Ask HN: Should I invest time on mastering the command line or the Jetbrains IDE? - <AUTHOR> Hi! I was a self-taught, beginner, developer. Now I'm studying computer science/computer engineering. Currently I code on Ubuntu using Sublime Text, and I know a few bash tricks to compile, diff and so on. I know that, apart from learning programming and algorithms, I should invest time on mastering some programming tools in order to boost my productivity, because I'm damn slow.
I reckon that I have two options: -Try to master the Unix command line and a terminal based editor (Vim or Emacs). -Try to master the Jetbrains IDEs (all of them are equal, so if you know Intellij tricks, you know how to use PyCharm).
Please don't tell me other options because I'm already overwhelmed with having to choose between these two :P
And I think that both are excellent options, and there is no univesal answer but...
Could you, as master developers, give me a piece of advice? I've been coding for 2 years now, but I'm still uber noob.
Maybe Vim is a thing of the past? Maybe Vim is more useful to learn because it will always remain (it will always be installed on any Unix OS)?
Thank you very much! I have been reading HN for years (specially the comments), I really appreciate your opinion. I have just signed up to ask this question. <comment><USER5> Honestly, more than tooling, curiosity, grit, and reading code are the most important.

On curiosity: I was a graduate student in CS and TA'd a lot of courses and now I do a bunch of interviewing at my current job. One of the things that I often find lacking is curiosity. Someone kinda knows "if I put it in this shape, things seem to work." They don't care how it works or what kind of trade-offs might be made. Worse, they often have somewhat magical thinking. Algorithms can be clever, complex, etc., but they can't be magical. I'll give you a more concrete example. A co-worker wanted to make a column in our database searchable by sub-strings (so that a search for "idea" would match something like "IntelliJ IDEA"). They knew that indexes "made looking over a column in a database fast", but never had the curiosity to know how it made it fast. Of course, indexes (generally) are just a sorted data-structure so looking for something not at the beginning doesn't really work. The point of this is to say that curiosity is definitely your best weapon. While others are guessing or finding incantations that "work" (though they might not completely understand why), you can understand why something works or why something won't be a solution (even if it's functionally correct and "works fine" on small data sets).

On grit: often times, you can get to a point where it feels like "I'm nearly there." You then decide to reward yourself with a little kick-back time only to come back to that piece of code and realize that you weren't nearly there. I'm not suggesting that you don't take breaks or that breaks can't be helpful. However, there's a lot to be said about gritting it out and getting through a chunk that might be hard. Often times, something can look like it will work, but then doesn't. Code can be hard and defeating at times, but having the grit to power through some of the hard times can be invaluable.

On reading code: if you want to do serious development, you're going to have to read code more often than you'll write it. Documentation and comments become out-of-date, libraries can be poorly documented, and Stack Overflow won't help you with internal company code. It's easy to fall into the trap of feeling that you're very good at writing code without being able to read it well. Not being able to read code will mean that you're a lot less productive and that you're always leaning on someone else for help. It also means that you're more likely to make mistakes in your development. Reading code is a hard skill. Writing code, you just yourself and the compiler to care about. Reading code, you have to care about the compiler, the other person, and potentially years of changes to the code that have built up little nuances. But it isn't an intractable problem. You can do it and you'll become more productive and

In terms of your specific question, I think you'll learn tooling as you go along. Don't get too obsessed with tooling - it's an easy trap to fall into thinking that you'll finally be productive when you have the right setup. Also don't worry about mastering them. Build something with the tools and you'll naturally find new, useful things. An important thing to remember is that it often doesn't matter if someone knows a way of writing a small piece of code twice as fast if they spend weeks googling how to write it twice as fast, worry about things that don't matter, etc. If it takes you 20 minutes to write it and it takes them 10 minutes after a week of not getting anything done, you've moved on to way better things.

Personally, I wouldn't code in a language like Java without a good IDE. A good IDE will basically write the boring parts of code for you. More importantly, it lets you use libraries without so much googling. I can do `varName.` and IntelliJ will tell me all the methods, what their parameters are, etc. If I have a method and I'm wondering about it, I can command-click to jump right to the code for that method. That makes it really easy to figure things out without googling or guess-and-checking. It will highlight a lot of errors and prevent a lot of problems. However, this value decreased for non-statically- typed languages (or statically typed languages without the same tooling).

The JetBrains tools are quite reasonable and you certainly won't be learning something useless using them. Don't get obsessed with tooling, build things, stay curious, have grit, and read code.

<comment><USER6> I agree with the basic premise, except for the tooling bit. Yes, tools aren't everything and you shouldn't obsess about them. But just picking one and calling it a day is - at least in my opinion - a waste, if you havent even considered the alternatives. Curiosity also plays into the environment you use to develop: I've known a couple of people who would almost recoil from any tool that was not part of the IDE they learned a decade ago. This is not helpful. So, if you can: Try what interests you. See what you like after a day or two.

For example, I like the *NIX command line very much, just because I can quickly improvise (at least temporary) solutions for a specific problem. This doesn't mean that it is a silver bullet, but it's helpful to know your way around it, and without some curiosity, I would never have tried it.

Also: You dont have to be an expert - you'll get good at the things you use most, which should be those that you enjoy working with. If it doesn't "click", you'll find something else that suits you. Sometimes it's just useful to have tried something for a day or two - even Vim becomes quite usable after a couple of hours of figuring out the basic control scheme.

Oh, and also: It's not unlikely the tooling you use will change over time, so clinging to a specific IDE is not necessarily going to help you. Maybe you'll work at a place that only allows certain software on some systems. In which case, knowing your way around the basic system (Bash, Windows CMD/Powershell) will almost certainly be really helpful at some point. So just try to be open for new things :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Vim is a way of text editing that shouldn't be tied to Vim the program. I use Vim emulation with Emacs, Visual Studio, bash (to edit the command line) -- and I cannot imagine not having it.

It's like when you see a non-tech-savvy user slowly mousing around instead of keyboard shortcuts -- that's how I feel watching non-Vim users edit text. So Vim is orthogonal to your other choices. You should get around to playing with it purely as a way to edit text properly. [http://vim- adventures.com/](http://vim-adventures.com/) is a great fun way to start to get Vim powers.

I'm not some old Vim user - I only picked it up a couple years ago to see what the fuss was about. I installed it into Visual Studio and left it in insert mode most of the time, then slowly got more powerful over time. Do the same with IntelliJ: [https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/tutorial-using- in...](https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/tutorial-using-intellij- idea-as-the-vim-editor).

Edit: As to your actual question, for what it's worth I started with the high- level stuff. Both in languages and tooling. The key is to always be curious about the lower levels, and work over time to understand them and move down the stack to fully understand your tools.

It'd be great if there was a proper survey or study on developer effectiveness vs if they learned top-down or bottom-up.

<comment><USER6> I guess it's not so much top-down vs bottom-up per se - it's just that some people stop after the top level. Yes, that's not possible if you start from the bottom, but then those people most likely would have gotten frustrated at the bottom anyway...

On the other hand, I guess someone reading HN is rather likely of the kind that likes to open the lid and find out how things work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Vim is very well baked in to our culture. If you have keyboard shortcuts enabled in Gmail, it's vi commands. Not going anywhere soon. And most IDEs have a vi mode if that's your thing. I find the keyboard interface fast, fast, fast.

Vim itself is useful if you have to do anything on the command line and once you learn the basics you'll ditch pico and all the others and never look back for doing any non-trivial editing.

