Learning React? Start small - <AUTHOR> https://daveceddia.com/learning-react-start-small/ <comment><USER2> Learning React _and_ ES6/ES7 at the same time? Invest in a gun ahead of time and keep it relatively close by.

<comment><USER3> It isn't that bad. One can be productive without getting into the minutiae of ES6.

<comment><USER4> What kind of minutiae of ES6 you mean ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Learn ES6 first, it will make learning the framework very easy. Otherwise you will never know the vanilla JavaScript from the React / JSX syntax.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is very good advice. And learn the basics of JS before you learn ES6. ES6 is _mostly_ just shorter ways of writing things you already could with ES5.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Start small, with a Vuejs project, and put away React.

<comment><USER3> That would be wonderful, but I would like to have ready-made Vue components that I can plug into my app for rapid development. After searching incredibly hard, I realized that preexisting Vue components/frameworks as they are right now have a lot of bugs, or lack good documentation (some only in Chinese), or have visual glitches.

One can't deny that for such things popularity of the framework is supremely important. Even though I think Vue is superior to React/Angular, only half of the batteries are included.

<comment><USER7> Interesting, found the opposite.

Every single React component doesn't work, or is behind in terms of development. Poor documentation.

Vue on the other hand, documentation is in at least two languages, works, is up to date, and the community is always responsive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I will offer my own anecdote. I started learning react "the idiot way". Made my own state/stores, wired them up with little functions that my components called, directly included react file as a script tag, and made our first React project -- an analytics dashboard.

Now we have refactored everything and re built a large portion of our front end stack using react/redux/es6, but that first "react for idiots" project I think was an important learning step.

</comment><comment><USER9> Well that's a good advice. That can apply to about any topic you want to learn :)</comment>


Out-of-Bounds write in systemd-networkd DHCPv6 option handling - <AUTHOR> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/systemd/+bug/1795921?fbclid=IwAR3_wVdR0yJHiSf47wk8Y4QOrceW1NqTWHaSnB9l8hWZDXDWBdhrfIwPOLA <comment><USER2> A URL without a private corporation's embedded tracking ID is in the prior posting at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18303613](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18303613) .

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm only posting this, because I have reason to believe that this was already being exploited then on many systems causing DHCPv6 to flood the IPv6 protocol into Denial Of Service.</comment>


Ask HN: room for a new forum platform? - <AUTHOR> Stackoverflow obviously raised the bar for Q&A type forums. Whilst that format might not be suitable for all use-cases, so many sites seem to be implementing the old web 1.0 forum - e.g http://mailwatch.co.uk/forum/<p>I'm guessing many of these are self-hosted too. What opportunity do you think think there is for a updated, threaded, hosted forum service is? What kind of features would you want? <comment><USER3> That's something I often thought myself, phpBB/vBulletin type of forums have been around for 10+ years now, and they haven't changed a lot since then.

I think there might be lots of things to rethink on the UX side now that we have so many new frameworks available.

If you aim to build a 100% hosted service, I feel like suggesting to let the client keep ownership of the database at least. I wouldn't like to give total control of all the posts on my forum to somebody else.

I'd say simplier & better looking interfaces + open customization features is the path to follow. Just my 2c.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes - it seems amazing that 90+% of web forums are the old php/vBulletin type. My major gripe with these is that they do not have threaded comments. Not to mention a very old-skool UI/UX as you say.

Interesting what you say about db ownership. And I guess for established forums there would be migration considerations too (maybe this is why they haven't upgraded?)

Customization would be no problem. You could allow users to source their own css for example.

<comment><USER4> Some anecdotes from running multiple forum sites over the years:

Most forums end up using flat replies because normal people don't understand threaded replies. A friend at YouTube recently said that their research backed up that anecdotal assumption.

A couple of the major forum vendors tried offering hosted solutions and it wasn't sustainable as a business model for them; they both went back to simply licensing the forum software itself.

Forum communities are like any other social system: network effects and "where your friends are" are what keep you from leaving. Most "power user" features go unused by the majority. Stats like only 3% in one community use the friends list, only 10% in another use the profiles, etc. It's never about the feature set, it's all about the community.

Existing forum software is basically a black box. It's hard to integrate with and expand. It's hands-off for the admin until they realize they want a site that's more than just a forum.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting what you say about flat replies. Although a "technical" person, I can't believe that users are not wanting to reply to individual posts. Perhaps it's a UI issue?

<comment><USER5> There are certain social dynamics that have grown up around this variety of single-thread-per-post forum: discussion is channeled into essentially one discussion per post (you start a new post if you want to fork it); threads are "bumped" when someone replies and the expectation is that it's a reply to the main thread of conversation; the pagination encourages discussion to move on (in a 50-page thread, you don't normally belatedly reply to something on page 8, unless you have a good reason for it); etc. Threaded discussions are very different in style imo, and have less of a "conversation" feel.

