically treated as if that means one is trying to downgrade the importance of race and gender. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, as the Vampires' Castle uses an ultimately liberal understanding of race and gender to obfuscate class."

What I find particularly interesting is how similar this critique is to the alt-right's criticism of neo-liberalism. I think it's a fine example of the "horseshoe theory" of politics, where the far-left and far-right share certain commonalities: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory).

<comment><USER5> The critiques are similar insofar as they are both critiques, but differ vastly in their content.

Mark Fisher, and the 'traditional left's' critique of neoliberal identity politics calls for a centering of class -- that is the power relations inherent in capital modes of production. This, many would argue is not an identity, but a _material position_: a specific stance or relationship to the productive forces in society.

The Alt-Right tends to believe societal conflicts arise from 'culture wars' between ethnicities, nationalities, religions, etcetera. In this way, they share an 'identitarian' analysis of political force with the liberals they aim to critique!

<comment><USER6> If you look at political history, the jokingly made Fish Hook Theory is more valid than the Horse Shoe.

[https://i.redd.it/ipw1tkw2v06z.png](https://i.redd.it/ipw1tkw2v06z.png)

<comment><USER7> If you look at the history of Stalinism, the Khmer Rouge, and Maoism, the horseshoe theory begins to look appealing again, unless you consider Stalin to be Fascist.

<comment><USER8> It is quite popular among the hard left to handwave away the crimes of the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, by saying they are capitalists!

<comment><USER9> Really? I've never heard that before and I've spent a not insignificant portion of my life in hard left circles.

People will often say that Stalin's USSR was not communist, but was rather in a pre-communist phase. In the USSR this stage was known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, which according to Lenin, would eventually fade allowing a state-less, class-less society to flourish. Obviously they never got to that stage, but honestly even arguing this is semantics. Communism vs precommunism is a real time waster of a political debate, but I've never heard anyone describe any stage of the USSR as "capitalist". Perhaps state capitalism, if you really want to stretch that definition, but that's still a very different thing.

Generally lefties will distance themselves from Stalinism and Maoism by describing those forms as "authoritarian socialism", as opposed to "libertarian socialist" ideologies like what they had in socialist Catalonia, or Anarcho Communism as it's described in The Conquest of Bread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Excellent, thoughtful review of one of the great modern social theorists. I really enjoyed _Capitalist Realism_ , and will be diving into this one, too!

</comment><comment><USER11> The New Yorker article referenced in the first paragraphs of this piece provides a nice overview of k-punk and Fisher's writings, but other wise offers very little of substance.

[https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/mark-fishers- k-p...](https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/mark-fishers-k-punk-and- the-futures-that-have-never-arrived)

</comment><comment><USER12> > I would not claim that Islam is monolithically malign, of course, but > someone less constrained by their unconscious sense of ideological > appropriateness would ask why interpretations of the faith lead people > towards evangelistic violence and puritanical tyranny so much more than > interpretations of other faiths.

After WWII and decolonisation, a new breed of educated, progressive and secular leaders arose across former colonial states. In the Middle East, this was characterised by the influence of Egypt's Nasser. These leaders weren't afraid to stand up to religious fundamentalism. Here is a 1966 video of Nasser making fun of the Muslim Brotherhood trying to force women to wear the hijab[0]. There were secular governments across the Middle East, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

However, these secular and socialist leaders were seen as too close to the Soviets by the US, despite many of them explicitly participating in the Non- Aligned movement, and America and its allies quickly acted to counter their influence and depose them when possible.

The major political opponent to anti-imperialist socialism across the Islamic world were the religious fundamentalists, so they were the ones who were backed by the West.