Extending vim (or emacs) is largely the trick - you need the right plugins to support the type of things you're working on - go to github and search for vim config and you'll find 8,050 repos with peoples favorite setups, often with instructional videos or text.

Certain programming jobs are legitimately faster with vim and the right plugins, others, especially if you're working in a team environment that uses an IDE are obviously better with an IDE.

A friend was in your shoes a few years back (young, starting out) became a vim guru, aced a job interview now writes java/clojure with IntelliJ as does the rest of his team. I asked him, he is super glad he learned vim so well but can't imagine working on his current codebase with it, but he still uses vim regularly and often.

And I liked vram22's comment about automation. I learned it as '3 or more use a for' which has boiled out to if you find yourself doing something 3 or more times, think of a way to abstract or automate it.

<comment><USER9> >And I liked vram22's comment about automation.

Thanks.

>I learned it as '3 or more use a for'

Nice mnemonic way of putting it, hearing it for the first time :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My recommendation is to start with an IDE like what Jetbrains offers, (assuming you're working in a language they support) with a promise to yourself to learn command line tools as well/a bit later. I say this because the productivity benefits from a good IDE are incredibly high, especially when working with something like Java. But like at least one other commenter has said, it's highly useful to know how things are actually working on the command line, or how to run a few quick commands to help you find something your IDE might not be able to find easily, etc. Both are useful tools, but potentially different use cases. (I have a co-worked who programs Java in VIM, so it's not like you can't theoretically mold them to be useful for any case, but it's going to take a lot more work and time to get to a place that likely is not going to offer as many niceties as an IDE will out of the box, like powerful refactoring or debugging)

But make sure that promise to yourself to learn the command line does not go forgotten! It IS important, and knowing how to use something like VIM, even at only a basic level, WILL help you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really appreciate your recommendation.

So, I should definitely learn both, but start with the IDE way, because it's easier.

<comment><USER11> Not just easier, but less cognitive load. You are still learning a ton about programming (we all are, but). You also hopefully have a life outside of programming. JetBrains (and others) allow you to easily learn the IDE along the way, but also can help with good practices. That is worth a lot of valuable time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm somewhere around 20 years in. I'm going to share my point of view with you, then let you make up your mind about what to do. :-)

The command line by itself is an old-school text editor, where the default behavior is to write programs that are executed then immediately thrown away [1]. We develop a habit of using the command line in a casual way, without realizing that it's a powerful programming environment.

Once we realize that we're _programming_ with the command line, we can take deliberate steps to write better command line programs. We can:

* learn how to capture our programs and execute them again later. * learn how to improve our programs using the edit -> execute workflow. * learn more about the commands and their options so that we can write more powerful programs * learn how to make our programs play well with other commands

Note that I'm deliberately avoiding recommending a specific editor or programming language for your workflow. You can choose whatever works best for you. Instead I'd like to leave you with this thought:

        A - <USER2>
        B - <USER3>
        P - <USER4>

Always. Be. Programing.

Always be programming! [2]

Treat every command like a program you intend to keep, and you'll start writing better and better commands; commands that you'll reuse, that will automate your workflow, that will help you spend your precious mental energy on thinking about how to solve important problems because you've delegated as much of the tedious grunt work to the computer as you possibly can.

Best of luck, and enjoy the journey!

[1] This is not strictly true but is useful as a starting point for this thought exercise. See the history command, for example.

[2] (Since it's Christmas) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_vSirIJEsY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_vSirIJEsY)

<comment><AUTHOR> I appreciate your advice. I will try to apply it!

I've already automated some tasks. However, I find it difficult to write useful bash commands that I will reuse later. Maybe I should learn a scripting programming language.

<comment><USER13> Learning Bash is both incredibly useful and will also make you richly appreciate more modern languages :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow, this is really good question that I didn't see very often around here. My answer would be try and use both. I learned to use CLI while I was playing with Linux and FreeBSD in High School (and I am using it since than every day). But I like JB products. I use IntelliJ and PyCharm on regular basis (yay for Student Licenses). But Git for example I cannot stand in GUI. I am so used to command line that I have tried just few times.

In terms of CLI, for me, I am thorn. I used vim+tmux+zsh for few years, and 2016's New Year's Resolution was to use Emacs and write Lisp. And I did. Emacs grew on me very fast, and now I am using it for 75% of time as my main text editor, but from time to time, I jump into Vim to skim source code or do some little edit, since vim feels to me much more natural in terminal environment. (Emacs is beast on it's own, where you launch terminal inside Emacs).

So, I think everything is matter of taste. Nothing will make you better programmer than programming and thinking. But for example Emacs was amazing introduction into Lisp for me, since I learned a lot just by playing with emacs and understanding how it works.

So my final recommendation. Install IDE's. If you have some project or homework, do it in them. In your free time, install Linux/macOS/*BSD, tweak system to your liking, install zsh/fish, write a little bit of bash, use git inside it, and you will gradually notice how you are becoming more and more comfortable around it. Until the point where you spin your terminal in full screen and use it for everything, from file searching and managing to programming.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for your answer. I believe I will follow your advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Jetbrains offers Emacs keybinding. Bash uses Emacs like keybinding. There's a package for Sublime. There's Firemacs for Firefox. Emacs bindings for DrRacket. An Emacs package for VScode. And a printed version of the Emacs Documentation from FSF. [https://shop.fsf.org/books/gnu-emacs-manual-17th- edition-v-2...](https://shop.fsf.org/books/gnu-emacs-manual-17th- edition-v-245)

I'm biased of course, but toward something that tends to allow me to reduce cognitive load in a place that doesn't matter. I get Emacs like bindings for writing and editing this comment.

That said, learning Emacs means losing a bit of productivity for a bit of time. It also means continuing to learn for a long time. It might be years before rectangular editing mode becomes natural or creating and destroying abbreviations on the fly is a matter of habit...or looking up documentation in the documentation rather than Googling for it. But every little bit tends to pay off.

I don't have anything against Vim. It does what it does well. It just doesn't do as much and sometimes the Unix design principle of only doing one thing isn't what I want...turing machines, compilers, laptops, web browsers are all examples.

Anyway, it's just my random advice from the internet.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> First of all, I appreciate your comment.

I haven't decided if I will try to learn Vim or Emacs, yet. I'm still in a previous phase: should I prioritize improving my command line/terminal editors skills or mastering the Jetbrains set of IDEs?

I know that you can use both Emacs and Vim bindings on Intellij IDEA (and on many other programs). However, at this point I really can't take both (Emacs and an IDE), because I'm a beginner and I can't learn everything at the same time.

But I take your advice. I have to admit that I was a bit biased against Emacs, but if follow the "terminal way", I will definitely give it a try.

<comment><USER15> [http://norvig.com/21-days.html](http://norvig.com/21-days.html)

To me the best thing a beginner can do is to recognize that being a beginner means not being in a position to make expert judgments. Learning both Emacs and IntelliJ along side the command line allows each process to inform the other. Not learning Emacs and the command line does not mean that you will learn IntelliJ much more deeply or quickly. It's going to take considerable time no matter what. Learning other things along side it will provide context for judging what IntelliJ offers.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's very true. It was just a fancy assumption that I did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I never thought about it as a this or that.

When coding, I prefer an IDE or editor of my choice with autocomplete, syntax highlighting and auto-format.

The command line I see more of an alternative to the window manager. Depending on the type of software CLI(web-server) or GUI(image manipulator) is the way to go.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your answer. I see. Sometimes, CLI is my only option (when I code on my Android tablet, with Termux).

<comment><USER9> How comfortable do you find it to code on your Android tablet, compared to on a laptop or desktop? Never done it and interested in such an option. Sorry for the partly off-topic question.

