Ask HN: What would your ideal programming language look like? - <AUTHOR>

Extra points for original ideas, syntax or semantics.<p>Perfectly OK to argue for existing languages too. (Why not?) <comment><USER2> Why would it be _one_ language? There's no such thing.

I write glue code for CLI tools a lot. Something specialized similarly to shell is required.

I write networking code at various levels, sometimes on top of HTTP, other times I need linewise protocol with SSL/TLS, and sometimes I need to work with raw IP packets or ethernet frames.

I need sometimes to interact with operating system closely. A necessity to have ABI easily translated to what C gives.

There are times when I need fast program with very small memory footprint, so I need clear control over memory usage.

No single language nor runtime can fulfil all these (barring uselessly general statement that "Linux is such thing"). It's a norm for me to juggle with three or four languages at the same time on a single project.

</comment><comment><USER3> Elixir, without the clumsy anonymous function calls (eg.: `sum.(1,2)`. Everything else is pretty much what I want: Functional, not too strict in purity, concurrent, compiled, dynamic, optional static typing, tests in the language core (not an afterthought), first-class comments with doctests, piping, pattern matching.

I admit it: syntax matters for me, I'm actually more productive when dealing with truly _elegant_ code. Also I don't do systems level programming (Rust seems interesting for this if I ever need it)

</comment><comment><USER4> It's possible this exists already, I haven't researched it that heavily, but..

Effectively what I want is a high-level scripting language with 'c-like' syntax, that can be compiled into a static binary, to allow easier distribution of (in particular) shell utilities.

I have a feeling Go may come close, but I have a vague feeling I wasn't crazy about the syntax of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Felt the same about Go syntax. For scripting in C I've had some fun with tcc: "C script supported : just add '#!/usr/local/bin/tcc -run' at the first line of your C source, and execute it directly from the command line."[0]

[0] [http://bellard.org/tcc/](http://bellard.org/tcc/)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the reference I'll look into it.. I haven't written C since I was a student but I kind of figured it would always be too low level to be a good choice for most shell utilities.

e.g. I want to just allocate a string to a variable, I don't want to worry about the length of the string in memory etc.

I looked briefly at stuff like Squirrel, but it seems largely abandoned these days, and as far as I can tell to compile it requires a C/C++ host app, you can't just compile a .nut file(s) to an executable, and as a scripting language obviously requires installing the Squirrel Shell runtime first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Basically Rust. I'm not crazy about the syntax. It's more the philosophy and goals that I absolutely love.</comment>


Dear PG: Please post a canonical list of editorial guidelines for HN. - <AUTHOR>

Is there a clear explanation posted anywhere of why: one is sometimes unable to reply to a comment; the title of a submission is often changed arbitrarily; down- or up-voting is sometimes disabled. And why does a thread sometimes turn up locked, with no explanation? (http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=716546) Is HN now Wikipedia? <comment><USER3> Title changes are explained in the guidelines:

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

Up- and downvoting depends mostly on karma thresholds, though there are also some protections against karma-bombing and voting rings. You can't post comments on items that are dead or over 45 days old.

Most of the details can be found in the source:

<http://www.ycombinator.com/arc/arc3.tar>

</comment><comment><USER4> Well I haven't been around that long so let's see if I can pass the test.

 _why one is sometimes unable to reply to a comment_

There is a cooling off period when there is vigorous activity on a subthread to avoid flame wars. I think this is a recent change.

 _"the title of a submission is often changed arbitrarily"_

The guidelines are pretty clear on this one: "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it."

 _"down- or up-voting is sometimes disabled"_

I've never seen that. Downvoting for comments is only available to logged in accounts with a karma of 500 I think, and not for stories.

 _And why does a thread sometimes turn up locked, with no explanation Is HN now Wikipedia?_

I don't know what the dead-ing mechanism is, but it certainly not Wikipedia - HN is a private site and I expect the editors to do what they like.

[Edit: Thanks to rms and tokenadult for the corrections below]

<comment><USER5> > I think this is a recent change.

It is - I think it's one of the best (the algorithm apparently scales too - <USER2> longer waits the deeper the thread). it's stopped me posting a rash response once or twice.

<comment><USER4> I find it a bit annoying (sometimes there is a rapid-fire _good_ debate) but I can sure live with it if it really helps the S/N of the site. I concede there is a certain logic in "If you can't wait a few minutes to say something maybe you don't need to say it _that_ badly".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I first saw this post I thought "Another clueless Newbie", but I checked, and it isn't. That gave me pause for thought.

Most of these questions are answered in the FAQ, or turn up sufficiently often that I would expect a casual reader to know them. Clearly I'm wrong.

So this goes for other sites as well: How can you arrange information such as this, so that both new and experienced users can find it easily, instead of being driven to ask questions?

Can we create a really useful question answering system of which questions like this can be asked, and which mines a database for the answers?

There's a start-up waiting to happen ...

<comment><USER7> Instead of an "expert system" for posting guidelines, the UI can expose and explain functionality.

Can't upvote or down vote a story? white-out the arrows and put an alt="can't (up|down)vote story, you don't have enough foo".

Can't reply to a post? remove the link but leave a white "reply" text in a box with gray sunken borders. Hovering over it should show the reason why.

Each deactivated post can also log its status and reason for disabling right in the title, or somewhere in the header area; maybe the top-color can change?

People shouldn't be sent to an Information Desk; instead, the system should be self-documenting, if not self-evident.

<comment><USER6> I agree with most of what you say, and I certainly agree that most interfaces - this one included - can and should be more transparent than they are. It's a good objective for which we must strive. Expose reasons where they exist, give explanations as a part of the UI, this is all good.

However, and this is where I wish I were more eloquent, and more of a writer than doer, because I'm sure I'm not going to say this as well as I want ...

I can't help but feel that there are cases where the ideals of instant obviousness and total transparency actively prevent the potential for power use. Insisting that everything is self-documenting is, I feel, inherently self-limiting.

I feel sure that in some cases it's right to have a learning curve, and some effort required to be expended. Insisting that everything be instantly obvious to everyone who stumbles across it is, I think, creating the expectation that everything should be like that.

It's a gut reaction. To paraphrase an old, hackneyed and much criticised observation: Everything should be as obvious as possible, but no more.

Perhaps there's a place for the unobvious.

<comment><USER7> FWIW, I too gave this a little more thought, and from an engineering prespective, found that my proposed solution would tightly couple UI with business logic if greater care isn't taken. I am sure it isn't much overhead in simple news.arc to selectively render UI elements based on the status of a post, for example, but in larger applications, feature-requests could lead to a lot of conditionals creeping into display rendering.

What we need is to study and consolidate "Adaptive User-Interfaces" (a well stablished field of study, btw) with software engineering, and specially the web (and even more specially, with respect to dynamic programming languages and in my case Lisp and CLOS.)

Something I have been doing lately was reverse-engineering a few google apps from their rendered HTML and minified JS. I don't wanna throw speculations around, but I think Google has some sort of a "learning" engine which adjusts the shown content to the estimated level of user expertise. They do this with a "newbie cookie". See the sources for any google apps help pages, for example, and you will see this:

      var global_newbie_cookie = "newbie_11";

Here is one:

<http://www.google.com/support/a/bin/answer.py?answer=77003>

Your global newbie cookie should be different than mine.

Regards.

<comment><USER5> mine is newbie_11 too - on all the computers I tried in the office.

<comment><USER7> I would kill to know what that variable does. Maybe they're ranking the technical expertise of the user based on what section of the help pages he is? Say, asking for help on gmail SMTP relaying is different that asking for help on how to use the calendar.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is this Dan Ariely's New Dating Site? - <AUTHOR> http://www.omnidate.com

<comment><AUTHOR> He's listed on the management page as an advisor, so this might be it.

<http://www.omnidate.com/managementteam.aspx></comment>


Learning to Learn: Develop Skills to Master Anything - <AUTHOR> https://blog.travisbumgarner.com/post/learning-to-learn/ <comment><USER2> so in summary:

1\. get something started

2\. surround yourself with a good community

3\. pace yourself

4\. be realistic</comment>


Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions - <AUTHOR> http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html <comment><USER2> Sounds like many of the commenters here did not actually read the article. It's not about "should you wear a helmet or shouldn't you."

It is very strongly pro-helmet. NOWHERE in the article does it suggest you should not wear a helmet.

It's about how to make helmets work better, specifically against concussions. Summary: pay more to get a helmet equipped with something called MIPS.

"The new rotation-dampening systems may not be perfect, but they are the biggest step forward in decades. The choices cyclists make with their money matter. You can pretend to protect your brain, or you can spend more money and get closer to actually doing it."

<comment><USER3> The takeaway message seems to be that there's another safe helmet technology that exists. Regular helmets help but MIPS[1] helmets maintain protection against brute-force impacts and improve protection against concussions and brain injuries.

This MIPS style helmet is a large step forward in helmets. The standard helmet test is a just a straight drop from 6 feet with the helmet perfectly vertical. _This is not how crashes happen._

Crashes happen while moving. There's some rotational stuff going on there, and that's what MIPS tries to focus on. Their tests[2] focus on this. An aspect of brain injury is diffuse axonal injury or when your brain undergoes unreasonable acceleration. The MIPS helmet has two shells so the outer one moves while your brain doesn't.