I tend to prefer threaded overall, but there are some non-threaded forums I'm on where I don't think the community would work as well with threaded. For example, I don't think the SomethingAwful forums would work well at _all_ as a Slashdot-style (K5-style, HN-style, reddit-style) threaded forum. Actually, I think some parts of reddit would work better with unthreaded; there's often a sort of urban-sprawl feel to the thread branching there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was recently tasked with looking for forum solutions to replace phpBB for a contract client and yes there is definitely room. As many others have already stated phpBB is bloated and anyone who has had to dive through the code knows that it certainly doesn't have Wordpress-like extensibility. There's also the problem of user experience. Having been involved forums for the past few years I never noticed usability problems, but our less tech savvy users made sure to point out their gripes with it (bbcode, images, search). Stackoverflow and Quora certainly raised the bar but they are closed solutions that I still can't put on my own community site. Q&A sites also solve a different problem than forum sites. They're meant to answer questions, not foster discussion. This means that they lack several features of forums such as images and rich text editing. I also looked at Reddit type solutions but they have the same problems with discussions based solely around links. I would love to see a self-hosted solution that's somewhere in-between phpBB, stackoverflow and reddit.

</comment><comment><USER7> There is a great market for that. Sparklit (<http://www.sparklit.com/>) has a hosted product (which looks might be derived from vbulletin), for example, but pretty much everything out there I've seen is old (1.0, as you put it). There is lots of room for innovation.

Data portability is still a huge problem. There is a massive lock-in once you get a forum going on a hosted platform because it's such a pain in the ass to get everything out.

I've considered rolling my own, but decent forums are deceptively complex. It would take way too much effort.

Go for it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Quora has also dramatically raised the bar. If you haven't already, go join and ask / answer a couple of questions. It's slick, efficient and impressive to use.

My feeling is that, for forum software to really be useful (and lucrative), it needs to be usable by businesses. That means allowing customization, probably allowing file attachments, and integrating with a wide variety of software via APIs or installable plugins.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hear Quora is good. But they only seem to allow login/signup via facebook.

<comment><USER8> Or Twitter, I think. But yes, it's a very odd choice to not allow (1) OpenID logins, and (2) basic registration - particularly given their early adopter audience.

<comment><USER9> Maybe they don't allow it _because_ of their early adopter audience: who among that crowd does _not_ have a twitter or FB account?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm obviously not an early adopter :) Actually, in seriousness I'm probably not. But still, I like to remain anonymous and only reveal personal data when I have absolute control and trust in over who/where I am releasing it to (and I don't mean I don't trust Quora, it's exposing myself to their users that I have an issue with)

<comment><USER10> I didn't like Quora at all. It allows users to modify your question and tags and some of them misunderstand your question or just don't want it there. One of my questions received no answers, many followers hoping for an answer, and 13 edits removing tags and changing the question to be something completely different from what it was. In other words, it can be abused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As someone who looked into phpBB and managed a vBulletin installation for a company I worked at, I will say that yes there definitely is room. I was also one of the first couple hundred users and one of the early active participants in two forums that grew to thousands of users (head-fi.org, thewolfweb.com), so I've experienced first hand the primary problem of forum admins: growing the community and handling that growth

Here are the problems with the current options:

\-- phpBB and vBulletin are self-hosted. The new platform needs to be SaaS.

\-- Both platforms suffer from feature bloat, especially vBulletin. Forums aren't just products, they are tools for managing communities. Whatever product is designed to replace phpBB and vBulletin needs to begin with the basic premise that the forum participants are the users and not the forum administrator.

\-- phpBB and vBulletin right out of the box come with too many useless features enabled. Most are features you don't need or that you don't need until the forum already has a large number of users. They complicate the forum in the early days and hinder growth. A forum is like a shark. If their isn't movement/activity it dies.

\-- One key mistake almost all first time admins make is making too many forum "rooms" too early in the game. A forum should start with no more than maybe two to three "rooms". The software shouldn't prevent you from making more, but it should advise you against creating more rooms when the "activity level per room" is still low. The company who builds this software should actually discover the ideal amount of activity per room level to promote growth via aggregate A/B testing across all its clients forums.

\-- In fact, this previous suggestion is the first in a long list of features that help "prevent new forum administrators from shooting themselves in the foot" kind of like a safety switch on a gun.

\-- The new forum needs to be designed first and foremost to help its admins grow the user base and help stimulate user participation. This is key. Most new forum administrators don't have a clue on how to do this. I would say that the startup that tackles this problem would need to try a Mint Blog approach, which the blog educates the product's users on the topic of community management.

\-- Were I the product manager for such a product, I would read Clay Shirky's "A group is its own worst enemy" several times before starting and regularly while designing the product. The idea in that essay is really important to understanding the state of forum software today and the problem you are trying to solve. Avatars are an example of a problem with forum software today. The avatars in both programs can be modified to be any size and can include animated gifs and whatnot. Basically, the avatar features are currently configuration over convention. On top of that the current defaults for avatars leads to a situation where avatars are so big that they create a lot of whitespace between responses that interrupt the feeling of the conversation threads. Allowing animated gifs results in distractions from the primary activity.

\-- Invite features - Last time I checked, none of the current forum softwares are designed for viral/social growth.

\-- Migration tools are necessary. You should make it easy for phpBB users and vBulletin users to migrate to your new forum platform.

\-- Social network integration - The software should be designed from day one to have an API and to integrate with Facebook, Twitter, etc.