Western support for Saudi's and their Wahhabist ideology is well known. Indonesia's Sukarno was deposed in an American supported purge backed by Islamic fundamentalists, described by the CIA itself as "one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century". Hamas was propped up in Palestine by the Israelis as a counter to Arafat's secular Fatah[1]. Western efforts to undermine Nasser and fund his political opponents(surprise... Islamic fundamentalists) are well documented. The crushing of Nasserism in the Arab world with the help of the Saudis and Israelis is regarded as one of the great triumphs of post WW2 American foreign policy. The groups that formed Al Qaeda and the Taliban were supported by Americans as counters to the Soviets in Afghanistan. There is also consistent American support for the Pakistani government, even in the face of genocide of millions[2], in an attempt to counter the spooky "socialist" and secular India.

And all that is discounting the reactionary sort of fundamentalism that might arise as a result of constant war and interventionism by the West in the Middle East.

It makes me sad when I see "westerners" criticizing Islamic extremism without recognizing their own culpability in the current state of affairs. It is short-sighted and illogical to divorce the political and social situation in the Islamic world from centuries of western foreign policy.

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fswb4a9jcU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fswb4a9jcU) [1]: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847) [2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide)

<comment><USER10> That phrase bothered me for a different reason - namely, the role of Christian evangelism in western imperialism. Christianity became a key justification for the racism and orientalism necessary to justify the imperialism, the idea that enlightened Christian Europeans were going to save the ignorant savages and degenerate oriental kingdoms from themselves. Without the racism and orientalism, imperialist ambitions become too morally difficult to maintain.

So I don't think the problem is Islam, or even Christianity. I think the problem is the political usefulness of evangelical religions.

Of course, the horror we talk about when talking about the violent nature of Islam is "terrorism"... which is, really, just a form of asymmetric warfare, all that's available when one side has tremendous military superiority. If the armies were more equal, the situation would be different.

This is actually related to another minor gripe I have about Mark Fisher. He talks a lot of the problems of left-wing online activism, and he's right, but the problem as it stands today isn't a new flaw of the left (this thinking has always been around, as he has noted). Rather, it's that the internet and social media make it so easy to be a mob. The right-wing Twittersphere is as bad as the left, and uses much the same tactics. The correct answer is for us to stay off of social media...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I dunno.

Every time I try to read these sort of discussions, typically from the left but also just as typically from the right, I'm left with the impression that the author believes that there are Good People and there are Bad People. The Good People are oppressed or misled by the Bad People, who are overtly or covertly, consciously or unconsciously, acting for their own benefit, whether that benefit is defined economically, socially, morally, or psychologically. The author argues, or just simply assumes, that if everyone, who are obviously Good People, would put on the author's revolution's uniforms or at least act according to the author's dictates or suggestions or hints, everything would be good and wonderful, full of rainbows and butterflies, with egalitarianism and respect for all the Good People and the Bad People taught the error of their ways so that they became Good People. (Or at least put up against a wall and shot.)

The problem is, and I'm an old man and can say this from experience, that the whole argument, right from its assumptions, is a load of horse shit. There are no Good People. They don't exist. Or maybe they do exist, but they're like those fairies also called "Good People"; you call them that to prevent them from souring your milk and killing your goats. In actual fact, there are only Bad People. They're everywhere. That person you think is a good person? They're a Bad Person. It's Bad People all the way down.

You know the neoliberal left, that everybody hates and is clearly in the wrong in all situations? They weren't always the powerful political war-horse they are now. (One could argue that they aren't a powerful political war-horse now, but that's neither here nor there.) The Baby Boomers? They learned identity politics because they had to. They were begat into a time when your race or manner of speech or the shape of your nose defined a significant fraction of your destiny. Without them, the whole _but it 's really about economic inequality and opportunities_ or whatever would be laughably, pointlessly, silly: simply none of it would apply if you were black, female, Hispanic, southern European, a new immigrant, eastern European (I had to laugh at one Neo-Nazi a while back; judging by his name and look, he was a Slav. If you can't find irony in a Slavic Neo-Nazi, you've missed the whole boat.)...

And yet, the Baby Boomers are indeed rat bastards.