> President Barack Obama said that if he had a son, he might not let him play > football; even some former NFL athletes agree.

This was refreshing to hear. Malcolm Gladwell compares football to dogfighting because football players can experience remarkable head trauma[3]. For me, a severe traumatic brain injury survivor, it's hard to see someone willingly put themselves through a brain injury and even harder to see the public glorifying a sport I see as dogfighting.

[1]:[http://www.mipshelmet.com/home/](http://www.mipshelmet.com/home/)

[2]:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU) @ 0:29

[3]:[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive- play](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a space for cycling campaigner ( [http://www.cyclebath.org.uk](http://www.cyclebath.org.uk) ) helmet articles are an interesting problem that tend to identify cycling as a dangerous activity without extolling the health benefits of cycling itself.

In places like New York, where their Citi Bike scheme has had huge success without helmets (23 million miles of riding, no deaths), utility cycling (commuting) has been made safe through a huge investment in the segregation of cycles from cars and pedestrians. The health benefits to the city are huge (as well as reducing congestion) and you get people of all ages cycling now.

In Australia where helmets are a legal requirement, city cycle schemes are failing, but this may also be to do with a lack in building out segregated cycle infrastructure as part of these schemes. It is still a mainly hardcore, male activity there.

The point is, helmets and cycling create flame wars with anecdotal evidence in favour "how it saved my life" and the response being that the health benefits to society of cycling far out weigh the risks of not wearing one (i.e. It's calculated in the UK, that a helmet law would kill 235 people per year more through obesity related deaths).

When I trundle to the shops or pop into town I wear a cap (being bald brings it's own problems), but should I go out on a club ride or go off-roading I wear a helmet as the risk of falling off is higher. I also wear one when I'm out after dark.

Wear one if you want, don't wear one. Just make sure you are out there riding. The health risks far outweigh the perceived risk of falling off your bike.

The real problem isn't helmets, it's the lack of segregating cycles from pedestrians and motorised vehicles. Making people feel safe cycling to and from shops, homes, schools and their place of work.

<comment><USER5> > The point is, helmets and cycling create flame wars

The point is, you are very much involved in creating flame wars by labelling the pro side as people who only have their superstitial, anecdotal fairy tales, while saying the contra side has all the cold, hard scientific facts.

Let's just leave it at that.

<comment><USER6> There is also another benefit of a helmet, it changes how people treat you. They apparently respect cyclists more when they wear a helmet.

I was in a collision a two months ago. The driver hit me on purpose, because I had call him a wanker, he became self defining in this, by swiping me with the rear of his car, thankfully the relative speed difference would have been at most 10mph, so I only had minor injury (three fractures).

The police, who have a job to collect evidence, were not remotely accepting that I was not doing anything wrong. My arm was injured, my head obviously not, so before the ambulance arrived someone had helped me remove it, and clip it to the holder on my bag. Immediately the police were questioning me, asking why I wasn't wearing my helmet when the accident happened.

My head never came close to hitting the ground during the impact.

The fact is that people are very judgemental. Cyclists who wear helmets tend not to be the ones who cycle straight through junctions at red lights whilst smoking a spliff such as the space cadet I saw this Monday the 6th, 9:30am, Highgate.

It was interesting, that despite the obvious location of the collision, A lane that the car should not have been in, the Police were been told off by the paramedics for been hard on me, taking me off gas+air (mild anesthetic) so I could be breathalised for signs of alcohol consumption would be one good example of how I feal they acted poorly. Only after they found my pilots license did the police start to treat me with any dignity or respect, it was frankly shameful, as the other party had already admitted he used his car to injure me to a witness. Best of all, the driver isn't even been charged with assault.

<comment><USER7> There are studies suggesting that drivers give wider berth to the un-helmeted: [http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm](http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Discussions of cycle helmets are usually very one sided, focusing on head trauma and completely ignoring other kinds of trauma as well as the positive health effects of cycling.

Wearing the helmet doesn't just add a certain amount of padding to the head without any negative side effects: For example, motorists keep less distance while overtaking you [1] and making helmets mandatory reduces cycling by up to a third [2].

I would really hope that people would look at advocating helmets as a public health intervention, and judge all its effects together.

[1] [http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking11090...](http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html) [2] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/?tool=pu...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/?tool=pubmed)

<comment><USER9> I would say the reduction in cycling is a pretty significant effect. I love cycling, but I am far too scared (or wise) to ever consider riding on a street shared with cars and trucks. In the end if anything goes wrong the driver will feel sad and I won't feel anything.

<comment><USER10> I've been cycling in traffic for almost 3 years in a country with no bike lanes and pretty bad motorist behavior regarding cyclists. It was scary the first month, but then you get used to it and you learn a couple of rules that reduce your chances of getting into an accident significantly [1]

Learning these rules really makes all the difference. Would you prefer to get into an accident and not get killed (thanks to a helmet), or to significantly reduce your chances of getting into an accidents altogether?

A note on gear: get all the lights (front, back, laser lane) and reflectors (for individual spokes and tires too) that you can, set them up to blink, and use a bell and a mirror

[1]: [http://bicyclesafe.com/](http://bicyclesafe.com/)

<comment><USER11> Please keep the blinking reasonable and non-distracting. A lot of cyclists where I am have what amount to high-powered strobe lights aimed at car- driver's faces. I've also been the victim of this while riding my bike down canal paths at night. It's no fun being completely blinded while a fellow cyclist zooms past.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As an avid, but fairly aggressive cyclist, I have gotten into a fair number of accidents. Some of the injuries sustained, and the ways in which other injuries would have been likely without a helmet in those situations, have convinced me that many of these studies don't take into account some very common situations in accidents. Direct head impacts are relatively uncommon, due to natural instincts to protect oneself. More common are:

\- Side impact from vehicles turning across the bicycle lane. This is the most common cause of fatalities in road accidents in London, and if the vehicle is going at speed, nothing can be done with or without a helmet. Usually, however, the vehicle is slowing to turn, or just clips the rider who hasn't had time to react. When this happened to me, I banged into the side of the van which was cutting me off, and my helmet kept my head from hitting the vehicle, likely right at the temple, which could have caused significant damage.

\- Unintended dismount. I find a huge number of "accidents" are really accidents that were just barely prevented by a quick manoeuver, which often leaves the cyclist on the ground. I have avoided collisions quite frequently, but still ended up doing a little barrel roll off the bike. In these cases, I may not be moving fast, but it is nice knowing my helmet will keep me from a kerb to the head.

-Scrapes and abrasions. This is the most painful injury, and one of my most gruesome accidents involved a nasty abrasion on my face - had I not been wearing a helmet, it would have probably meant about half of my scalp was rubbed off as well, so very happy to have been wearing a helmet in that instance.

The "crash test dummy" proof that we don't need helmets doesn't stack up in my experience because I think a confident cyclist is more likely to have oblique and "minor" accidents rather than major direct collisions, and major head trauma is just not going to be prevented by a $40 piece of foam and plastic.

<comment><USER13> I am surprised people are so flippant about injuries to the head. How many times do we hear stories of people dying from being punched and hitting their head on the curb/ground ? Or the long term effects of concussion.

Helmets work. Governments around the world wouldn't be making them mandatory just to screw with people.

<comment><USER14> I don't know about your general claim. CFLs are highly toxic under non-ideal real-world handling conditions, and governments love mandating those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Helmets still protect against skull fractures, and I'll take that while I can.

</comment><comment><USER16> Yes but they should have opened with this paragraph buried in the article:

 _The $40 helmet is one of the great success stories of the past half-century. Like seat belts, air bags, and smoke detectors, bike helmets save countless lives every year. They do a stellar job of preventing catastrophic skull fractures, plus dings and scrapes from low-hanging tree branches and other common nuisances._

<comment><USER17> Is there a solid citation as to how effective bicycle helmets are at preventing catastrophic skull fractures?

Also, surely it depends on which type of helmet we are talking about? Talking about "helmets" in general does not make much sense when there are so many of them adhering to several different standards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Helmets are a red herring in the whole cycling discussion. Unless you're racing or mountain biking, you shouldn't need a helmet for regular cycling anymore than you should need a helmet for crossing the street on foot.

There's nothing inherently particularly unsafe about cycling (at least no more unsafe than many everyday activities), even while sharing the road with cars.

The only thing that makes cycling unsafe in certain countries are the drivers, and the culture that puts cars above other traffic to the point where it's apparently okay to run over the odd annoying cyclist.

<comment><USER19> I don't think that's healthy point of view. Helmet has saved my skull once and a close relative of mine had an accident that would save him lots of pain had he wore a helmet (he hit a curb with his head when falling down).

Comparing cycling with walking on foot is, well, unusual to me to say the least. Of course, you can fall down walking as well, but as a cyclist, you are faster and you are sharing the road with other bigger/heavier vehicles. I would not dream of going on a bike to cycle in and around my town (somewhat hilly terrain, relatively narrow roads) without a helmet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Consider that your brain is an egg yolk floating in a shell. A concussion is the rapid loss of velocity slamming the yolk into the inside of the shell, scrambling it up if you will. A helmet can't do much there except minimize the velocity a tad bit.