\-- Constant email notifications by default to stimulate user participation just like Quora does. However this needs to be simpler to "dial down" as a user becomes more active as it eventually clogs up the email inbox of that user. Quora's control panel for this isn't very user friendly as it is very granular. A better approach would be to sort the types of notification emails by historical frequency from those that user has gotten the most of to those that the user has gotten few or none of. This makes the decision very easy for the user and promotes them to only turn off the notifications that are actually inconveniencing them.

\-- I can cite at least one example that demonstrates that this is a product missing in the market: Zendesk. Zendesk comes with forum features, not because forum features are a necessary feature of a helpdesk, but because companies that need help desks typically need forums and there was no company that Zendesk could plug into via API for plug'n'play forum support. The forum software in Zendesk is adequate for most users' needs, but it doesn't scale well because it was always designed to be bolt on to the helpdesk itself.

\-- I haven't used GetSatisfaction yet, but I would imagine that this is a shared issue with them as well.

\-- Forums basically have two personas: hobbyists and shared-interest communities (i.e. head-fi.org, stevehoffman.tv, thewolfweb.com, church groups, etc.) and companies.

That all being said, I would say that an similar product that is also needed, especially inside companies, is QaaS. Quora as a Service.

A lot of companies want a Quora type solution first and foremost than a forum. I would say that Zendesk needs a product like a Quora-as-a-Service instead of a forum.

I'm currently working on my own startup right now, but if someone were to want to build this, I would be very happy to serve as an advisor/board member for a small stake of equity. This is a problem that I've given a LOT of thought to and that I would love to see someone solve.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the very detailed response. My comments - and some are "devils advocate":

\- Agreed that a Saas offering has lots of cost/admin benefits. But - it makes it difficult to integrate with a sites existing signed-up member-base or social network.

\- What are examples of feature bloat? What are the key/core features?

\- What would be the equivalent of a room on Stackoverflow? I think that SO is really just one room, with a lot of questions in that one room (ignoring tags)?

\- Invite mechanism - yes. \- FB/Google login/interface - yes. \- Email notifications - <USER2>

GetSatisfaction - can't comment. I thought this was more about feedback wrt to a website or business, as opposed to a fully fledged discussion thread, hosted say on a national newspaper (an ultimate customer here)

I've never used Quora (fb only sign-up). What's the key differences between Quara and a forum or Stackoverflow?</comment></comment>


Salinger's Nightmare: An unemployed actor tracked down Salinger - <AUTHOR> https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/04/13/salingers-nightmare/ <comment><USER2> Imagine being Salinger. You spend your entire life railing against society and trying to get away from it all, only to be hounded by hordes of precocious fanboys for the rest of your days. The irony and futility of it is depressing.

<comment><USER3> That's a risk than an artist assumes when he or she publishes a work.

In the past 10 years, I have met the director of my favorite film and my favorite musician. I tried to be as respectful of their privacy as possible but still wanted to say hello and tell them how much I appreciated their artistic endeavors. They were both gracious and I tried not to take more than a minute or so of their time.

If you want obscure anonymity, don't publish art. Especially not under your own name.

<comment><USER4> > If you want obscure anonymity, don't publish art. Especially not under your > own name.

I would imagine that it makes it worse that they meet their rudest and most entitled fans, through a rigorous process of self-selection.

<comment><USER5> Well, that's why these celebrities do interviews and other things, so that there's no fandom allure of being the top asshole who can stalk these 'private' celebs. I think if you want to play up a, equally pretentious, attitude of "Oh, I'm off the grid as far as you're concerned," expect someone to make it his life mission to say, "No, you're not."

I personally don't believe you can sell millions of books and bask in that kind of wealth and fame and feel no obligation to pay it back via interviews, columns, workshops, etc. Its something of an anarchism, this whole 'tortured pure and private artist' when historically artists were public personas their whole lives and paid back to the community in a variety of ways. I suspect these old social systems still make sense today, outside of the stalker fanboy argument, and are just basic human decency to give a little back to the community of fans who have enriched you so.

There's a "jackpot lottery" aspect here of producing a best seller then just quitting everything and enjoying being a multi-millionaire for life. It stinks of soulless commercial artists just looking for that big check to cash out. Not sure why I would feel any need to respect those kinds of people. If they, heaven forbid, need to say hi to a fan every decade, I think they'll survive. It's unbelievably entitled to have a "I will not make eye contact with those below my station like fans of my work" attitude. Sorry, no man is an island.

<comment><USER6> > bask in that kind of wealth and fame

Is it hard to believe that some just people just want to write for a living? Striking it rich as an author is kind of an moonshot, an absurd dream.

Would you say to yourself, gee, I'd like to write, but better not because I'd hate all that comes with fame and fortune.

<comment><USER5> I do write and I can't imagine not having a certain level of engagement with the community.

Also, we're not talking being on TV 24/7, but answering the occasional interview request or email. I really think there's a difference between the 'recluse artiste who can't be bothered' and the 'I don't want to be a celebrity but I'll do a phone interview once in a while.' They're not the same. No one is saying you need to be in a reality TV show if you want to write. I am saying you do need a certain level of engagement and that's a natural part of being an artist. The pretentious "genius auteur who can't stand talking to mere mortals" is some kind sociopathy or ridiculous self- entitlement that doesn't deserve to be respected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Let me know when someone is able to track down Thomas Pynchon.