<comment><AUTHOR> I only do it sometimes. I don't see it as an alternative, but as a bonus. It's nice to be able to quickly edit a file and commit to your giy repository. However, I'm not very fast at it, because you have to use Vim or Emacs.

I recommend you take a look at the list of available packages: [https://github.com/termux/termux- packages/tree/master/packag...](https://github.com/termux/termux- packages/tree/master/packages)

clang, git, emacs, vim, go, erlang, ssh,...

But it won't replace your main laptop.

<comment><USER9> Thanks, will check that.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are welcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There's no absolute rule, since everyone is different; this is just my opinion based on my experience.

I gained knowledge of the command line about 3 decades ago. It's been useful for all that time, and I expect it to be useful for at least the next 20 years, too (assuming I'm still around). That's a span of half a century; seems like a good long-term investment.

I also learned many different development environments; they were very useful, too, but they had a much shorter half-life. At one time I could read source code by reading the pattern of holes in a punched paper tape; very useful for "mastery" of DEC PDP-8 development, not so useful now.

So both command-line and IDE are good things to learn, but in terms of "mastering," it might be good to save that for the command line. I would say definitely learn the IDE, but only enough to get things done with it and to get general knowledge of how IDEs work. Detailed knowledge of every last option, bell, and whistle in one particular IDE may be of limited long-term usefulness.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's very true, although I would say that mastering an IDE must be way easier than mastering, say, Emacs or Vim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Raw text editor (with syntax highlighting) is definitely not the thing of the past. For me, it's my main operation mode, even though I write code for living for a few years already.

For you at this point, sticking to text editor and command line tools may be the better option. You are exposed to how compilers are called and how things are being built, so you know it's nothing magic. I've seen people who started with IDEs for Java and never learned that there are operations beside F5 [run] and F9 [compile], e.g. that Java program can be packed up to a JAR and run from there, or that some source files can be generated before compilation.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see. Thank you for your advice.

However, while it's true that some programmers are (too) locked in their IDE, maybe this allow them to focus on the code itself, in a more abstract way.

<comment><USER18> Not really. Those of my acquaintances who didn't understand how the compilation and deployment processes worked, weren't that good programmers either (though I wouldn't go as far as to draw a causation relation here).

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, I see. Good point. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> IDE or text editor + CLI tools?

The answer depends on the programming language which you have chosen to use at this stage of your learning process. Each language has its own community, and in some of those communities, IDEs predominate. In others, it is CLI tools.

If you use the tools which are dominant in your community, reading books, blog posts, and StackOverflow answers will be easier. Pairing with other programmers will be easier. You will be able to watch screencasts and apply the tricks which you see. And so on...

<comment><AUTHOR> That's very true, but it seems to me that today Jetbrains IDEs are becoming a sort of standard. They have even an IDE for Go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> IMO it doesn't matter whether one is skilled in command line tooling or graphical tooling these days. Try both and see which makes you more effective.

I use Sublime 80% of the time and Vim the rest. Certain things like refactoring across files and multi-file find and replace I can just do so much faster in Sublime.

I also use Tower over the command line git client to make advanced things much faster (and not require a Google search).

<comment><AUTHOR> I will take a look at Tower, thanks!

I know that I should try both, but which should I start with first? Because in order to be able to really try a tool such as Vim, I reckon that you have to spend at leat several months. So maybe the order is important.

<comment><USER20> With Vim, you're right, but that's also one of the most extreme examples.

I would stay start with whichever has a lower upfront learning curve, which in most cases means the GUI.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It depends on whether you want to be more productive today, or tomorrow.

An IDE will be faster to pick up, and will take less time to customize. Command line skills are better for automating more and scripting more, but have a steeper learning curve.

Only you know which is a higher priority for yourself. Personally, I started with an IDE and then eased myself into command line once I had a solid grasp over coding.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm thinking about using IDEs for university projects and trying the command line tools for my side projects.

<comment><USER21> I tend to use one tool for everything I'm doing and then when I switch it's everything at once.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I work with both depending on context.

Terminal based ones are very good :

\- when you are working on REPL environments.

\- small/short programs not involving lot of modules

\- when you are learning or trying to learn a language/toolkit/framework

\- training yourself for minimum tooling work experience.

IDEs are very good :

\- when you are preparing to work on large projects with loads of modules

\- when collaboration is more important than learning with insistence of a shared dev eco-system

\- to quickly complete boiler plates & refactor larger artifacts

\- when you are focused on making not only yourself but a whole team with varying levels of skills productive.

\- when working with IDEs is actually productive for a given ecosystem.

The above are not complete but an average approximation of experience i've gained so far. The last point is where experience from someone using a given IDE for a given ecosystem really matters.Some of the IDEs might at times make it counter productive , e.g. in new languages with new IDE features might have a rather slow unproductive experience. I have experience with IDEs (JBs too) when refactoring something in a new plugin or a language,when an IDE would just hang!

<comment><AUTHOR> Great explanation. Since at the end of the day they are only tools, I will try to learn both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It depends on what you want to make, in my opinion. For anything scientific (Python) or web-based (clojure, javascript), I usually choose to use command line / text editor with build tools like webpack or leinengen. If I were to make an Android or iOS app, I would use the IDE that they give you (Android Studio or XCode) since it ends up being a better experience at the end of the day.

Personally, I learned command line first, and I think its the better way to go overall, since IDEs like JetBrains run the same stuff under the hood, so it will be easier to pick up since you know what's going on better.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see. I reckon that it's not even possible to develop for iOS or Android without the official IDE.

<comment><USER23> Android and iOS have command-line tools available to build projects, but they're usually meant for CI tools. You can do it, but its not worth the hassle unless you know what you're doing and why. Android may be easier since more of their build process is text-editor-friendly, but IntelliJ is such a pleasant tool to work with why bother?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Here is my 2 cent: Java developer for about 10 years. CLI is always good to know, Vim, Emacs learn them if you like them. But if you want power and easy overview of large collaborative projects with a lot of code, which mostly working at medium to large companies is all about, you should use an IDE. I didn't have a choice at some places, they just said: "we use IDE x here". Learning Jetbrains IDEA took me a while though but today I love it. If you're only coding small projects for yourself you don't need an IDE but I use an IDE in those cases too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, I see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> >Maybe Vim is a thing of the past? Maybe Vim is more useful to learn because it will always remain (it will always be installed on any Unix OS)?

Plenty of people use vim still, and gain a lot of productivity out of it, as others have said here and elsewhere. But it takes time to learn it well enough to get the full benefit. You can learn it incrementally, though and realize benefits as you go along. In fact you can even start with vi, the predecessor to vim (which stands for VI iMproved); vi is quite powerful in its own right (though vim is more), and may be somewhat more universally available than vim (not sure of that last point these days). Anyway, vi's commands wil be mostly a subset of vim's, so any learning of vi will transfer to vim too.

Might want to check out my really basic [1] vi quickstart tutorial for that. It can be read in under 10 to 20 minutes, and you can start applying it right away. I first wrote it for a couple of friends, who were Windows sysadmins in the company where I worked at the time. They tried it and soon after told me it helped them to get up to speed with the basics of vi quickly (they had been given additional responsibility of a few Unix boxes, so needed to know vi - this was before vim was well-known). I later published it as an article in Linux For You (now Open Source For You), an Indian print-format computer magazine.