The benefit of the helmet is prevent a crack in the shell, your skull, so your brains don't spill out onto the pavement in a crash. It's not perfect, but given your are traveling at high rates of speed on a hard surface, the insurance is your brain mostly intact inside the shell versus a scrambled mess on the ground.

Preventing concussions - the yolk from slamming into the inside of the shell - is a hard problem. The brain is floating in liquid - the cerebrospinal fluid. To take another example, drop a ping pong ball into a glass of water. Now try to move fast without the ball hitting the side of the glass. The amount of padding on the outside of the glass won't do much to prevent the ball from hitting the inside of the glass.

It's not just crashes you need to worry about. Even roller coasters cause concussions, albeit small ones, but still with cognitive decrements.

<comment><USER21> Last night I fell. I use a motorcycle helmet. I think I was sliding on the ground for about 4 or 5 meters.

The helmet did not touch the ground, but if it had, it would have prevent countless scrapes in my face or scalp. Not deadly fractures, but something painful and probably disfiguring.

My point is: a proper helmet (think BMX) prevents a lot more than fractures.

The gloves surely had a lot of work to do as well, and saved my left hand from any scratches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The article's title is "Senseless". HN's title, I believe, is bound to distort one's impression of helmets' usefulness.

<comment><USER23> Yes, an early quote from the article:

      The $40 helmet is one of the great success stories of the
      past half-century. Like seat belts, air bags, and smoke
      detectors, bike helmets save countless lives every year.
      They do a stellar job of preventing catastrophic skull
      fractures, plus dings and scrapes from low-hanging tree
      branches and other common nuisances.

Helmets are good. The author is wondering why they aren't better at preventing concussions.

<comment><USER24> New paper helmets help prevent concussions because they have a crumple zone that make the deceleration more gradual.

"If you crash at 15 miles per hour in a normal helmet, your head will be subjected to around 220G [G-force], whereas the new design absorbs more of the impact and means you experience around 70G instead," says Surabhi.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25681895](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25681895)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'll take a scientific study over a blog post, please.

Or to be less glib, the statistics he quotes seems very open for interpretation. "Stat #3: As more people buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased". Need I say it? I think we're all pretty post hoc ergo propter hoc'd out at this point

<comment><USER26> Stat #3 might derive from the fact that a person is more likely to survive a crash with a helmet on. If someone dies because they aren't wearing a helmet it will be reported as a death, but if they almost die and the helmet prevents death but they receive some brain damage then it will be reported as a brain injury.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> A differing opinion about MIPS helmets from the "helmet advocacy program of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association" (consumer-founded): [http://www.helmets.org/mips.htm](http://www.helmets.org/mips.htm)

<comment><USER28> Thanks, it is interesting that the need for MIPS may come from all the aero- styling in helmets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is one reason I wear an airbag bicycle helment ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hövding](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hövding))

It would be have been nice if the article mentioned this option.

<comment><USER30> You just need to be sure to keep its battery charged, turn it on before you go and accept to buy a new one once it fires.

<comment><USER29> The battery is supposed to last 18 hours when the device is on, and 36 days when off. It charges quickly over USB. After I zip it up, I do have to remember to fasten a button to turn it on. It would be nice if it alerted me with a periodic beep or something when it was zipped up but not buttoned.

Bicycle helmets in general are not supposed to be re-used after a crash; a Hovding is no exception.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> A related helmet controversy:

[http://jalopnik.com/5582380/how-the-truth-about- motorcycle-h...](http://jalopnik.com/5582380/how-the-truth-about-motorcycle- helmets-got-a-journalist-fired)

"Ford has long been controversial with major helmet makers, authoring 'Blowing the Lid Off,' the seminal expose of the flawed Snell M2005 helmet safety standard. In it, he proved through objective scientific testing that helmets made to that standard transmitted more forces to riders' heads than some less expensive helmets made to the DOT standard. Ford's article turned conventional wisdom on its head, proving that certain less-expensive DOT helmets were, according to his testing, capable of transmitting lower forces to a rider's head than the typically more expensive Snell M2005 brain buckets."

The original article: [http://web.archive.org/web/20070305231245/http://www.motorcy...](http://web.archive.org/web/20070305231245/http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Of course they do. They discourage people riding bicycles and thus help people avoid concussion.

More seriously the people who ride bicycles on streets with cars are much braver than me. I have been lucky in life and seen few examples of serious accidents, but of those I have experienced first hand around 25% have involved people who were riding bicycles.

</comment><comment><USER5> Even if those societal effects were true (there are studies for both sides, and especially the helmet opponents are usually very outspoken and even rude, to the point that they lose credibility), the important thing for me as an individual is not whether helmets lead other people ("the society") to cycle less, but what the effect is on me.

Personally I feel some chilling effect (sometimes I cycle without helmet, so some friction is certainly there). But it's not very strong.

On the other hand, I have never consciously experienced a difference in car driver's behaviour whether I wear a helmet or not.

And I certainly am not cycling in any riskier way when I'm wearing my helmet. If you do, you should really think about what you're doing.

<comment><USER31> >especially the helmet opponents are usually very outspoken and even rude, to the point that they lose credibility

They have to be, because they don't have budgets and per diems. The pro-helmet side makes a fortune from selling helmets. The anti-helmet side runs on passion - whether that passion is for the truth as they see it (or as experiment and study have shown), or simply 'government out of my cornflakes' libertarian rage.

<comment><USER5> The "pro helmet side" in Internet forums does not have "budgets".

<comment><USER31> The pro-helmet side in general has far louder bullhorns, regardless of what goes on in internet forums (which is one of the no-budget places you see anti- helmet people.) The anti-helmet people aren't passing laws and running public service messages on TV with their partially publicly-funded nonprofits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Being from Australia I can't fathom not wearing a helmet. Its like wearing a seat belt in the car, just something you don't notice doing anymore.

Anyone who is discouraged from cycling due to having to wear a helmet would more than likely also be discouraged by many other reasons - bad drivers, bad weather, flat tire, etc.

<comment><USER33> I don't wear a helmet and I ride in downtown Toronto. Helmets save lives, but they also make motorist treat you differently. Also, they don't really save _that_ many lives. Cycling without a helmet is safer than walking (kilometer for kilometer) and safer than being in the passenger seat while a new driver is driving.

<comment><USER34> > but [helmets] also make motorist treat you differently.

The biggest threats from cars in my experience is when the driver doesn't know you are there.

<comment><USER35> Not only yours, in my too. That's why I always try to make eye contact with drivers, and when that doesn't work yelling always does the trick. Another thing that improved my safety was installing lights on my road bikes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Except for BMX helmets.

They look sturdy. Lots of people ride with them in Bogotá. I use a motorcycle helmet as it helps a lot against the usual rains.

No silly social issues against helmets. Everyone minds their own business here.

</comment><comment><USER36> The thing is I wouldn't be alive without bicycle helmet. Same goes to my aunt. So what if I get concussions if the alternative is loosing consciousness and getting driven over by a car.

</comment><comment><USER37> With massive deceleration at the core of the problem I don't see how anything more than incremental improvements in mitigation can be achieved with a sufficiently thin helmet..

<comment><USER23> The army faces the problem of massive deceleration and new solutions for tank armor are being thought up constantly. Those solutions are also required to be sufficiently light and thin (while stopping the much more massive deceleration of rockets and bullets).

<comment><USER38> Yes, but the army is using directional explosives to solve that issue. I'm not sure that would work for a cyclist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> That's okay,they do decent job of keeping your brains inside your skull in an accident, that's nothing to sneeze at.

</comment><comment><USER40> _Snively estimated that a naked head struck the surface with a force more than 1,000 times greater than gravity, or 1,000g, which is lethal._

I assume it meant "the acceleration of a naked head upon hitting the surface is estimated as 1000g", as I can't make sense of it otherwise. It would also help to say what height he dropped it from or the impact speed.

</comment><comment><USER41> Besides being useless, there are also some negative side-effects: helmet limits field of vision significantly and distracts from perceiving audio- and visual- information properly. I feel blindfolded in a helmet, even in a very light one.

<comment><USER42> I'm not sure I understand. Exactly what part of the world does your helmet block you from seeing? I can't see mine at all when it's on properly.

Considering that a lot of people use in-ear headphones or casually check their texts while biking in Copenhagen, the added distractions of a helmet still seems like a net win.

<comment><USER41> Helmet reduces the side vision to something that feels like 20% less then normal. And yes, I cannot also tolerate any hats, hoods and such.

As for the potential Darwin prize winners with earplugs - this is something that should be a matter of legislation first, not the stupid useless helmets.

<comment><USER14> Are you talking about motorcycle helmets?