<comment><USER8> I cannot now find the reference, but sometime in the last six months, an article about the fuss around Elena Ferrante and her civilian identity mentioned Pynchon, saying that quite a few people in the NY publishing world knew who Pynchon was and how to find him. They simply respected his privacy and didn't talk about him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It was a common story when I was at Dartmouth for people to claim that they had seen JD Salinger in the periodicals room at Baker-Berry Library.</comment>


Alexis Ohanian, Reddit co-founder and Web advocate - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/alexis-ohanian-reddit-co-founder-and-web-advocate/2012/09/05/f642f1b6-eb9f-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html <comment><USER2> He's an amazing advocate for the open Internet but I think this statement sounded naive:

> If the Web is left alone, it will solve the problem of piracy on its own, he > says.

Competitive market systems solve the problems that they have incentive to solve. I question what incentive web companies have to solve piracy, if not regulations. Seems to me that any business model that depends on licensed content would work even better with pirated content.

I even wonder how much of the web sees piracy as a problem at all. It seems to me that quite a lot of text online (at Techdirt for instance) is dedicated to the argument that piracy is a good thing to be embraced, not "solved."

<comment><USER3> In the interview, I cited Gabe and Valve's success in Russia by realizing "piracy was a service problem."

[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves- Gabe...](http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell- Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem)

That's probably where that language originated, but I agree that as more data comes out, we'll see piracy as less and less of a problem. The more innovators showing how to embrace change (and win!), the better. That's a big part of why I invested in startups like VHX.tv -- so I can have more examples showing why we don't need laws, esp bad ones.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Techies, take note. Alexis Ohanian shows that you can absolutely make a difference by engaging in the political process.

<comment><USER4> Pardon my ignorance, but isn't he less techie and more unbelievably-amazing- biz-dev guy?

<comment><USER5> Alexis was the less technical one, but make no mistake: he's no slouch when it comes to technology.

<comment><USER6> Computer Science major, or self-taught?

<comment><USER3> Business & history major. I took plenty of CS classes in highschool/communitycollege/and at UVA, but that was just enough for me to realize I wasn't in the same league as folks like Steve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Full text for those who get hit with a paywall:

\---

 _By Hayley Tsukayama, Published: September 5_

Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian has accomplished what virtually no one else in Washington is doing these days: bringing the political parties together on a controversial issue.

Democrats and Republicans have stepped up their support this year of Ohanian's cause of keeping the Web free of government intervention. During their conventions, both sides touted a platform plank affirming Internet freedom.

And last week, President Obama stopped by Reddit for a surprise question-and- answer session, saying he would "fight hard to make sure the Internet remains the open forum for everybody."

"Republicans want to keep the open Internet safe from big government. Democrats want to keep it safe from big corporations. I say we agree to agree and move ahead," Ohanian said in an interview. "It was so successful because we literally had the Tea Party next to the MoveOn.org guys at these meetings. They don't often hang out together."

Ohanian's inroads in Washington is a homecoming of sorts for the Columbia, Md., native. But the 29-year-old never intended to go into politics. In 2005, he co-founded Reddit.com, where users rank the most interesting content on the Web. A mere 18 months later, Ohanian sold the site to Conde Nast at a price tag that some speculate was between $10 million and $20 million. The site draws about 35 million users.

His introduction to high-stakes Beltway politics came this year when he and other executives from Silicon Valley stopped a pair of bills that would have held Web sites accountable if they host pirated content. The effort overcame fierce lobbying from powerful constituents, including the Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America.

These groups complained that Web companies were enabling pirated content, stealing billions of dollars from artists, authors and movie producers. A spokesman for the MPAA said that while the Web should not be encumbered by regulation, smart legislation is needed to crack down on piracy.

Ohanian's views are more uncompromising. He said that the government should have no role in policing the Web. He added that if Hollywood made it easier for consumers to get the movies, music and electronic books they want, there would be no need to pirate content.

If the Web is left alone, it will solve the problem of piracy on its own, he says.

"If you're really interested in artists' rights, look at the Internet and look at all this great art" that it created, he said. Rhetoric that pits artists' rights against the open Internet "infuriates me," Ohanian said, because of the amount of content being funded by such online incubators as Kickstarter and Indiegogo.

His work this year on what was called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, earned him allies on Capitol Hill.

"It's been a pleasure to work with Alexis to stop SOPA and keep the Web open," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). "He brings to the table a deep knowledge of start-up culture and what makes the Internet tick and has a knack for bridging the gap between those worlds and government. And he got me onto Reddit."

"Alexis is a technology innovator whose platform is changing the way people share, collaborate and affect policy change," said another of Ohanian's close collaborators, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). "Alexis and the Reddit community had a profound influence on the outcome" of the legislative debate this year.

Since leaving the day-to-day operation at Reddit in 2009, Ohanian's projects have included the geek-stuff-for-charity site Breadpig and the online travel service Hipmunk. He also launched a bus tour to highlight the importance of Internet freedom to the American economy.

The groundswell of support for Ohanian surprised some traditional lobbyists in Washington. But it was obvious to Ohanian, who says nearly everyone wants the Internet to be a free and open place.

"The Internet represents so much of the awesomeness this country was founded on," he said. "This is not a fight between Silicon Valley and Hollywood."