Have you heard of the Liberal's Lament? "Last guys don't finish nice." Those most in need of help are the least likely to look like they deserve it. Those miners and factory workers that the old-timey traditional liberals fought so hard for? Racist and sexist as fuck. Sure, some of the leaders believed, or at least acted, in equality across the skin-tones, but most didn't and the rabble were all rabble. They aren't all going to rise, phoenix-like, Eminem-like, and become wonders and paragons.

And so, whenever I see something about some group, left, right, or center, just needing a little reform or revolution to really fix things right, I am going to ask, "What will go wrong?" Because it ain't going to go right. It will end up badly, even if it succeeds, at least according to the next generation.

Sigh.

Cynically, <USER13>
"You do it. I'm bitter."

</comment><comment><USER14> As a fan of Fisher, it's interesting to read an open-minded review of his work from someone on the right. But the bit about Islam can't be left unchallenged. The reviewer says:

>>> I would not claim that Islam is monolithically malign, of course, but someone less constrained by their unconscious sense of ideological appropriateness would ask why interpretations of the faith lead people towards evangelistic violence and puritanical tyranny so much more than interpretations of other faiths.

But here in America we still have Christians practicing evangelistic violence and working to enforce puritanical tyranny. There's nothing unique about Islam in this regard, unfortunately. Like nearly any religion, it can be mustered to support incredible love or horrific cruelty.

<comment><USER15> You are right that any philosophy can be distorted and made horrific. It's kind of like how even lots of water can be poisonous if drank in sufficient quantities.

It's hard for me to bring up a topic like this without being lumped into straw man town of equating "some religions tend to have more violently dangerous people, as data like the pew opinions show" with "some religions are universally bad and racism is ok."

I think an understanding of my first quote is important while my second quote is not worth, to me, discussing because racism is really harmful.

That being said, while the kkk is very real and caused massive historical violence and even today has a non-zero level of threat. The evalgelistic Christians are about as dangerous, in terms of violence, as followers of Eris working to further the Eschaton.

Other philosophies and religions are currently more dangerous and we need to engage with, learn about, and support constructive ways to change minds so apostasy stops being a capital offense in our world.

<comment><USER16> [https://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_ch...](https://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_far_right_terrorism_partner/)

[https://www.splcenter.org/20180723/terror- right](https://www.splcenter.org/20180723/terror-right)

<comment><USER15> Aside from those sources aren't really reputable, that's why I said that the right threat is non-zero. It does exist, it's just less than other threats.

OKC was 1995. It makes me feel old but that's 25 years ago. I would worry more if Montana had turned into an ISIS-like dystopian recruiting all these dumbasses to gather from around the world to make a super Pope or something.

<comment><USER16> That's the first time I've heard SPL isn't reputable. Anyway, it's not an opinion piece, it's just a list of violent events. If you find one that's not true, please say so.

The article is a record of right-wing violence, which are due to strains of white supremacy (often Christian supremacy as well), going up to 2019. So Islam is far from exceptional when it comes to ideologies prone to violence.

You're not one of those people who dismiss everything that disagrees with them as "fake news", are you?

So if Islam is not the only ideology that can turn violent, then why do people like to focus on it so much and act like it's the number one threat to the world that's flying under our radar? And people ignore the fact that US activity in Muslim countries has been so barbaric, which is obviously going to make people angry.

This is why people talk about Islamophobia, because the fixation goes beyond logic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This piece exhibits the usual problem of using words and expression so abstract or vague that anyone reading it can pour in the undetstanding ones wants. People discussing will often disagree because they have different take on simple words. Just i the opening two paragraphs I can mention: "cultural and political theorist", "censorious moralism", "Poshleft moralisers", "kangaroo courts", "structural critique", "inspire and energise", "speculative realism", "knowing postmodern pretension". Add in the usual tendencies for hyperboles and denigrement of anything they disagree with, it adds up to something only people already adhering to whatever cause it's about will read.

<comment><USER18> Might want to take that reaction as impetus to read more</comment></comment>