<comment><USER41> No, I'm talking about bicycle helmets, including the lightest ones. I feel deaf and blind in any helmet - or even in a hat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Not from cycling, but I lost a couple of passwords (and who knows what else, but the passwords I can verify) by bashing my head while drunk. The previous day I could log into the email accounts associated with them, the day after I couldn't. None of the other ton of passwords that I use for work were affected and I can still remember nearly all of my older ones. The only correlation is that both of the passwords I knocked out of my head were long standing accounts whose passwords I had changed in the previous month. I still know where roughly on the keyboard they were though.</comment>


InternMatch: Matching the Smartest Interns With the Hottest Tech Startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/audrey-watters/internmatch-matching-the-_b_841189.html

<comment><USER2> InternMatch did a great job at the Innovate 100 Pitch Slam in Seattle (where they finished second). From my writeup at the time: "The crowd went wild after InternMatch's dramatic reveal at the end of their minute: the person giving the presentation was actually an intern! Gotta love that."</comment>


Ten Ruby Conferences (and Three Camps) in Eight Weeks - <AUTHOR> http://luigimontanez.com/2010/ten-ruby-conferences-and-three-camps-in-eight-weeks/

<comment><USER2> FTFA:

'Other developer communities should be taking notes. There's no reason in particular, it seems, for this to not be possible with Javascript, Python, Clojure, Scala, or any other "progressive" language. But it hasn't happened. The thriving open-source platforms like Ubuntu and Android are hampered by having central authorities in Canonical and Google. Maybe the regional conference phenomenon will always be unique to Ruby.

How the Ruby community got to this moment is utterly fascinating, at least to me. But beyond the reasons above, there must have been other contributing factors. What have I missed?'

I'm curious about this as well.

Some (many) of the listed Ruby conferences are one-day, single-track events, not full-blown confs per se. Still, there's time and effort involved in arranging even "simple" gatherings.

Do other language communities really not have this level of self-organized activity? I'd love to go to a one-day unconf on Closure or Haskell or JavaScript, but I can't really afford to fly off to some remote city to do it.

What I like about the proliferation of Ruby events is that there's some variety. Many of these events have a notable personality. You can find a conference that suits your interests (I happen to think MWRC is about the best.)

Ruby has become less interesting to me over time, but I'm impressed by the people arranging these events.</comment>


Why Bank of America, why? - <AUTHOR> http://dangoldin.com/2013/12/20/why-bank-of-america-why/

<comment><USER2> More importantly, why do their ATM machines hold on to your card until after they give you money, practically begging you to leave your card behind if you're even mildly distracted or intoxicated?

<comment><USER3> They changed this in the newer machines, it takes your card and gives it back before the rest of the process now. Also emails you a receipt instead of printing one out.

Of course, I'd prefer they not print my email on the screen in giant bold letters.</comment></comment>


Microsoft Releases Windows File Recovery for NTFS, FAT, exFAT, ReFS File Systems - <AUTHOR> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/windows-file-recovery/9n26s50ln705 <comment><USER2> Does someone have a direct download link, bypassing the MS store?

</comment><comment><USER3> Any advantage over sleuth/autopsy?

<comment><USER4> Do happen to know if those work in a console from a Windows boot CD?

<comment><USER3> They're for forensics,they can be made into a windows boot cd (like UBCD) but a SIFT livecd (linux) will do as well.</comment></comment></comment>


Julian Assange has internet cut at Ecuadorian embassy in London - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43573694 <comment><USER2> Earlier discussion (12 comments): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16700347](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16700347)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't care what your political opinions are on Assange. This is one of the biggest human rights violations of modern times. Hasn't been charged with crimes, yet has been held imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy for 8 years. Now they're trying solitary confinement.

This is what happens when you expose the elite and expose the criminals.

<comment><USER4> > yet has been held imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy for 8 years.

But he's not imprisoned, is he? He's perfectly free to come out at any time and surrender himself to the UK or Swedish police.

<comment><USER5> Just the UK, where he still faces charges for breaching the bail conditions he negotiated and agreed to in the extradition case.

The extradition case itself has since been abandoned.

<comment><USER4> Ah, thanks for the clarification.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I tried to buy a thing off a dark net market, and the FBI stole my money - <AUTHOR> http://incoherency.co.uk/blog/stories/dark-net-market.html <comment><USER2> Please understand no judgment being passed just clarification.

No, the FBI confiscated AlphaBay's money because facilitating the sale of illegal goods is a crime. The fact that Mr. Stanley was in the process of making a purchase through their website is in itself unfortunate (ethical or unethical is not relevant). When you, Mr. Stanley, transact business with someone (in this case AlphaBay) who is committing a crime you take a risk. It this case you rolled the dice and you lost.

If people want to do business on the dark web that is purely their right/business and they do so knowing that they are taking a risk with their money, etc. The people working for the FBI ar just doing their job. Based on your commentary you have an issue with the law and the political power that is based on that law. Ethics does not really come into play, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems to me like Mr. Stanley paid something more than £14 (a fair enough sum IMHO) for a simple lesson: there are risks involved in buying anything from a dark net market (no matter if legal, illegal, ethical on unethical).

Typical risks:

1) The seller (untraceable) may never ship the "whatever" bought.

2) The received material may be "defective" or not corresponding to the description.

3) The FBI (or the Police, etc.) may shutdown the site and confiscate the money.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.</comment>


Sharing a local docker registry with minikube - <AUTHOR> https://blog.hasura.io/sharing-a-local-registry-for-minikube-37c7240d0615 <comment><USER2> I run a registry inside minikube as well. However to push from my laptop I use a docker image that runs socat and proxys to the minikubeip:registrynodeport. Works great and is really portable. I just stop the local container when i'm done.</comment>


Rhode Island senators introduce bill to require ISPs to block "sexual content" - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/03/rhode-island-porn-law-would-force-users-pay.html <comment><USER2> Can we please make it to the polls to vote out these small-minded people?

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool. Are they going to ban VPNs next? What about https? Even in China it's pretty easy to get around 'the great firewall'.

Then there's ipv6 which gives a site the amount of proxies equivalent to molecules on earth.

Blackists never work. Whitelists do but then you no longer have the internet.

It's adorable when baby boomer politicians try to mess with tech affairs...

</comment><comment><USER4> Rhode Island is really making it hard to get off these days. Less than a decade ago they outlawed prostitution. [1]

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

</comment><comment><USER5> "First they came for the jerkers..."

</comment><comment><USER6> As much as im all for for personal freedom and I don't like to see goverment influence ISPs - in this particular case I'm all for making adult sites harder to access via paywall or whatever. There is nothing good about porn being freely available to everyone, especially growing up kids. Porn simply destroys families, lives and relationships.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4354970/Men-w...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4354970/Men- watch-porn-happy-relationships.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/11/does- pornog...](https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/11/11/does-pornography- deserve-its-bad-rap/a-pornography-habit-destroys-relationships)

[https://www.thespruce.com/is-pornography-destroying-your- mar...](https://www.thespruce.com/is-pornography-destroying-your- marriage-2302509)

<comment><USER7> Censorship is evil, no matter the content.

Those links are garbage, unscientific opeds. They add nothing to the conversation. Lucky nearly all of the world has moved past this ignorance.

<comment><USER6> thats very near sighted view on your part. are you a parent? if so - are you being evil by protecting your kids by installing a filter on their digital devices? i thought so..

if you read the article there is a peer reviewed article link in there regarding normality of female abuse in porn.</comment></comment></comment>


David Gelernter predicted Dropbox in 1996 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.garrytan.com/david-gelernter-predicted-dropbox-in-1996 <comment><USER2> The issue we face isn't about predicting in broad-strokes technology that would be useful. It's all the minute decisions that turn the broad-strokes into something great.

When something becomes popular, people often look for people who "predicted" it. I remember the article about how Microsoft's Nathan Myhrvold "invented" the iPhone in 1991. Except that he didn't. Microsoft made a hand-held computing OS before the iPhone and Palm Pilots existed a decade before the iPhone. In broad-strokes, they're the same thing. However, they weren't popular (and not for lack of trying). The issue wasn't the broad-strokes, but the minute details that made the iPhone (and other devices since) a joy to use. His work probably led to Windows CE, PocketPC, and Windows Mobile. He didn't invent the iPhone.

Similarly, before Dropbox we had options like XDrive from AOL, WebDAV servers, FTP, iDrive from Apple, and many others. We were awash with crappy software to store our documents on a server and access them from any computer we were on. Even Microsoft offered a slew of sub-par options that would get re-done as a Dropbox competitor as everyone started recognizing that Dropbox's model was wonderful.

Giving David Gelernter credit for predicting Dropbox is to show a lack of appreciation for the decisions that made Dropbox great - and better than the army of options that came before it that simply weren't good. Dropbox did what many before it couldn't do: create an online storage system that people love. I remember trying a bunch of services like XDrive back in the day. Transfers would fail, the transfers were synchronous (so you'd get a pause until the write had happened), things weren't cached locally so load times were poor, the mount was finicky, etc. They all satisfied the "making documents available everywhere" criteria similar to Dropbox, but they simply weren't good. Dropbox worked hard to make it good. They made lots of little design/technical decisions that make it Just Work. Many before them had tried and failed.

<comment><USER3> > Similarly, before Dropbox we had options like XDrive from AOL, WebDAV > servers, FTP, iDrive from Apple, and many others. We were awash with crappy > software to store our documents on a server and access them from any > computer we were on.

Amen! Don't be too hard on third-party vendors, though. Dropbox could only have been created after file-monitoring APIs became commonplace in OS kernels. If I've got my history straight these APIs were introduced because first Apple (Sherlock, Spotlight), then the GNOME guys (starting with Eazel's Medusa), and later Microsoft (after WinFS failed) wanted to do nearly-near-time full-text indexing. I remember that in Linux land these APIs were quite contentious and it took several iterations before they got them right.