</comment><comment><USER8> Here's how he deflects blame from redditors onto the victims of their creepy Facebook stalking, Photobucket fuskering, and real-life harassment: "Your kids need to know that any time they take an image and put it in a digital format… they should assume that it is now public content… That's the useful thing I think CNN could have reported on, instead of making up a bunch of jibber- jabber about reddit." —Alexis Ohanian

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXZYvrue1BE&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXZYvrue1BE&feature=youtu.be&t=2m31s)

<comment><USER5> When someone ships drugs via UPS, do you blame the drug dealer or UPS?

How could reddit possibly have monitored all that content?

Parents need to take more responsibility for the actions of their kids.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This guy has a very bright future ahead of him.

<comment><USER3> Thanks! I'll keep on keeping on.</comment></comment>


Interview with an "Apple" Journalist - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sawilson.org/2015/01/interview-with-apple-journalist.html

<comment><USER2> No names, then names CNet and calls the leaker a 'she'.

The future of journalism, folks.

<comment><USER3> No names is related to "You can't use my name.". I don't see how mention of CNet is a problem here.

I agree with the latter part about gender. Noticed it immediately - that's not how it should be handled. I hope it'll be removed.

Then again - that might just be a way to mislead.

<comment><USER4> I agree, stating the gender is the wrong way to go about it. It might be a way to mislead, but someone else could get the axe for this as a result.</comment></comment></comment>


How I Went from a Wantrepreneur to an Entrepreneur – By Alex Ikonn - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdK_MB3HqS4 <comment><USER2> "DO THE WORK."

Just before watching this I was feeling a little overwhelmed by a side project.

Not anymore.</comment>


Practice presenting your craft on Design Critique meeting - <AUTHOR> https://designcritiquecoach.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Today on Product Hunt [https://www.producthunt.com/posts/design-critique- coach](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/design-critique-coach)

I'd love to get some feedback, and I'm happy to answer questions!</comment>


Visa, Mastercard, Others Reconsider Involvement in Facebook's Libra Network - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/visa-mastercard-others-reconsider-involvement-in-facebook-s-libra-network-11569967023?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> I think we've reached an inflection point where working with Facebook presents too much of a risk. It feels like all of the issues around privacy, data security, content moderation, leadership and ultimately Democracy have boiled over. It makes sense that established financial institutions would want to distance themselves from that.

<comment><USER3> Not just threats from Facebook doing something wrong and getting dragged into it with them.

Also ... Facebook has proven it is willing to bully and lie to people doing business WITH Facebook.

If I'm Visa or Mastercard... do I want to get into this space and at the same time be at the mercy of Facebook?

If there is some other network / payment system would Facebook be ok with me getting into that too?

Generally if you read enough stories it is clear there's no consideration about "Hey should we do this?" at Facebook. It seems more than at most companies there are simply no rules.

<comment><USER4> > Also ... Facebook has proven it is willing to bully and lie to people doing > business WITH Facebook.

Woah, I must be out of the loop - what is this in relation to?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Libra feels to me as a step towards big companies trying to break free from governments. If they control the money supply the long term effect would most likely be that they have the control of everything.

I think Libra is very frightening and I hope it fails. I have nothing against decentralized systems, but centralized ones that is controlled by a few companies is very scary.

I cannot read the article, since it's locked but you can get the gist of it and if companies are leaving the coalition it's probably for the best.

<comment><USER6> Doubly so if the controlling entity is something like Facebook, which has given us zero reasons to trust them.

<comment><USER7> I would be glad to take an opportunity to insult facebook again, but actually I don't like this sentiment at all. It just _happens so_ that facebook is among the least trustworthy companies at the time, but I wouldn't be more at ease if they had a good public image and its head would be a baby-kissing politician making donations left and right. Image is just that, an image, and if somebody manages to seem "good" for the public, it only makes them more dangerous and is more of the reason to be worried about them.

Perhaps the only good thing about facebook is the public distrust of it right now. I hated it much worse when people unironically called Google "the good company".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To counter-balance what I read here: I left Facebook, but I find that Libra is a positive thing. It gave me a positive image of Facebook. I thought "Zuckerberg can actually have a positive impact when he decides to".

Personally, I would trust Facebook more than I trust the government, and this is not a joke. As far as Libra, from a technical perspective there is a decentralized blockchain (with a credible plan to further decentralize it in the future), and a well-thought out stability mechanism. From a corporate structuring perspective, there is the Libra Foundation. I feel people have really politicized this topic, and most of the anti-Libra sentiment is fueled by partisan politics and fake news (ie "Facebook will control the worldwide money supply!!!").

Those saying that the government is good while corporations are evil are very naive. Governments are more corrupt and dissimulative than any corporation will ever be. They are a bunch of arrogant people not being personally accountable for their lies and errors. Zuck has his net worth tied to FB. Corporations are no angel, but they are accountable, and as such they are more trustworthy. Moreover, when they screw up, they do not pass a law to force us to clean up their mess.

Governments are going crazy these days, citizens need to take back control of the their money, we need to get back our freedom to conduct transactions freely.

Facebook is in a unique position to pull that one off. It's unfortunate they totally screwed on the communication front, but hopefully they can fix that. Personally I am looking forward to the launch.