[1] There are many vi/vim tutorials that are more advanced and cover more than mine. Also, some of them cover vi/vim in a way that really gives the true power, one key such area being understanding different cursor movement commands and text changing commands, and how to combine the two sets together (basically, the Cartesian product of them is mostly possible) to achieve larger / faster editing effects. But mine was purposely kept simple and does not cover that, so you can get started faster with vi using it - since you said (and other commenters advised) that you do not want to spend a lot of time on tools instead of actual programming, which makes sense. You can still read those other vi/vim tutorials later whenever you are ready.

You can get the vi tutorial from here (for free):

[https://gumroad.com/l/vi_quick](https://gumroad.com/l/vi_quick)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much. I'm going to read the tutorial, for sure.

<comment><USER9> You're welcome :) If you have any feedback on it after reading it and using vi for a bit, feel free to send me an email (address in my HN profile). I may be updating the tutorial after a while, to add a few other useful beginner vi (and maybe vim) features, and to include my own brief take on the "true power of vi" topics I mentioned in my earlier comment; so I would appreciate any feedback, and will try to incorporate it in the next version.

<comment><AUTHOR> If I have any suggestion, I will tell you. However, I'm slow, so don't expect immediate feedback ;)

<comment><USER9> No problem, take your time :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I went from Windows over various Linux-distributions and BSDs to MacOSX over the last 15 years.

I did my programming (various languages) in vim for several years, after that in TextMate on OSX and now mostly in IntelliJ IDEA (well, and still TextMate).

While I use the terminal the entire day for various commands and tools, I seldomly do any text-editing in it anymore.

I don't miss vim one bit, I wouldn't recommend anyone to learn it. If you have OSX look at TextMate, you can script and "power-use" it too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. I may buy a Mac this month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't know about Vim, but Emacs is not strictly terminal-based. In fact, it's GUI mode has way more features! It has modes for pretty much any programming language under the sun, with the functionality that pretty much rivals IDEs. It can also be used to edit files remotely over SSH so you don't even need to have it installed everywhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't know that. I will take a look at Emacs, definitely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> My advice will be to use IDE as main development work, and make a handy habit of using the command line tools.For example use some editor while using development,use command line gradually, learn a new trick every week well implement it. For small tasks like editing configuration files, viewing logs use command line etc.

</comment><comment><USER28> If those are my choices, then I vote for command-line, hands down. I've been doing this stuff for 20+ years, and if there's anything I've seen in this business that has remained constant, it's unix-ish shells and the presence and usefulness of vi.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Too many questions, let yourself learn what you like! if you learn one the other will come easier. Start building your style by trial and error. There s no time lost in following your passion

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your reply. My passion is actually coding. Although I'm still a noob, I find it very interesting and I really want to be a good programmer.

However, I'm pretty slow at translating my thoughts to code. Not only because I have much to learn, but also because I don't master the tools that we programmers use to write our thoughts. I mean, sometimes I have the code on my mind, or I know what should I (for example, debugging a particular function), but I'm so slow at doing it.

A friend of mine has used Intellij IDEA since he was a teen and he can do incredible things. He can refactor a class in seconds. He can find extremely fast a particular bug by debugging step by step. I also know people (older than me, by the way) that master vim, and they say that thanks to it they have experimented a huge productivity boost.

I'm afraid that if I invest time on understanding Vim, I will be investing to much time on the tool itself (which is not the end, but the mean), instead of focusing on learning algorithms and programming skills. But I really don't know.

Also, this could also influence my decision on which computer should I buy. With Vim/Emacs it's ok to have a light notebook (portable, with great battery, but no powerful), while if I choose the Jetbrains way, I should definitely buy a powerful computer.

(by the way, sorry for my English, I'm not good at languages)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wow, I didn't expect so many replies! Thank you very much! I will read (and re-read) all of them.

</comment><comment><USER30> ok I'll just cut to the chase: learn the IDE.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right. That's what other students tell me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Oh my, this is adorable!.. You're worrying about something you really should not worry about. For a beginner, the marginal benefit of either this or that is negligible.

This is akin to trying to shave milliseconds off of your 100m sprint by carefully choosing aerodynamic clothes and running shoes when your time is 20 seconds. Nobody should worry about that until they're under 10 seconds. In that case, the problem isn't the shoes, it's probably the 40 pounds of fat the beginner runner is packing and should deal with _first_.

Worrying about productivity at this stage is a 10 year old wondering about the best way to shave his beard.. _He just doesn 't have that problem yet_ and should be doing something else..

It's pretty hard for a beginner to get started and the amount of tools is overwhelming and could be distracting from what the beginner should _actually be doing_ , which is reading and writing code.

I'm telling you this because I'm a textbook case of this kind of "Oooh, I want to learn X.. What's the _best_ book?" and the spend a year _looking for_ the best book to learn X, instead of spending that year _actually learning_ X.

I wasn't like this when I was a child. I had a computer, it had something called BASIC. I didn't understand a word of English. I looked words in a dictionary and guessed the most part, copied code examples, ran them, changed stuff, deduced the role of each from the side effects, and just started doing it. Children are like that, they get stuff done. They're great hackers. When we grow up, we start trying to be "clever" about things and doing it "smartly" and get stupid in the process getting less done and learning less.

> _Try to master the Unix command line and a terminal based editor_

About that.. [http://xkcd.com/1168/](http://xkcd.com/1168/)

I think it'd be more productive for you to know enough to get you _comfortable_ and know your way around it as soon as possible: yak shaving is never the point unless you're trying to unwind in which case, shaving animals can be.. relaxing.

Here's something to get you started but just that:

[https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/appendixa.html](https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/appendixa.html)

Here's the most pertinent advice I could give you: Get internships. You probably live in a country that actually has software companies where people rely on software for most things.. Get internships at these companies. Real life experience, with real developers and real problems to learn the stuff you can't find elsewhere. Internships.

Also, side projects and reading code.

You think you're slow and a noob? I'm 29 and have been coding for 20 years on and off and I'm still a noob who can't code to save his life. I'm the slow guy here, not you!

All the best!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for your comment!

Maybe my original post focused too much on productivity. It's very true that it makes no sense to be worried about these things when I'm still a beginner.

However:

"It's pretty hard for a beginner to get started and the amount of tools is overwhelming and could be distracting from what the beginner should actually be doing, which is reading and writing code."

Ok, but, I still have to use some tools in order to be able to read and write code. And it's not neutral. Put it this way: should I code and read code with the command line + Vim/Emacs or with IDEs ala Jetbrains? I mean, in my original question, replace "productivity" with "ease of coding learning". I must focus on learning how to code, but: -If I do it with Vim/terminal, maybe I focus on the tool instead of the code itself. -If I do it with a powerful IDE, maybe I can't learn the basics properly.

I don't know if I'm being clear enough (English is not my native language and I'm bad at languages).

I will definitely try to get as many internships as possible. However, it's difficult for me to get the first one, because they look if you have had any experience before, and of course I haven't. I just need the first one to demonstrate that I can be a good intern.

<comment><USER31> This is a false dilemma. It's not this XOR that. You will definitely use different tools. This is practically an unavoidable true fact, or a false one that is not practically avoidable.

People don't learn to use a screwdriver to the exception of wrenches; soldiers don't learn to use pistols to the exception of rifles; surgeons don't learn to use scalpels to the exception of forceps. It's not realistic, so using one will not seal your fate.

I think the reason it may be causing you trouble is that you think learning these tools is hard which makes you think you have to _manage_ resources and make tradeoffs. It's hard to study Engineering and Medicine because the time commitment and effort for each almost make them mutually exclusive simultaneously, and rarely done sequentially.