I'm not sure if the ideas underlying Dropbox were _that_ unique at the time, but their execution sure was exceptionally good.

Still, some companies _were_ in a position to invent Dropbox before Dropbox did. The obvious ones being Apple and Eazel, since they had products that were monitoring the entire user file system _and_ they were selling WebDav storage!

<comment><USER4> Many already did. Ray Ozzie started Groove Networks in 1997 to do file sharing and collaboration, later bought by MS. MS also bought a file sharing company in 2005 to power Live Mesh. That MS failed to nail this market on their own platform is kinda' pathetic. There were a billion other companies before Dropbox. I've never understood the enthusiasm for Dropbox. It's all been done before.

<comment><USER5> I felt the same until I started using it. As boring as it sounds, _just working_ and being easy enough for your grandparents to use is apparently enough to get people excited. The fact that it's been done (or tried) so many times before really just makes you appreciate it more.

Yeah, MS, Apple, etc. all should've had this figured out years ago and yet _they didn't_. So boo on them, but it's probably for the better because now we have Dropbox and you can use it on your Mac or in Windows, on your iPhone, Android, or whatever...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A former boss of mine has a theory that I endorse wholeheartedly- if you want to make a hugely successful business, start with one that is totally unaffordable in the current climate, and wait for change.

That's how YouTube started- when it launched everyone was blown away by the sheer amount of bandwidth they were eating though every day. Lo and behold, bandwidth costs dropped. The same goes for Dropbox- 2GB for _every user, for free?_ Are you insane? But storage costs dropped and it's an affordable model. So it's one thing to predict Dropbox, it's entirely another to actually execute on it.

I do wonder what the next company will be to follow this pattern. I'd like to believe that it's Spotify, but their limitations aren't technical, they're the entire industry. So there's no guarantee that they'll fit the model.

<comment><USER7> It's called chasing the cost waterfall from monopoly to commodity and making sure you own it with economies of scale (from the book _How We Got Here: A Silicon Valley and Wall Street Primer (A History of Technology and Markets)_ by Andy Kessler).

Larry Page has also talked about the same phenomena ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1FyhLQOsNac#t=1362s)). Recommend watching the entire talk.

Follow falling costs - they drive adoption.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> That wasn't a prediction. He, like anybody other academic connected to the Internet of that era had been enjoying drop box like services for years. Both at work, and if you added the correct digital service in the home. I _lot_ was done with FTP at the time and there were a lot of specialized clients that did some really neat stuff. So the statement was more like: other people are really going to enjoy some of the luxuries I already have.

<comment><USER9> You're right. In 1996 my home directory was stored on an Andrew File System folder that allowed me to securely authenticate from untrusted networks using Kerberos, and then access my files remotely, from multiple machines, and it used local cache used to keep things speedy.

It was incredibly strange that these sorts of capabilities weren't meaningfully commercialized, even though they were ridiculously useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would also ask "so"? Everybody can imagine lots of stuff. Its far more important who will make them real and economically viable. I was dreaming (e.g. predicting) YouTube in 1998, but that does not mean that I consider that I've done something big or I've been the first.

</comment><comment><USER11> So? [1]

      [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebDAV#History

<comment><USER12> and [1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Computer>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Douglas Engelbart predicted the whole modern computing world, including cloud services, in 1970s. It still took hard work of thousands of people to realize it in a way useful to a wide population.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos>

</comment><comment><USER14> Someone's going to make a service that will make us forget about Dropbox overnight.

You can quote me on that whenever it eventually happens.

</comment><comment><USER15> Not sure how impressive this was. My recollection of 1996 was very much a lot of talk about Java terminals, e.g. machines dedicated only to running some dumb/thin client with backend servers doing all the work/persistence. That was a "future" that was only supposed to be a couple years out.

</comment><comment><USER16> Ok, what do you say about this prediction? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America- Lite:_How_Imperial_Acad...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America- Lite:_How_Imperial_Academia_Dismantled_Our_Culture_\(and_Ushered_in_the_Obamacrats\))

<comment><USER17> Thanks for the reference. I enjoyed reading some of the reviews on Amazon that summarized the book.

Edit: I just bought the book.

<comment><USER17> I just finished tips book, pretty bad. In my opinion he sounds like a sexist and his attacks on Obama are really over the top.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The most important way people are making money on the Net is on the model of the yellow pages or direct mail companies, by providing a service that you get for free and making others compete for placement.

<comment><USER19> "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."

\- [http://www.metafilter.com/95152/Userdriven- discontent#325604...](http://www.metafilter.com/95152/Userdriven- discontent#3256046)

<comment><USER20> So in this case scenario, how is dropbox making money off me? Note I have one 1.9GB true crypted file that i host on drop box for years. please tell me, how am I being a product that is being sold?

<comment><USER19> I think ronilan point was that DropBox's type of business (where customers pay) will always be second tier to Facebook's type of business (where customers get it for free).

<comment><USER21> "We scanned your documents and found you're a 25 year old man who really, REALLY likes self-help books about depression"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The company he is describing is not dropbox, it is Evernote. At least today. Dropbox does seem to be going towards adding value on top of the stored documents instead of just being a cloud FS. So, Evernote and Dropbox are on a collision course.

</comment><comment><USER23> When did Microsoft start trying to build Dropbox? Iirc they made at least half a dozen attempts (that failed) before Dropbox came along. Presumably one of those attempts started around 1996...

</comment><comment> professor-z Come on, people have been predicting utility computing for decades. See Multics, for example.

</comment><comment><USER24> I predicted that too. So what?

</comment><comment><USER17> David Gelernter is awesome. Linda distributed memory, Lifestreams, etc., etc.

I had a crazy idea about ten years ago to implement a simple, pedantic version of Lifestreams for a book project and someone at his company more or less said that would be OK.

Anyway, they guy is full of wonderful ideas.

<comment><USER17> It just occurred to me that Evernote has become, for me, a form of Lifestreams. I use the app on my droid to capture lots of pictures, scan important paperwork and documents, record interesting and potentially useful content on the web, etc. My only issue with Evernote is a small concern that all of my personal computing devices use SSD drives, and Evernote'ing a lot of stuff makes me hope for more and more storage capacity.</comment></comment>


Nintendo's washable playing cards from 1953 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.beforemario.com/2020/06/nintendos-washable-playing-cards-from.html <comment><USER2> After watching "Summer Wars" (spoiler alert: Japan is saved through a heroic game of Koi-Koi) I went shopping for a hanafuda deck and was delighted to find that Nintendo still makes them! I am still bad at Koi-Koi but I love my Nintendo cards!

[https://store.nintendo.com/daitouryou-hanafuda-cards- red.htm...](https://store.nintendo.com/daitouryou-hanafuda-cards-red.html)

<comment><USER3> They also included Koi-Koi in Clubhouse Games/51 Worldwide Games, recently released on the Switch. The 'Impossible' CPU is a fairly worthy opponent for a computer player (many others in the same collection are hopeless), making it very nice when you don't have a human with whom to play!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it only Japan that has such a long time horizon? I feel like that a subset of Japanese companies really try their best to simply stay alive for hundreds of years.

Just looking at this list, Japan just obliterates any other country in having the oldest companies in the world [1].

I feel like there are lessons to be learned here. I hope someone on HN knows a thing or two about it.

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

<comment><USER5> Japan has an extensive history of employers adopting male employees to keep successors "in the family", which may explain at least part of this: [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/japanese- adoption-r...](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/japanese-adoption- rates-majority-adult-men-a7524301.html) The Western family unit has not generally been associated with business as strongly.

One could also make the point that Japan's long time horizons were a leading factor in the "lost decade"; Western companies reorganize and recapitalize through bankruptcy and some do not survive the process, but Japan's focus on stability kept "zombie" companies operating longer than they should have.

<comment><USER6> Western companies also reorganise involuntarily, through leveraged buy-outs. Are these not big in Japan?

<comment><USER5> Not really, at least not until recently: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us- private-equity-asia-break...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-private- equity-asia-breakingviews/breakingviews-buyout-giants-break-through-the-ice- in-japan-idUSKBN1CB06U)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Still amazed that a company like Nintendo survived over 100 years of dramatic cultural and economic change in Japan and remains as relevant and innovative as ever. How is a company culture for creativity sustained like that for so long? Most corporations seem to go stale especially after the founders die off or fade out.

<comment><USER8> Wikipedia article for "List of oldest companies" \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies) \- Japan has the oldest one still technically operating (which is Kongō Gumi).

The good thing about this is that this shows that it's not impossible for Nintendo to be around 1000 years later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> In recent decades, hanafuda cards are probably used moreso in South Korea than in Japan in the game Go-Stop. Classic gambling game. It's really fun! [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-Stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-Stop)

Rules: [https://www.pagat.com/fishing/gostop.html](https://www.pagat.com/fishing/gostop.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Very cool bit of Nintendo history, although as someone with a passion for cards, paper cards with a good finish are still the gold standard.

<comment><USER2> Seems like there isn't a variety of finishes available like there used to be? Finding the right finish is critical in card handling and close up magic.