<comment><USER9> > Zuck has his net worth tied to FB. Corporations are no angel, but they are > accountable, and as such they are more trustworthy.

There is no scenario where Zuckerberg's net worth is reduced to an amount that one person is capable of spending in a lifetime. In terms of acting as an accountability mechanism, what is the difference between $100M and $65B?

> Moreover, when they screw up, they do not pass a law to force us to clean up > their mess.

What was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 about then? And did the CEOs of any of the banks that were bailed out by TARP end up suffering any material deprivation as a result?

<comment><USER10> Don't underestimate what one person can spend. If your reference point is a billionaire lifestyle with a giant yacht, half a dozen estates on multiple continents with staff to manage them, and a private jet capable of crossing oceans to ferry you between them, then with $65B all that is a drop in the bucket and you've got plenty left to spend on whatever political or philanthropic causes you wish, and with $100M you actually have to economize.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _and to save some of the $25 billion "lost by migrants every year through remittance fees._

and to _pocket_ some, preferably most, of the $25 billion "lost by migrants every year through remittance fees.

Here, corrected that for you.

<comment><USER12> That's true, but you appear to imply that it's fundamentally bad.

I disagree with that strongly and it's a huge way the market functions - a new company comes in and reduces costs for consumers, while still making a profit. Old company loses (or changes), while the new company and consumers win. It's how most discount stores work, airlines. Heck we're seeing it lately in equity trading with trade fees dropping to 0. Sure, robinhood did it first to win market share and make more money, but it's still been good for consumers. It's how walmart and then amazon became so dominant (though they also reduced services).

This is in no way an endorsement of anything facebook is doing, btw, Libra scares the bejeesus out of me, but that doesn't mean the incumbents aren't robbing people blind.

<comment><USER11> _That 's true, but you appear to imply that it's fundamentally bad._

Not necessarily and a lot has been done to smooth the path - and lower the fees - for financial transactions. Mobile money in Africa (where you once, not that long ago, had to entrust an envelope with cash to a bus driver, hoping that it arrives at the intended destination) is a good example.

But I think that "helping the underbanked" is a smokescreen anyway.

Just like "Bringing internet to the poor", via internet.org, is a smokescreen for the underhanded tactic of smuggling zero routing into the very fabric of internet usage in poor countries and making Facebook (and their approved partners) == Internet.

There's never _anything_ altruistic in whatever Facebook does. It's about accumulation of ever more power, money and data. And you just need to look at their short history for the proof in the pudding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have a feeling that they will end just launching something in developing countries with weak regulation and will be done with it. It's a way to get more data from people. It's becoming pretty clear that this will not fly in the US or EU.

<comment><USER14> They won't be able to do this in India or China.

<comment><USER15> China is no longer a developing country.

They will probably be able to pull something like this off in a country with poor banking.

<comment><USER14> It is DOA if it has no adoption in US, Europe, India and China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sorry but I don't trust anything that comes out of Mark Zuckerberg brain

<comment><USER17> Because everything he does feels like it has another two-level deep plan behind it.

Kind of like:

Level 1 (Zuck's thinking):

I'll tell them "We're building Thing X to improve Y in the world!" and most will buy it like the gullible sheep they are.

Level 2:

Some will not buy it and think we're really building Thing X to track their online activities (just usual tracking for ads and stuff)

Level 3:

Except what we're really trying to do is collect data so we can match their ThingX profile to their supposedly-private medical records and DNA footprint. But no one will figure it out until it's too late - and we'll be a few billions of dollars richer by then (evil laughter in Zuck's mind).

There may even be a Level 4 for all we know. I'm not sure I'd underestimate Zuck on this sort of thing. It always seems to be worse than we thought it was.

</comment></comment><comment> dawg- Facebook won't burn to the ground.

Best case scenario is that companies like Facebook start looking at data security and privacy as assets that factor heavily into their competitiveness in their industry. If they aren't as secure or privacy-forward as their competitors, it will lose them business, _and not just on the user side_. Apple seems to have realized this earlier than most, hence their latest marketing campaign.

Losing huge business partners due to privacy concerns over the business model will hopefully be a big wake-up call.

<comment><USER18> > companies like Facebook start looking at data security and privacy as assets > that factor heavily into their competitiveness in their industry.

Companies like Facebook have a business model problem with this, though. Their business model absolutely depends on violating people's privacy. It's hard to see how they can factor privacy into things without entirely changing how they make money.

<comment><USER19> How are they violating privacy. Their service exists because people opt in to it.

<comment><USER18> They gather information about me and my use of my machines even though I don't use their services and haven't given consent. That's violating my privacy. In fact, I consider it straight-up spying (I define "spying" as gathering information about me without my informed consent).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There are many leadership decisions that seem unimaginable when taken but that are absolutely required for the survival of the company. One that comes to mind is Microsoft giving up on Internet Explorer's engine, or Apple switching to Intel, or Adobe killing Flash.

Facebook will need to make this one: killing the Facebook brand, and a large part of the Facebook Feed product.

Sure, Facebook can survive without making this call, just as Yahoo! survived throughout Ms Mayer's tenure.