The good news is that learning CLI/IDE is not hard. The fact it's not hard is also the bad news, because the hardest is yet to come. This is similar to a person finding learning the alphabet of a language hard when it's just the apéritif.

The reality is that you can learn about 80% of what you will be doing in the CLI in less than an hour. The remaining 20% will take you 40 years or something (well, you find people on Stack Overflow who know so much about these editors and tools, that the only technical question your ask yourself is which one they've used to draft the contract with the Devil).

As in most things, few things are used the most. The number of words you know is the millions; the number of words you actively use is more in the tens of thousands. The number of biomechanically possible movements is important, the number of movements we end up doing daily is less impressive.

My point is: neither constitutes that big of an investment, and you will end up using different ones anyway, so don't worry about it. I wouldn't hold my breath if you were to look for someone who's used a tool exclusively.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great answer. Thank you very much.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Searching for a Future Beyond Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://longreads.com/2018/05/01/searching-for-a-future-beyond-facebook/ <comment><USER2> Look, the truth of the matter is we opened the floodgates to computing for the masses too quickly without the proper protections and training. So up until about ~2000 it was mostly just the geeks using computers. Suddenly though, with the nice gui of Windows and Mac, the kind of users who used their cd tray as a coffee cup holder exponentially multiplied... and thus /r/talesfromtechsupport was born.

They never learned to control and own their systems.

Then those users start buying other computers, with software they didn't have the option to control, in the form of smartphones.

Now there are huge swaths of users who are so used to being stuck in a user prison they don't own or control that they think it's normal!

It's not. Join the GNU+Linux revolution today!

So the problem with fb and twitter etc, is that they took what would have been a great model (individual websites) and tried to force everyone on their platform and then find various ways to lock them there... and now with all the backlash there is a growing awakening of computing freedom, but the problem is they keep thinking of blockchain or meshnet style decentraliztion to fix the problem, when the real problem is one of ownership.

So in my opinion we need a good copyleft foss federation tech and people to own their own data. The internet isn't fully decentralized... it's more of a heirarchical starspoke topology, and it's high time SV and the rest wakeup from buzzword bingo of decentralization. (If I hear one more story about how we don't need servers cause we're going to _the cloud_ I'm going to explode, for example).

This is also why I think something like the freedombox is probably the closest thing to what the future lookes like.

<comment><USER3> You haven't answered the fundamental question: How are they going to make money? The internet can be decentralized, and everything can be FOSS, but how is that going to make money for companies? If it isn't making money why will anyone bother changing their existing model? Unless we change the rules, we are not going to get different results. I wish there was a sustainable way to fund new tech by people. The growth we see in tech right now is manifested with this massive surveillance capitalism. Think about all the shiny tech/open source libraries coming out of google and facebook, now advertisements are what funds that. The line "All great civilizations were built on back of slaves" comes to mind. Our data and privacy is what we lose, for us to achieve this massive technological prowess.

<comment><USER4> _I wish there was a sustainable way to fund new tech by people._

We pay for our phone, electricity, connection service. We even pay for games. Yet we don't want to pay for the tools that help us manage our social networks.

Or perhaps noone has dared to launch a paid social network and stick to it long enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Until the day the general population actually pays for online services(this will never happen), Facebook like enterprises will exist. I know you'll respond and tell me that you'd pay, but the vast majority of people will not, and that's why any type of paid social network will fail. They require mass adoption to be successful.

<comment><USER6> Im not sure facebook would do the right thing if users paid for it. I suspect they would just keep on doing their data harvesting to increment their revenue.

For example, in the early days of cable TV it had very few ads but nowadays it is infested with ads and product placement.

I feel the only way out here is legislation.

<comment><USER5> Honestly, I don't believe any company would "do the right thing". Companies exist to make money, as much as they possibly can. They might start off with good intentions, but inevitably, they will start looking for alternate ways of revenue. Sure, maybe some not for profit, good intention, fairly tale business might pop up. But they will in NO way get to billions of users, and will be dwarfed by the free alternatives.

<comment><USER7> > Honestly, I don't believe any company would "do the right thing". Companies > exist to make money, as much as they possibly can.

Don't forget that companies are a tool for people to make money, It they lack ethics it's because a) the people who run them lack ethics, or b) they are too removed from the operation it only means a quarterly stream of money.

I think granting legal personhood to conceptual entities was one of the biggest mistakes of capitalism.

<comment><USER8> Sometimes it simply means it's the globally winning move. Two hypotheticals.

1) Users pay Facebook a monthly fee to use the platform (enough to fund it profitably, so say $25/month)

2) Users pay Facebook a monthly fee AND Facebook markets their information (if not through direct advertising, then other methods)

If the fee is the same, and there's no fundamental reason it shouldn't be, Facebook is under a fiduciary duty to always choose (2).

The only path to not monetizing users is Apple-esque "Make so much money you can forgo profit in service to branding that the market forgives you". And I don't see Facebook ever commanding those kinds of margins.

Absolutely agreed on corporate personhood. Teddy Roosevelt's biography and the 1850 - 1920 period is instructive, as you see what it really takes to claw back control from corporations (aka "combinations" at the time).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "we must devise new business models and structural incentives that aren't rooted in manipulation and coercion...In the short-term, that might be achieved by turning to basic subscription services, by paying for the things we use."

That's why we made RealPeople.io ([https://realpeople.io](https://realpeople.io)) have no ads at all. Users pay to use, and there's no AI, no sharing your data. Rather than trying to just convince users to take our word for it, we just built it into our business model. Our financial incentives align with keeping user data private. And since we don't get paid based on how many pages the user views or how long the user is on the system, there's no financial incentive to getting the user addicted.

<comment><USER10> _> And since we don't get paid based on how many pages the user views or how long the user is on the system, there's no financial incentive to getting the user addicted._

Arguably, most of Facebook's addiction is the _existence_ of virtually _all their friends_ on the network.

Your $9/year cost is a lavish amount of money that exceeds the measly $1/year that 70% don't want to pay.[1] Why don't people want to pay 8 cents a month to avoid ads?!? That's a good question! Whatever the answer is, it affects how an alternative social network can grow and/or financially sustain itself.

If most of the people aren't in a $9/year network, then yes, it won't be addictive. The Google+ social network has targeted ads and yet it's not addictive -- because it's missing the network effect of having "everybody" on it.

Have you considered realistic human incentives in your economic model?

[1] [https://www.tune.com/blog/mobile-ads-70-of-smartphone- owners...](https://www.tune.com/blog/mobile-ads-70-of-smartphone-owners-wont- pay-even-1-to-avoid-ads/)

<comment><USER11> One could argue that LinkedIn has everybody on it (at least insofar as you are a working white collar adult), but it's not addictive either.

<comment><USER10> Many analysts don't classify Linkedin as "social" network. The unit of activity on that website is very "transactional". The transactions are _" finding a new job"_. Transactions are common activities for _people that don 't already know each other_ \-- which is a common scenario for job seekers and job hirers. They "connect" because of a _curriculum vitae_ and not because of a previous In-Real-Life meeting in a school classroom or a family relationship. (Yes, there are "endorsements" which have some aspects of "social".)

Real _social_ networks like Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat are not as transactional. The unit of activity is "ambient awareness" among _people who already know each other_. There is a human desire to _" know what's going on with my friends"_ and also its counterpart of _" let my friends know whats going on with me"_. This includes use cases such as grandmothers seeing a new posting of photos of the grandkids, and people sending trivialities such as photos of what they're eating for breakfast to their friends, and groups coordinating a shared calendar for a weekend party.