<comment><USER9> I own decks with 3 different material and feel to them and I haven't really went out of my way to look for them - just been picking them up when I'm out and about and either need a deck to play, for souvenirs, or see one I like.

My favorite so far is an Evangelion themed one. A bit gimmicky and may be confusing to play with but I think the art is actually nice. [http://www.tabroid.net/news/2012/06/enjoy-hanafuda-with- eva-...](http://www.tabroid.net/news/2012/06/enjoy-hanafuda-with-eva-fuda- evangelion-flower-card.html)

That being said, I haven't seen magic being done with these kinds of cards - they're much harder and smaller (think hard carton rather than paper) so you'd have to come up with new routines specifically for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A fun (i thought) fact i heard the other day is that both Nintendo (founded 1889) and Coca-Cola (founded 1886) predate Dracula (published 1897). So it would be entirely euchronistic for an adaption to feature Dracula lounging about, drinking Coke and playing Nintendo.</comment>


How a controversial gig economy bill became a test for 2020 candidates - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/2019/8/27/20833233/ab-5-california-bill-candidates-vote <comment><USER2> The question to me is to what degree gig businesses would be destroyed if this bill got passed in a few states including CA. I've commented before that Uber and Lyft prices have already gone up noticeably over the last two years to the point where I think twice about taking one vs. driving or waiting for a bus. And that's with per-ride revenue already likely below cost. AB 5 seems like it would increase that cost at least 20% more just to cover all the new employee overhead, even if wages were kept at local minimums.</comment>


Netflix Android App Requests Access to Physical Activity. But Why? - <AUTHOR> https://sensorstechforum.com/netflix-android-app-access-physical-activity/ <comment><USER2> Netflix is probably trying to better determine when you have passed out on the couch and are not watching anymore.</comment>


Haïkuleaks: Cable is poetry 65 haikus in 1830 cables - <AUTHOR> http://haikuleaks.tetalab.org/

<comment><USER2> Technically these are, for the most part, Senryū not Haiku.

The difference (in a nutshell) being that Haiku tend to deal with seasonal scenes from nature with a "cutting" word that provokes discord (the syllable thing really isn't that important), while Senryū depict "human foibles". Seen in that light makes these excerpts somewhat more profound.

Arguing about this is somewhat akin to debating about "Hackers" vs "Crackers" in contemporary usage...

See also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senry%C5%AB>

</comment><comment><USER3> I just ran a iambic-pentameter finder over the same data:

        A DATE BEFORE WHICH NORIEGA MUST
        FALL IF THE U S DOES NOT WISH TO HAVE
        THE PRECEDENT OF AN ANNULLED ELECTION

        NOT UNDERSTOOD BY MANY ACTIVISTS
        ESPECIALLY YOUTH WHO FEAR A SELL OUT OF
        THEIR CAUSE THERE

        HE EMPHASIZED THAT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE
        A CARROT FOR MUGABE TO ENDORSE

        COUP THAT REMOVES MUGABE POSSIBLY
        WITH A GREAT DEAL OF BLOODSHED FROM WHICH IT

        THE PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING CHANGE BEFORE
        THE SITUATION GETS WORSE HE PROFESSED

        USE LETHAL FORCE ON DEMONSTRATORS AND
        WE URGE THE OPPOSITION NOT TO GET

        been branded mercenaries terrorists
        or traitors End Note On the other hand

        IRAN MANIPULATING INDIAN
        ELITE OPINION MAKERS Classified

        to peer file sharing caused grave damages
        She said that peer to peer file sharing must
        be curbed

        By POL MC Josiah Rosenblatt
        for Reasons 1 4 b and d 1 S

        important means to signal willingness
        to reconcile with former enemies

        is taking active steps to undermine
        it Many opposition groups are prone
        to dominance by individuals

        to help the government achieve those aims
        the middle class has largely been ignored

        who worked inside the final conflict zone
        the government declared no fire zone

        Brazilian Embassy in Washington
        received a bomb threat via telephone

        is almost always framed in socialist
        and revolutionary rhetoric

<comment> c-oreills Which Iambic Pentameter finder is this?

I'd be interested to know how it works out syllables, especially for proper nouns - for example, how does it know that Mugabe is "Mu-ga-be" as opposed to "Mu-gabe"? A large dictionary?

<comment><USER3> <https://github.com/darius/versecop/blob/master/passages.py> \-- it uses the CMU pronouncing dictionary and just punts on words not in it. I'd like to go back and improve it sometime. (The test passage there is from The Lord of the Rings.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks like fun, but you do realize some of these Haiku's could cause serious damage to US national security. Don't you?

(The appropriate answer, I think, is "I can't confirm or deny.")</comment>


Thank You MDN - <AUTHOR> https://www.ilovemdn.org/ <comment><USER2> MDN statement a few hours ago: "MDN as a website isn't going anywhere right now. The team is smaller, but the site exists and isn't going away. We will be working with partners and community members to find the right ways to move it forward given our new structure at Mozilla." [0]

There are tech writers from Google and Microsoft that contribute full-time to MDN. (And it's a wiki, after all, anyone can edit it!)

But yes, very sadly, the Mozilla tech writers that maintain the docs, maintain them, and keep those browser compat tables running so smooth... were part of the layoffs.

You can be sure that the site will find a new home if Mozilla defunds it further. It certainly won't drop off the web.

[https://twitter.com/MozDevNet/status/1293647529268006912](https://twitter.com/MozDevNet/status/1293647529268006912)

<comment><USER3> This is mind blowing. Those docs are the gold standard for creating so much of the web. Does their management understand the gravitas (that word is warranted here) of what it means to lay-off parts of the team in charge of setting, keeping, and raising the bar for creating so much of the internet? This is truly alarming and saddening that some MBA exec who's in the role because they're "a people person" and "get tech" is deciding the fate of creating for the internet.

<comment><USER4> Of course. It's a necessary sacrifice. That money will go on to support the livelihoods of the most vulrenable and needy of the Mozilla team, namely the C-suite.

"She actually responded to my question about her salary in a q&a and said it was too much of a financial burden to ask of the c-suite to cut their salaries down to $500k"

[https://mobile.twitter.com/lizardlucas42/status/129323209098...](https://mobile.twitter.com/lizardlucas42/status/1293232090985705478)

Could you imagine a chief something officer only making 500k? They'd be laughed out of the country club, which is against the Geneva convention.

<comment><USER5> You should start a business and when you need execs you could just pay them what you think is fair, and with the money you save you'll dominate the competition. Maybe everyone in the world will notice the key to your success and exec pay will be reduced.

<comment><USER6> You think you're making a point here, but there's a mistake in your reasoning. You're thinking that "fair" pay is whatever allows you to beat the market, and since if Mozilla only paid its c-suite $300k-$500k, it would not (you think) be able to compete with other companies with high paid execs, this proves that whatever they're paying the execs now must be fair.

But ... "fair" pay does not mean the same thing as "whatever is financially best for the company to pay its employees". Take the other end of that bargain: is it fair for Mozilla to pay their janitors a reproduction level wage? Most of us (except the hard core right-wing libertarians) say no, that's why we have a minimum wage (which many of us also think is too low).

The elision of the distinction between "fair" and "whatever the market rewards you for doing" isn't an argument, it's just crass market-worship.

Edit: this post is pretty clearly argued, and downvoting without even a comment is exactly the kind of ideological nonsense that this site simultaneously prides itself on not doing (contra Reddit), and yet hilariously symbolizes.

<comment><USER7> I wish the site would just get rid of downvotes. Your post is constructive and well-written, doesn't say anything egregiously offensive and isn't trolling and doesn't lack effort. The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't agree on an ideological level. Which is bullshit. You can still respect people who don't share your views, and I wish the site cared to foster that kind of community, instead of promoting another echo chamber.

<comment><USER8> > The only reason why you're being downvoted is because some people don't > agree on an ideological level.

That's not true, I downvoted the past because it complained at being downvoted.

<comment><USER7> And you're just as much a part of the problem. You're blindly punishing him for pointing out that the system is unfair und his post is not and was not deserving of downvotes. It has nothing to do with the content of his actual comment. You're not contributing positively in any way. You're just reinforcing that anybody who speaks out or has a different point of view isn't welcome here.

<comment><USER9> Downvoting complaints about downvotes is an attempt not to have to read complaints about downvotes. But here's another: please don't complain about downvotes!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In my opinion, MDN should be the first result of search engines when searching for web related stuff. No offense to w3schools, I'm sure they've improved their content a lot, but I hate that I have to add "mdn" on my search phrase.

<comment><USER11> I use a Firefox keyword to directly search MDN, simply so I can avoid W3Schools who always occupy the top spot in results.

For those who aren't aware, right click any search box and select 'Add a keyword for this search', set it to something short and then in your URL bar type: "<keyword> <search term>". So to search MDN for the span element I'd type "mdn span".

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It better stay around, w3schools finally started to fall off in Google results. I feel dirty anytime I accidentally click on it.

<comment><USER13> w3schools might not be the canonical and authoritative source for web technologies documentation but sometimes I find the most straightforward answer there.

They don't deserve the hate they get. What people seem to hate from w3 is how light and loose they go about things, potentially opening some lanes for bad practices.