Something that tells me they are currently unaware of that necesity is their 10K[0]:

> _Certain of our past actions, such as the foregoing matter regarding > developer misuse of data, have eroded confidence in our brands, and if we > fail to successfully promote and maintain our brands or if we incur > excessive expenses in this effort, our business and financial results may be > adversely affected._

[0]: [http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/a109a501...](http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/a109a501-ed16-4962-a3af-9cd16521806a.pdf)

<comment><USER21> All that would be meaningless if Zuckerberg is still at large. They'd need a 180° cultural change. I seriously doubt that will happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't have any great love for Facebook (except for the Oculus Quest VR product) but in general I like the idea of a digital currency backed by a Special Drawing rights kind of mixed bag of currency (I think Libra would be about 1/2 US dollars, and the other 50% split amount other currencies).

As a US citizen, I realize that we won't control the reserve currency forever so it seems wise to slowly ease into all international capable transactions to being done in a basket or currencies. As a US citizen, I would like the US dollar to be a fairly large percentage of the basket. I think this is really something that we need major cooperation between major economic power countries to make this transition as smooth and gentle as possible.

If there were multiple digital currencies backed by real currencies like like Libra, that would probably be for the best.

The goal is to reduce transaction fees and friction in international trade (and all trade).

</comment><comment><USER23> Facebook denied it then too, but first intimations of prospective Libra members backing out due to regulatory heat came out in August: [https://archive.is/5UsLx](https://archive.is/5UsLx)

<comment><USER2> Matters of compliance feel like an afterthought. How would Facebook make this work in jurisdictions requiring photo ID and screening to establish whether a user is politically exposed or involved in a criminal enterprise? How would they handle users who failed that in jurisdictions requiring closure of accounts? Surely they didn't think they could ignore that?

<comment><USER24> i m sure they are going to do it uber-airbnb-style: ignore regulation and grow until big enough to force it through.

<comment><USER2> My understanding is that AirBnB were mainly flouting laws passed by local authorities which in a lot of places tend to be kind of toothless. If Facebook were to employ a similar strategy against laws designed to combat money laundering and terrorism I think the result would be very different. But I wouldn't be all that surprised if they tried.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Having had a chance to talk to the Libra Foundation folks (where development of the actual underlying technology is going on), they are themselves distancing their organization from Facebook in every way possible, and have been since the start.

To them, Libra is an open (to consortium membership) blockchain network, whereas the thing Facebook is bringing to it is just a wallet product (Calibra) for holding and transferring the Libra-native cryptocurrency. They speak of Calibra with not-just-a-little distaste, in the same sense that you might speak of a rich investor in your company that you never really wanted investing in you but were desperate. They don't really offer any special support for, or primacy to, Calibra; to them, it's an unseemly app by an unseemly company that'll _happen_ to boost usage of their network from "some unknown blockchain" to "a blockchain 80% of the world has access to through an app they already have on their phones" (so they can't exactly just tell it to go fly a kite.)

It's interesting that, from the perspective of other companies in this consortium (or perhaps just the news media's interpretation of it), the Libra Foundation "is" Facebook. It's no more Facebook than, say, WebKit.org "is" Apple, or any ASF Committee "is" one of its sponsoring partners.

In all of those cases, there are employees of the sponsoring company steering the project, sure, but not in their capacity _as_ employees; rather, it's something they're doing for the Foundation, not even billed to their employer. (How do features get developed? The employees, as the employer, using billable hours, create and submit PRs "upstream" to the Foundation. Then, the employees, as members of the Foundation, _along with other Foundation members_ , vote on the PRs.)

Importantly, if the sponsoring company decided to withdraw its support from any of the relevant projects, the Foundation would still exist, and those people who are employees and also members of the Foundation _would still be members of the Foundation_ —because they are _personally, themselves_ members, not members as delegates of the sponsoring company.

Importantly as well, the employees who happen to also be members of the Foundation almost always have an understanding with their employer that—because they would be kicked out of the Foundation's steering committee if they showed any favouritism toward PRs made by their employer—they have to treat their employer's suggestions just like anyone else's. With most such projects, if you subscribe to the mailing lists, you wouldn't be able to tell they had any sponsoring partners at all!

I just want to highlight this, because it seems like nobody really understands this until they work on at least one project run this way. (My own experience is with Apache CouchDB, whose main contributor is IBM Cloudant.)

<comment><USER26> >It's interesting that, from the perspective of other companies in this consortium (or perhaps just the news media's interpretation of it), the Libra Foundation "is" Facebook.

Isn't this how they decided to market themselves? The first news of it had Facebook plastered all over. Even their whitepaper says:

>Facebook teams played a key role in the creation of the Libra Association and the Libra Blockchain, working with the other Founding Members. While final decision-making authority rests with the association, Facebook is expected to maintain a leadership role through 2019. Facebook created Calibra, a regulated subsidiary, to ensure separation between social and financial data and to build and operate services on its behalf on top of the Libra network.

Stating that "Facebook is expected to maintain a leadership role through 2019" would also lead me to believe that Libra Foundation "is" Facebook for most practical purposes.