So yes, if you made an "alternative Facebook" that disallowed all the fun things that make it a "social" network such as photos, party events, etc, you will -- by definition -- create a "boring" network that nobody is addicted to. However, that type of limited network doesn't seem to be the "Facebook alternative" most people are seriously discussing.

<comment><USER11> I think the social aspect isn't necessary for addictiveness. I can coordinate an event or meeting via WhatsApp or SMS or even snail mail (weddings), but there's nothing intrinsically addictive about that. To put it in your words, these are "transactional" activities towards an offline goal.

The way I think of it is that there are two mechanisms that make Facebook addictive:

The first is voyeurism. We can see similar impulsive behavior when we think things like tabloids and gossip, as well as the psychology of clickbait (e.g. "you won't believe what this local mom did"). People are just naturally curious to know what's going on with other people.

The second mechanism is validation. We can see similar dynamics with how youtubers track "success" and "progress". Twitter presences basically operate on a similar principle. Instagram is another example where people feel compelled to share somewhat artificialized "slice-of-life" photography to audiences that may or may not be their circle of friends. There's karma in HN/reddit/stack overflow, etc and stars in github. In Facebook, it's "likes". The common factor is that people like seeing a little number go up in response to some activity and are compelled to re-engage in said activity due to the positive reinforcement.

So I'd argue that an alternative to Facebook already exists - in the form of Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, clickbait farms, messaging apps, etc. The only stronghold I see left for Facebook is that it's the default place to broadcast random things that don't fit into any other platform (i.e. what's going on with who), and even that is eroding with the whole aunt-and-college-buddies- in-the-same-network-awkwardness thing. The only other thing going for Facebook is that it's pretty much the only platform that enables chain mail sort of stuff (you know, that uncle that is always posting political articles or alternative medicine things, or inspirational quotes or whatever) since it sorta automatically gives people an audience to broadcast to (for the validation aspect).

<comment><USER10> _> To put it in your words, these are "transactional" activities towards an offline goal._

I wasn't using "transactional" in a that loose of a sense so it can apply to nearly everthing. I was thinking of "transactions" in a very money-oriented way. To start a "job search" is to interact with others where "money" defines the relationship ("I want to be paid $$.") That's what LinkedIn is built on. (Yes, money is a crass subject but that's ok because we're on LinkedIn!) Even if an employee and employer become "real friends" later instead of just economic actors in a business transaction, the undertone of the website is still a financial transaction. By its nature, it's going to be a "boring" website.

Facebook ... or _" TheFacebook.com"_ in 2004... was built on students who knew each other. Before it had ads or corporate media inserted into the newsfeed, students were entranced by the "voyeurism" and likewise, the need to express themselves which then feeds the voyeurism of others. The undertone was non- business and non-money things like "mating rituals" and later expanded to friends & family updates like "photos".

Twitter and Reddit don't replace that. Reddit uses handles instead of _real names_. Both Twitter & Reddit have their own set of addictive attractions. Messaging apps like WhatsApp don't have a "news feed" which many Facebook users like. Instagram and Snapchat are probably the closest substitutes for Facebook for non-text type of sharing.

Many people want the _utility_ provided by Facebook; they just don't want the targeted ads and privacy leaks. Therefore, a 1-to-1 replacement for Facebook accurately captures the (yet-to-be-invented?) alternative they want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Facebook (et al) is nothing but a blip on the time line of human history. Just like "we" have a history without Facebook I see no problems in a future without Facebook. Part of this future will come to pass due to legislation (GDPR being a good start), part of it due to the product - Facebook's users - becoming sentient and aware of the way it has been used. Another part will come to pass due to the ever rising censorship on sites like Facebook which will eventually lead to it becoming a bland repository of pablum as anything which could be construed as being even the least controversial will be locked behind dire warnings or flat-out refused with an accompanying block for the user.

<comment><USER13> > Facebook's users - becoming sentient and aware

> a bland repository of pablum

I believe you are overestimating the intelligence and "woke-ness" of the Facebook user community, and of humanity in general.

<comment><USER14> > I believe you are overestimating the intelligence and "woke-ness" of the > Facebook user community, and of humanity in general.

That's an extremely cynical and pessimistic outlook that allows for little actual improvement.

If enough motivated people blast their feeds with news about how Facebook users are being used and exploited, I could see enough Facebook users becoming "sentient and aware" to cripple the network.

It won't die completely, at least no right away (MySpace is still around, after all), but I think a dent can be made.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A lot would be solved by outlawing _targeted_ advertising.

<comment><USER16> Seems impossible without outlawing all advertising. Advertising in the nytimes over some other paper or advertising on fox over cnn are all examples of targeted advertising. You'd have to make people randomly choose advertising spots from all of media. Doesn't seem feasible.

<comment><USER17> > Advertising in the nytimes over some other paper or advertising on fox over > cnn are all examples of targeted advertising.

"Targeted" advertising generally refers to the tracking-based targeting of individual people. Re-defining the term to include all types of advertising makes the term mostly useless.

> Doesn't seem feasible.

Banning targeted advertising would be easy with legislation that bans tracking and showing ads to individuals.

> You'd have to make people randomly choose advertising spots from all of > media.

Traditional advertising methods worked fine for _centuries_. Nobody[1] places ads randomly; you advertise where your product's audience will see it.

[1] Advertising intended to build general brand awareness instead of selling a specific product or service might buy ads somewhat randomly, because the goal is simply getting the brand name seen widely and often.

<comment><USER16> Well I understood targeted advertising as advertising with a target in mind. So advertising on msnbc to target liberals and fox for conservatives. In terms of tracking people and using their data to precisely target them then I agree with Richard Stallmann's article here: [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebo...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook- abusing-data-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance)

<comment><USER18> That's too broad of a definition, it effectively reduces the term 'targeted advertising' to just 'advertising'. For example, even if my advertisement isn't trying to target broad categories of people (roadside billboard, etc) _any_ ad will have a target in mind: consumers of my product.

So no, targeted advertising is _not_ any ad with a target in mind, that is just advertising. Targeted ads are distinguished from regular ads based on targeting a specific individual. An ad in the WSJ may be aimed at a broad category of people interested in business news, but if I know for a fact that 'Letmesleep69' happens to be a reader of that paper and I take out an ad that specifically refers to that user name, then it would be a targeted ad.

edit: formatting

<comment><USER19> I don't think the word 'targeted' has as narrow a definition as you are proposing (at least in the common vernacular). In writing laws, as in code, one has to be very specific and define things properly, but not in frank discussion.

Disclosure: I believe in the eventual success of the fediverse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "(...) when it comes to Facebook, the rot is deep. It can't be excised. It can only be replaced by something else, by a form of connectivity that treats people not as laborers or commodities, but as human beings."

Almost on point. Facebook has ingrained itself into socio-individual behaviour schemas. Social medias are likely here to stay for a long time and I don't see a company treating it's users as 'human beings' not 'commodities' being a front-runner to win a hypothethical future social media companies race; there are just no areas left that any rival company could simultaneously 1) exploit to stay profitable 2) make people use it.

There will likely be some decentralized services but that's all.

<comment><USER14> > ...and I don't see a company treating it's users as 'human beings' not > 'commodities' being a front-runner to win a hypothethical future social > media companies race; there are just no areas left that any rival company > could simultaneously 1) exploit to stay profitable 2) make people use it.

There are a few billionaires who are having second thoughts about a lot of this, I wonder if one could fund a rival non-profit network and run it at a loss until it has enough momentum.