But they have improved a lot throughout the years. Also people don't seem to acknowledge how hard is to create non-verbose documentation. I can't imagine the amount of effort that it takes to trim all the fat and still produce something useful.

I almost get the feeling that people who hate w3schools, simply hate the concept of a resource that is trying to make easy what is by nature pretty hard.

I guess that's how great singers feel about autotune.

It's this idea that if you can't consume the raw, hardcore documentation then you're not worth it of using that technology.

<comment><USER14> A lot of the w3schools hate probably comes from the "old days" when a lot of the documentation was inaccurate.

<comment><USER15> That was me. W3Schools has gone from good to crap back to good again.

It looks like an organization that fired all's the vanity-metric chasing PMs and is coming back to "first principles"

<comment><USER16> Isn't it just one or a couple of guys in Stavanger, Norway?

Edit: 5 employees according to this: [https://www.proff.no/selskap/refsnes- data-as/sandnes/it-kons...](https://www.proff.no/selskap/refsnes-data- as/sandnes/it-konsulenter-og-rådgivning/IG7JIK103DC/)

Not everything needs to be big :-)

<comment><USER17> Which begs the question: how does W3schools do it, while Mozilla can't?

<comment><USER16> There's a huge difference (order of magnitude) between the size of those projects.

And I'm saying that as someone who'll admit to having been critical of Mozilla in the last two days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is one website that like Rust requires its own foundation much like what happened with the Thunderbird mail client. This would be a great chance for Microsoft / GitHub to swoop in and maintain one of the more invaluable resources on the internet. I treat MDN like gospel when looking up anything front-end web related because it is usually spot on and based on reality.

Maybe a subsidiary would better serve it and we can all put money directly towards MDN. I know there are people who don't trust Mozilla out there who might be more inclined to give to at least MDN.

<comment><USER19> Is there a reason why this can't be a group of volunteers who run it, or even those developers spin off their own foundation who would take donations ?

<comment><USER20> it is wiki and they do welcome edit contributions. Until now there was no need, I don't think anyone thought Mozilla is not up to the task of maintaining it. I would happily donate to a foundation independent of Moz dedicated to maintaining MDN.

<comment><USER18> This is something else I've thought about cause I don't know if a subdisiary of Mozilla is guaranteed to not have its finances pillaged by the parent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I know it's a bit pedantic, but it's disturbingly ironic that a site dedicated to show love to a free and open web development resource implores folks to express that love via a propritary comment platform (Disqus).

I realize it's an independent labor of love, and perhaps evidence of the broad appeal of MDN, but I am so disappointed with how the pendulum of web features has swung so heavily back towards centralization again.

<comment><USER22> Mozilla sits on this weird fine line between free and corporate culture.

<comment><USER23> That line is very blurry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> How does Mitchell Baker, who has a BA in Chinese studies and a Law Degree, know which divisions to axe? Mozilla is a deeply technical company doing work on compilers to internet standards - does the CEO understand the company's core tech (not politics) well enough?

Mozilla was actually founded under similar circumstances. I hope engineers who work on the core product (and those who were let go) are talking about another reincarnation of Firefox - from the same code base but with different leadership.

<comment><USER25> She's been with Netscape since 1994 and remained a volunteer for Mozilla after the 2001 layoffs. She was one of the people who _founded_ the Mozilla Foundation in 2003 and has been with them ever since. Meanwhile, the degree in Chinese studies is from before C++ or TCP/IP even existed, so I'm not sure what you expected her to learn in college instead that would have helped her run a company doing compiler development and internet standards.

There are valid criticisms you can make of Baker (see the compensation issue discussed elsewhere in these comments) but "She has the wrong degree" doesn't seem like one of them, unless you think that Mozilla _engineers_ \- the people doing the deeply technical work - must be required to have a CS degree.

<comment><USER24> My point is that since Mozilla is a technology product company, she will have to rely on advice (from within Mozilla) to make the most important strategic decisions for the company. As a CEO, that's a huge handicap.

Mozilla needs a CEO who can understand its technology and its partners (developers) at a very fundamental level. Mozilla needs a Lisa Su.

<comment><USER26> > She's been with Netscape since 1994 and remained a volunteer for Mozilla > after the 2001 layoffs. She was one of the people who founded the Mozilla > Foundation in 2003 and has been with them ever since.

That sounds like pretty solid technology industry experience for an exec, no?

<comment><USER27> Not necessarily. Her experience very much depends on her positions there.

For example in my tech related company, the HR folks know little beyond Word and Excel despite some having worked for years there.

What were her roles up to now?

<comment><USER25> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker)

President and founder of the Mozilla Foundation 2003 onwards, and also previously CEO of the Mozilla Corporation 2005-2008. Also she wrote the Mozilla Public License before that. I suspect she knows a little bit more than Word and Excel.

Seriously - go criticize her for her salary, or failure to execute, or for- profit vision, or something. There's lots of criticisms that can be actually substantiated. The hypothesis that she doesn't understand what Mozilla _is_ requires significant evidence. It's entirely possible a Mozillian could show up and say that actually she's been a clueless and politically savvy leader, but outsiders speculating that she can't possibly be qualified need to provide more than speculation.

<comment><USER24> > Seriously - go criticize her for her salary, or failure to execute ...

I am well aware of her tenure and good work at Mozilla (from public sources). The argument I was making was that the failure to execute is correlated with not understanding technology well enough. Certainly not claiming that's the only factor, but it might play a part in it.

How will you make expensive long-term bets otherwise? The proof is in the execution, or the mis-execution.

1\. Mozilla retired Firefox OS in 2016/17\. And in a couple of years, a fork of it (KaiOS, which shares 95% of the same code) gets pre-installed on upwards of 80 million (probably more) units. It could have been a lot more if the OS was better; it really had a shot at low-end phones and TVs.

2\. If the team says they need to commit tens of millions of dollars and half a decade or more to create a new, safe programming language for browsers and a prototype - will the CEO approve? And if yes, wouldn't it have been entirely based on advise from others in the room?

3\. The world needs an efficient browser engine for multi-core devices coming with bundled GPUs. Requires nearly a decade to get right - how does one commit to that unless the complexity (and not just the rewards) are fully understood?

4\. The failure to sell the Servo vision (safety, multi-core) to device manufacturers ultimately rests on the CEO. Instead, the Servo team got axed.

Every technology company needs a CEO who deeply understands the technology.

<comment><USER26> Sunda Pichai was a material engineer without a CS background and then joined Google as a product manager.

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

So unless I'm missing something he does not have a CS background or software engineering experience, and, presumably, was yet able to acquire at least some understanding of computing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Subsets of MDN docs are archived for offline downloads monthly by Kapeli (the team behind the Dash docs browsing app): [https://kapeli.com/mdn_offline](https://kapeli.com/mdn_offline)

I'm not sure where this leaves Kuma (current)/Yari (future) frontend work, which makes a deeper mirroring of MDN difficult to figure. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent to, say, MediaWiki's XML dumps.

The CC-BY-SA content licensing can be an obstacle as well, because the attribution is "Mozilla Contributors" or "MDN Contributors" but links to the history... which is obviously complicated should MDN disappear completely.

</comment><comment><USER29> MDN and Caniuse are responsible for billions of my customers' end users not seeing JS errors in their consoles.

Web APIs are fucking cray.

<comment><USER30> You made my cray day better! Love it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Mozilla's announcement said, that the COVID-19 situation was responsible for them to restructure the company.

Can someone tell me how COVID situation explicitly affected Mozilla's revenue to such an extant? If anything, Internet companies were the least affected or in fact has been benefited from COVID situation.

Did the donors stop funding Mozilla or are they just using COVID-19 as as a scapegoat?

<comment><AUTHOR> It has nothing to do with donors. The less people use Firefox to search Google and click ads on that, the less money Mozilla gets. 90% of the revenue depends on that. When nobody can even go to vacation destinations, they won't click those hotel/travel ads.

<comment><USER31> Doesn't Mozilla get paid for search traffic, rather than Ad-conversion from that traffic[1]?

Although Google's ad revenue has dropped 8.1% in Q2 2020 when compared to same period last year[2], I don't think people 'searched less' due to COVID-19 on Firefox, Google trends shows search has indeed increased, but rather these Search Engines might have cut down their deal value for search traffic.

[1][https://www.cnet.com/news/google-firefox-search-deal- gives-m...](https://www.cnet.com/news/google-firefox-search-deal-gives- mozilla-more-money-to-push-privacy/)

[2][https://fortune.com/2020/07/30/alphabet-earnings-googl- stock...](https://fortune.com/2020/07/30/alphabet-earnings-googl-stock- shares-q2-2020-ad-sales-revenue/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> To any of the laid-off Mozilla tech writers, Tails is hiring a technical writer:

[https://tails.boum.org/jobs/technical_writer/](https://tails.boum.org/jobs/technical_writer/)

There may be some other technical writer jobs on FOSSjobs or at FOSS companies:

[https://www.fossjobs.net/](https://www.fossjobs.net/) [https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources](https://github.com/fossjobs/fossjobs/wiki/resources)

</comment><comment><USER33> Now that we know that Firefox is in danger (and by extension the open web), we as a community must now vote with our wallets - let Firefox fend for themselves and be overtaken by a monoculture, or support Mozilla financially.