<comment><USER25> "Facebook is expected to maintain a leadership role" in the Consortium, in the sense that—as the news article states—none of the other nominal Founding Member companies are bothering to do any steering of the Foundation. AFAIK Facebook wants to get _away_ from the helm of the Libra Foundation ship and give it over to the rest of the Founding Members ASAP (because that's better for Libra's image!), but the Founding Members won't take Libra seriously until it gains traction (which it won't until Calibra launches.) Kind of a chicken- and-egg thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> [https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/24/971554-facebook- bitcoin...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/24/971554-facebook-bitcoin- libra-crypto-bad/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Good, it's a bad idea to have an electronic currency that doesn't allow person to person transactions and is open to being ousted for politics.

</comment><comment><USER29> [http://archive.is/GzuvL](http://archive.is/GzuvL)

</comment><comment><USER30> Genuine question: why do people keep upvoting content behind paywalls? Do people just read the title and upvote it? Hoe many of the comments in this thread have actually managed to read the article?

<comment><USER31> I frequently just do a google search for the title and click the link to the same article there. Typically, I don't get paywalled that way.

<comment><USER20> That is the purpose of the _web_ button below the title.

<comment><USER31> Whoa, I've never clicked that button before. Now I just want a firefox extension that adds this to all paywall article links on all websites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is a problem with media backed crypto currencies. Someone is going to be a central authority.

We have a system that works fairly well in Bitcoin. The system is decentralized and uses proof of work. It works well for being money. I think the next innovations in the space are going to be incremental improvements around this system.

Disclosure: I'm working on a project to change the economics of limited supply: [https://bitflate.org/post/2019/08/26/bitcoin-missing-link- to...](https://bitflate.org/post/2019/08/26/bitcoin-missing-link-to-the- world.html)</comment>


Does anybody know if Weebly is seeking a senior product manager? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Would it not make more sense to ask someone at Weebly?</comment>


Fossil – simple, high-reliability, distributed SCM - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> Previously (2014): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8697028](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8697028)

<comment><USER2> There are many previously links, depending on which part of the site you link to. See [https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=fossil- scm.org](https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=fossil-scm.org) .

Some previouslys are:

2018 - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17230766](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17230766) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16838207](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16838207)

2017 - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15752725](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15752725)</comment></comment>


Giant logged long ago but not forgotten (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/life/giant-logged-long-ago-but-not-forgotten/ <comment><USER2> Contender for one of the worst headlines.

Giant [tree] logged long ago but not forgotten would have been better IMO.

<comment><USER3> I didn't think it was so bad. Logged implies a tree.

<comment><USER2> Context of the hacker news website would surely have people thinking about event logging even if only for a fleeting moment.

<comment><USER3> Sure, but HN readers are smart enough to read words with more than one meaning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _There is comfort, at least, in knowing that we've evolved the Philistine > out of our blood lines_

does anyone else find this offensive?

<comment><USER5> It's meant to be ironic, making the point that people don't really change. Not sure what would be offensive about it unless you were a proud descendant of the actual Philistines, and objected to the use, since the 1600s, of the term philistine (uncapitalized, as this one probably should have been) to mean an uncultured boor.

<comment><USER4> need I be a member of a group to find a derogatory term for that group offensive?

<comment><USER6> I suppose not, but that would make you a... good Samaritan.

<comment><USER4> ok. ok. good one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The answer? No.</comment>


Ask HN: What would you tell yourself before you started a startup? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Find clients & demand first, build second.

</comment><comment><USER3> It will take more time then you think.

</comment><comment><USER4> Learn to code.</comment>


Android Reaches 39% Tablet OS Market Share (Standing On Amazon's Shoulders) - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/26/android-reaches-39-tablet-os-market-share-standing-on-amazons-shoulders/

<comment><USER2> _This_ is the first real sign of troublesome fragmentation in Android.

As an Android developer, I've always been amused that people trotted out the fragmentation boogeyman. As a practical matter, if you stick with good app designm it's really not a problem. Like desktop operating systems, it doesn't matter if the OS is running on hardware with differing screen sizes or device inputs. Properly designed apps can handle that.

However, the fact that Amazon has been able to make a popular fork of Android is potentially disastrous. The question is will Amazon continue to track baseline Android or are they going to diverge their fork from here? The latter will result in Android developers having to choose whether they want to concentrate resources on Android proper or Amazon's Android. That would be fragmentation worth worrying about.</comment>


Ask HN: How would you build a text to speech startup? - <AUTHOR> Since Google's WaveNet TTS systems shouldn't sound robotic but they still do. Third party TTS engines for Android aren't good and those who did sound good have been bought and shut down.
 Which markets would you approach? What problem of yours can be solved? <comment><USER2> Imagine you were making a visual novel:

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

you could write one is not voiced, voiced with some exclamations ("Are you sure that's safe?" gets replaced with "Yikes!") voiced in some places and not voiced in others, or fully voiced.

In 2020 you need to hire and direct a voice actor because TTS is nowhere near good enough. If there was a good enough TTS you wouldn't need to hire the voice actor although you'd still need to direct the TTS.

Two of my favorite speakers are Lester Holt and Tanaka Rie and I'd like to see a computer voice that approaches that kind of person.</comment>


New Secure and Private Instant Messaging - <AUTHOR> https://bcm.social <comment><USER2> This chat app has no source available, a few neat features, but no hope of easily integrating existing Signal/Matrix/IRC bots currently :c

</comment><comment><USER3> how to confirm that it is a secure and maintain user privacy?</comment>