I know I'd shill for a non-profit, user-respecting social network and donate for its upkeep, but I just don't have the resources to keep one going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's too bad an otherwise well written article on an important topic soiled itself with political statements.

If you think it didn't, I suggest you have some hidden biases.

</comment><comment><USER22> I am surprised no one has mentioned mastodon. Organizations or individuals can set up their own server and people can interact with their local communities that can police and or use the data as they want, AND there is a federated feed of all the mastodon instances where you interact in a public forum.

</comment><comment><USER23> Facebook's downfalls are numerous:

\- ads

\- promotion of gossip to a global audience

\- peer-pressured risk-taking

\- pics, videos and other content that's usually boring

A real friends platform:

\- video / text chat

\- arranging spontaneous and planned activities

\- gather/raise funds for group activities

\- where people are at

\- what people are up to

\- finding new friends from friends of friends for activities

\- find new interests, get recommendations

\- visualize social circles

\- paid for by users

\- never sells data

<comment><USER24> Who pays for the real friends platform?

<comment><USER25> Who pays for the real friends?

<comment><USER26> The payment isn't for the friends, but for the environment in which you meet them:

You could pay membership fees for a club to be able to use their rooms to hang out with your peers. (paid community server)

You can meet at your home, where you have to clean up and bring snacks yourself. (personal hosting)

Or you can meet in a cafe, where access is free, with the expectation that there will be a different but related financial transaction (food and beverages). ("free" servers paid by ads)

I can't think of a good analogy of meeting your friends in a fully public space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> TLDR

"Ultimately, to challenge Facebook, Google, and the many unknown players of the data economy, we must devise new business models and structural incentives that aren't rooted in manipulation and coercion; that don't depend on the constant surveillance of users, on gathering information on everything they read and purchase, and on building that information into complex dossiers designed to elicit some action — a click, a purchase, a vote. We must move beyond surveillance capitalism and its built-in inequities. In the short-term, that might be achieved by turning to basic subscription services, by paying for the things we use. But on a longer time horizon, we must consider whether we want to live in a world that converts all of our experiences into machine- readable data — data that doesn't belong to us, that doesn't serve us"

//

I have no idea how we can avoid this - Google is so invasive it is increasingly tracking and recording everything about our lives. Gillian Tett had a good piece in the FT about how autocomplete in search fields influences our thinking. [https://www.ft.com/content/7dc8eae4-4d99-11e8-97e4-13afc22d8...](https://www.ft.com/content/7dc8eae4-4d99-11e8-97e4-13afc22d86d4) Google maps records any changes we make to our property for future permit/permissions comparisons etc - we have no control over this and little ability to opt out.

</comment><comment><USER28> Aside from privacy there is another important issue to consider. Facebook makes censorship decisions it has no authority and probably little expertise to make. All with little to no accountability.

Consider the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the censorship of Palestinian voices as an example. In general there should be no tolerance for speech that incites violence. Everybody agrees to this. But in this particular case things are different. The Palestinians are an occupied people and the Israeli army and Israeli colonizing settlers are occupying forces. The international community is almost in total agreement — the Palestinians have every right to engage in armed resistance against the occupation forces. Yet Facebook still delete accounts which call for resistance. To make matters worse, they allow the formidable, multi-million dollar funded, Israeli state-aponsered propaganda machine to use Facebook to normalize occupation, to demonize Palestinians, to dehumanize Palestinians, and to disrupt foreign protest/resistance in western democracies. How is this not morally bankrupt!?

Come on. I do not understand this — how can any educated individual support a company like Facebook is beyond me. How can all those top notch researchers work for them? Facebook has 0 moral integrity.

It tells quite a story about us techies. While they are some of the smartest people they are also the least morally-driven people. So selfish. Look at the world you Facebook engineers are creating. A world where a massive, world- wide, media platform doesn't direct flows of information based on ethics and responsibility. The information flows based on profit and power. Of course Facebook will acquiesce to the majority of Israeli government requests. They project billions of dollars worth of power. Palestinians barely have enough to eat. Screw what the Palestinians think, what can they do? When Facebook and it's platform acts as the Israeli propagandist and censor Facebook only loses if it's users or employees get upset. What are the chances of that? Who controls what reaches our newfeeds? Are our feeds not filtered by what's popular according to the masses and what hasn't been downvotes to oblivion?

I truly despise Facebook. I hate how they have no accountability. I hate the effects they are having on the world and people. I hate the way they influence how people think and nobody calls it censorship.

[1] [https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/1...](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/09/12/facebook- google-israel-social-media) [2] [https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel- partisans-work-censor...](https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-partisans- work-censor-internet/)

</comment><comment><USER29> Great!</comment>


Create animated scrolling website with ScrollMagic – HelpDev - <AUTHOR> https://helpdev.eu/create-animated-scrolling-website-with-scrollmagic/ <comment><USER2> I used ScrollMagic in 2014 and quite enjoyed it. I think it should still be a pretty good library.

The article is "meh" (and wrong about jQuery being required), for more technical details have a look at its Github page: [https://github.com/janpaepke/ScrollMagic](https://github.com/janpaepke/ScrollMagic)</comment>


From perception to disruption in the cloud: an equation - <AUTHOR> http://wattersjames.posterous.com/from-perception-to-disruption-in-the-cloud-an#

<comment><USER2> Arg, this pseudomath is hurting my brain. Why does he keep saying P is multiplicative when it's written like a function?? How can the same variable P (or function) affect B and C differently?? If the perceived benefit is equal to the perceived cost then does that mean the value equals 1? What does that mean?? If the perceived cost is 2x the perceived benefit, then shouldn't the overall value be negative?? (instead of being 1/2?). And is it deliberate that the whole equation is undefined for when perceived cost equals 0??</comment>


DHH and Jason Calacanis discuss bootstrapping and VC (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDGHxO6N3Ms <comment><AUTHOR> another discussion in 2013:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzERXJgi5vQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzERXJgi5vQ)</comment>


Ask HSN: What items would you pay a premium to have delivered within one hour? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to determine more specifically:
For what types of items would you pay a premium or service fee to have delivered to your door within one hour?
Any help or thoughts are greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> I can see wanting immediate delivery for:

      RAM, hard disks, DVD drives, cables, mice/keyboards, AC adapters
      ink/toner/consumables
      AA/AAA/9v batteries
      cell phones (when original is lost/destroyed)

.. but it depends on the size of the markup/premium. In my mind, the comparison is to asking my assistant to go buy the thing, or buying it myself, so I think about the cost of driving + opportunity cost (e.g., if I send the receptionist, they may not buy the right thing, and then someone else has to answer the phone, or calls go to VM and maybe we miss something important)

.. I'm answering from a business context, not a personal context. Personally, I can probably wait, or just go buy the thing myself if I'm in a hurry.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's not enough ladies here, and they'll be most of your customers; find a forum frequented mostly by ladies and ask this question there as well.

Myself:

\- groceries;

\- toiletries (If I'm out of deodorant / shaving cream / blades / toilet paper / paper towels / detergent and I need them stat, I'll pay extra).

\- Printer supplies (printer ink out so I can't print while working towards a deadline? out of papers? I'll pay a premium), and maybe some other office supplies.

\- Computer supplies: blank CDs, blank DVDs, USB flash drives, mice, keyboards, when these break.

\- Cardboard boxes and other moving/packing supplies (I need to take things from one place to the other, and realized it's harder to carry/pack than I thought). Happened to me more than once.

\- Batteries. Cheap, pre-activated, pay-as-you-go mobile phone for a guest- from-out-of-the-country or when I've lost my phone.