I ask that Mozilla think about having the option for a monthly subscription model. No extra features for paying (e.g $5/month for Firefox), but at least as paying users we will know that it's helping to support the open web and the survival of Mozilla as a whole.

<comment><USER34> Donate here: [https://donate.mozilla.org/en- US/](https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/)

Hire Mozilla to be your VPN here: [https://vpn.mozilla.org/](https://vpn.mozilla.org/)

Those are actionable ways to support them right now.

<comment><USER33> Me personally donating isn't going to make any difference, but put a "subscribe" UI as part of the regular interface so a big group of people pay each month, then I'm happy for them to take my money.

<comment><USER34> Subscribe to the VPN then.

<comment><USER35> Yay, I need a VPN to subscribe to the VPN that I had no need for.

I'd be absolutely ok to have yearly subscription for Firefox that ensures no braindead UI changes are shoved down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I posted a message saying we should support Mozilla. I have read through this thread and now I am doubting the leadership of Mozilla. In particular, I am annoyed that I ever donated to Mozilla when the execs are taking home MILLIONS. Is there any browser to support or use that is not run by millionaires?

<comment><USER37> There are many many shallow forks of Firefox, Chromium or Webkit out there. Some prominent examples are SeaMonkey, Pale Moon, Basilisk, QuteBrowser, Falkon, Gnome Web, IceCat, Ungoogled-Chromium.

They're all superficial forks though. Without progress on the core engine etc upstream, they won't be able to keep up for long. On the other hand, there is little reason to think any of the three major engine efforts (Gecko, Webkit, Blink) are going to stumble any time soon.

<comment> The-Compiler qutebrowser, Falkon and Gnome Web aren't forks of anything, they use a well- defined and maintained API.

For qutebrowser and Falkon, that's QtWebEngine, which you could call a fork of Chromium I guess - but it's more of a stripped-down Chromium with a stable API on top and a couple of patches. QtWebEngine is maintained by multiple people employed full-time by the Qt Company: [https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine](https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine)

For Gnome Web, that's WebKitGTK, which is an official WebKit port (i.e. part of the upstream WebKit repository maintained by Apple and others) and also has been actively maintained for the past 13 years or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> MDN is fantastic. It has some of the best cross linking I've seen in documentation, with many of the specific APIs having excellent links to more general topics and class overviews. It makes it both a reference work, and source of learning too.

MDN's low ranking on Google searches was part of my continuing breakup with Google. Boo! They should know better!

</comment><comment><USER39> If MDN did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

</comment><comment> ajm-codes I'm 2 weeks into learning programming and I couldn't imagine life without MDN. It's fantastic.

<comment><USER40> I'm over a decade into web development, and I still reference it every week. Last week I thought I should start a blog post about how, for me, it's the single best resource on the web. I sure hope it stays that way!

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> MDN is more important than Firefox actually.

If a fundraise is needed to keep it evolving, bring it on.

Or google/microsoft big guns can do something about it? after all they will be benefited from this too.

</comment><comment><USER42> I tried to comment on the actual page but disqus is somehow broken for me. So I'm just gonna say it here:

      MDN is such an important resource for me! I have never seen any documentation as detailed and helpful as MDN, not just for web development but in general. How does life without MDN even work??

</comment><comment><USER43> [https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/](https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/)

<comment><USER17> I'm starting to feel like it's good money after bad.

<comment><USER44> Would you rather they stay the same and die as a company? They've just made an incredibly hard choice.

<comment><USER45> Perhaps they should stand on their own two feet and deliver products that people would pay for.

I am surprised they didn't consider charging Firefox Enterprise for companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Mitchell Baker needs to be laid off as Mozilla survived without her quite well and the MDN team brought back. Just because she feels a 500k salary is beneath her is no excuse to ruin the most valuable Web technologies documentation on the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER47> If we just hadn't cancelled Eich because he once gave $1000 to a cause that isn't in vogue, the internet might actually have two popular browsers.

Instead we have a CEO who is destroying Mozilla while profiting handsomely.

But at least she is woke.

</comment><comment><USER48> Currently, there are zero results when searching these comments for "specification". It's shocking how few programmers nowadays refer to the source material. During discussions on the CIWA newsgroups back in the 90s, everyone referred to specifications, DTDs and RFCs. On HN in 2020, regurgitations are considered the "gold standard", and conversations like this one include dozens of references to W3Schools and zero references to W3C. Sad.

<comment><USER49> Programming has grown enormously as a discipline since the 90s (not to mention the tools of the web themselves) and the specs are kind of a pain to read. I read them when I want an answer to an extremely specific question (what does the spec say about internal implementations of JavaScript objects?) but when I want things like API overviews it's just faster to have high-quality secondary sources.

<comment><USER50> Back in the 90s it was assumed that specs would be written in a specification language, and we'd be able to prove our software by automated testing using the pre/post conditions.

We'd mainly spend our time writing UML and thinking back to the bad old days when writing software was using old fashioned text editors like vim and emacs, and we'd be wondering how those fools managed to get anything done.

Meanwhile back in reality, it's the same old.

<comment><USER49> Haha. I was only born in '98 so I guess I'll never know the feeling. Proud Emacs user myself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Pragmatically speaking, is there a comparable alternative to MDN right now, dealing with the same scope, breadth and authority? I don't think so. You would think the supergiant corporation which keeps saying they want an open, standards-compliant web would've created something like this by now, but it fell to a non-profit's lot to do the really valuable but under-appreciated work (writing & updating documentation).

MDN cannot be allowed to fail or million of Web devs will suddenly find their error rate increasing noticeably. If Mozilla corp can't spend on it, maybe they can spin it off into an independent foundation the community can donate to and keep running, like say the Linux or Apache foundation?

</comment><comment><USER51> Who's behind this site? I don't see any credits in the footer or an about page, and the `whois` record is vague and scant on details: [https://who.is/whois/ilovemdn.org](https://who.is/whois/ilovemdn.org)

Is the OP behind it? [https://www.peterbe.com/](https://www.peterbe.com/)

</comment><comment><USER52> I would love to leave a comment in that page but sadly they decided to use Disqus. My issue is not even that it is proprietary (which is a big issue) or that it sells your data (which is again a big issue) but rather that it does not let me log-in.

Along with Firefox, Thunderbird, Rust, and Servo, MDN was one of the best projects from Mozilla, it is sad that they decided to fire people that worked on it.

</comment><comment><USER53> So true, and I think it's important for developers to look up documentation on sites like MDN (consider it sites that are authorities on a subject) rather than blindly googling and ending up on sites that have a massive variety in quality. I see that all too much.

</comment><comment><USER54> Man, I hope MDN never goes anywhere. I've pinned a tab of MDN on my web dev machine's default browser, next to npmjs.com. As far as I'm concerned, it is _the_ documentation for the 3 main open web technologies, and I know many would agree.

</comment><comment><USER55> MDN is one of those rare websites that I search for explicitly as a prefix to a query

</comment><comment><USER56> No disqus account. So I'll express myself here... MDN is an invaluable source of information. Very clear, comprehensive articles with intuitive examples. The web needs that.

</comment><comment><USER57> Last week I just started refreshing myself with Django using the MDN resources. To say the docs are great would be an understatement.

</comment><comment><USER58> Is there a google sheet where people can put themselves as "available for hire" like in other lay offs of the past?

<comment><USER59> mozillalifeboat.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> MDN is my go to site for web-dev documentation.

<comment><USER61> Same, "MDN" is always part of my web dev search query.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Is there a list of people looking for roles from Mozilla? I would love to hire a technical writer!

<comment><USER63> How may writers contact you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> MDN and thanks Mozilla for making it.

</comment><comment><USER65> What's MDN?

<comment><USER66> From Wikipedia:

>MDN Web Docs, previously Mozilla Developer Network and formerly Mozilla Developer Center, is the official Mozilla website for development documentation of web standards and Mozilla projects.

Essentially an online reference manual for HTML, JavaScript, the DOM, and other web-related stuff.

<comment><USER67> have been learning modern javascript and look up documentation from MDN

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> MDN is great and I'm thankful that it exists.

Having said that, I find the timing of this site very suspicious, as if it were part of a secret PR campaign for improving Mozilla public image, after the recents layoffs.

<comment><USER69> The timing is almost certainly related, but I interpret it as the community trying to voice how important MDN is to everyone in an effort to convince Mozilla that it deserves priority, or at least doesn't deserve further cuts.

<comment><USER68> I got it backwards then, thanks.</comment></comment></comment>


The William is a new concept for an electric, touch screen stove-top - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wBe3SDCcz8 <comment><USER2> At that price it will probably remain a concept.</comment>


The unreasonable effectiveness of data - <AUTHOR> http://www.scribd.com/doc/13863110/The-Unreasonable-Effectiveness-of-Data

<comment><USER2> _Google released a trillion-word corpus with frequency counts for all sequences up to five words long... contains...all sorts of other errors...But the fact that it's a million times larger than the Brown Corpus outweighs these drawbacks._

Maybe not: [http://nlpers.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-5gram-corpus- has-u...](http://nlpers.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-5gram-corpus-has- unreasonable.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone have a link to a readable copy? I even tried logging in using my fb account on scribd and there were more hoops to jump through to get a pdf</comment>