\- Phone chargers and laptop chargers for when I've lost mine.

\- Power cables, power strips, ...

\- Small Ikea stuff; they charge >$100 for delivery of the simplest things; if I can get some stuff from you for $10, I'd gladly do that rather than drive to Ikea. The logistics might make this worthwhile for you.

Ladies are likely to have a very different list. I won't speculate here even though I know a few items my S/O would add.

Also, for some items, I'd pay premium if I could get them when the stores are closed - e.g., one hour delivery at 3pm, 11pm and 4am command different premiums; Similarly, rain, snow, sun and humidity would also command a different premium.

You can price such a service dynamically according to demand and your costs (read about "2nd price auctions" about a possible way to run the pricing process), which walmart can't (although ebay and amazon might)

</comment><comment><USER4> Aside from food (and beer§),

Maid service, perhaps just on the one-room level. (Much easier to justify the high price if you're paranoid and busy and can't be sure when you'll be home to supervise).

Repair/handyman service, auto detailing, yard service, waste removal.

Massage and acupuncture.

Also, definitely, medical services including phlebotomy.

Finding the sort of business where the current providers are already in the area working and can drop everything and high-tail it over to the impatient client's place on an infrequent basis is what you want here.

Success of another taskrabbit or iamexec with a really short timetable would be easier if it had an easy automated system to predict availability without interrupting the service providers' other tasks (i.e. where is their smartphone, is it jostling, and are they ready to work).

§ This is probably constrained by a patchwork of antiquated laws enough to make it a loser financially. Still, I bet you could even find volunteers who'd rather enable alcoholics by getting them another case of Steel Reserve, Mickey's, or Bud Light when they run out, given that they'd probably get behind the wheel to perform the task themselves. The life you save could be mine.

<comment><USER5> I think your answers are specious. You would pay a premium for on-demand phlebotomy?

<comment><USER4> The author didn't ask for ones proven to work; everything's specious until a successful startup makes it obvious.

And I would definitely pay for on-demand on-site phlebotomy for a number of reasons, if I was to need one, and I bet you would too.

People get blood drawn when their body isn't working right and nobody's sure why. Whether you're coughing up blood, can't see straight, or can't walk, getting your butt into that clinic is a major pain point. Maybe you have a high-stress low-skill job like at a package sorting facility, where you come in late, you get canned. Doesn't matter that you'd have to blow a day's wages to save two hours' working time- that's just how the economics work for some people (talk to cabbies and you'll find many of their clients are very poor, even though cabs are ridiculously expensive).

And as far as the time premium, it's downright scary when your health takes a sudden turn. Hours count when you have what could be fast-advancing cancer, or an aggressive bacterial infection. An extra $30 to shave a day off the time until I get results? Easily justified.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Right now? A SATA cable. I could swear I had 2-3 in a drawer but I'm out.

On a more regular basis? Replacement hardware for the data center. I'd gladly buy a new hard disk/DIMM/System Board/You name it and get it in 1 hour. This would allow me to have a cheaper support contract with next day delivery, and when the warranty replacement arrives I'd use it in a future server.

\--edit:

Also, medicines. Last year I had just moved to Germany, knew nobody, my fiancee was still in Italy and I caught the mother of all flus. Could hardly stand up, awfully dizzy, fever, vertigo, you name it. I had to walk around, and find a pharmacy. I would _gladly_ have paid 50 bucks for a home delivered box of aspirins.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would pay premium for the following:

-Fast Food. Pizza, burgers, chinese etc. They have the word "fast" in them for a reason after all :) But i want them even faster than 1 hour. How about 15 mins ?

\- Electronic accesories like batteries, chargers etc.

\- Kids diapers (if you have one).

\- BBQ gas cylinder (happned to me once in the middle of a beautiful bbq. had to run out and get one)

</comment><comment><USER8> Condoms, beer, ice, propane?, bathroom/grooming needs, office/presentation supplies, carpet cleaner supplies or machine rental?, cookies/ice cream, drain uncloggers.

</comment><comment><USER9> pizza?

I think delivery to where you are might be more interesting than to your door.

<comment><USER7> This. I hate paying $2 delivery charge and still waiting for 45 min to an hour around my area.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> You're all awesome. Thank you for the input and time.

</comment><comment><USER10> groceries probably. It's the only thing that I can think of that I might need in one hour, other things for me can wait.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input. I tend to feel the same way, and am wondering if there's a gap in the online/offline purchase cycle there for a product or service I'm overlooking. As a corollary, I see eBay and Amazon fighting to get closer to "immediacy" and wondering if they're off base. That's another discussion, I guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Plasters. Aspirin.</comment>


The Open World of Swift 3 - <AUTHOR> https://realm.io/news/appbuilders-daniel-steinberg-whats-new-swift-3/ <comment><USER2> Best quote: "In Swift 3, we're going back to the Swift 1 naming convention, which is just awesome."</comment>


Any founder interviewing for YC tomorrow wanting to meet up? - <AUTHOR> Dozens of us are coming to Mountain View to interview for YC tomorrow. Just wonder who are doing so as well. Would love to form a group to meet up and maybe practice?<p>You can also ping my email firstname.lastname@example.com <comment><USER2> Yea, my co-founder and I would be interested. firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


How to Make Perfect Thin and Crisp French Fries (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/05/the-burger-lab-how-to-make-perfect-mcdonalds-style-french-fries.html?daysago=1300 <comment><USER2> If you like this but want to see how you might take it a step further:

[http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/05/12/the-quest-for- french...](http://www.cookingissues.com/2010/05/12/the-quest-for-french-fry- supremacy-2-blanching-armageddon/)

I believe Kenji Lopez-Alt, the author of the Serious Eats article, is the "Former Cooks Illustrated Test Cook" quoted at the end of Dave Arnold's article.

(Everything at Cooking Issues is amazing, especially Dave Arnold's weekly podcast; also, you can get Pectinex Ultra SPL from Modernist Pantry online).

<comment><USER3> did you order your searzall?

<comment><USER4> Gah! I am just now seeing this...looks really awesome.

<comment><USER2> We're not getting them until June (I didn't order early-access; I opted for the 30 minute Dave Arnold phone call instead, which in retrospect seems silly because I can probably get that on any given Tuesday when he does his podcast) --- I imagine that by the time the Kickstarter units ship, people who order normal Searzalls will have much less time to wait.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > McDonald's french fries are great. At their best, they are everything a > french fry should be: salty, crisp, light, and not greasy.

Funny. I tend to think of super thin fries as an American thing. Fries from McDonald's, in particular, taste like cardboard to me.

Then again, I'm Belgian.

<comment> chestnut-tree _" Then again, I'm Belgian."_

If you can access this 30 min radio programme from the BBC about chips (from June 2010), you might find it interesting. It features a segment on Belgian fries

 _" In Belgium the oven chip hasn't caught on. Instead friterie shops proliferate, and Belgians take their chips very seriously. How the potato arrived in Europe remains contentious, but the Belgians are confident that it was them, and not the French, who invented the "French" fry. Ray Kershaw visited the Friet Museum in Bruges established to celebrate their national fry with director Eddie Van Belle."_

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sqkgb](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sqkgb) (segment starts at 18:33 seconds)

<comment><USER6> Maybe it was some French-speaking Belgians who invented the French fries ;-)

Just a wink to the ridiculous conflict that goes on between French-speaking- Belgians and the Dutch-speaking-Belgians, now for years.

<comment><USER5> Interestingly, in the Netherlands they often call them Flemish fries. Flanders being the Dutch-language region in Belgium.

If you called them that in Belgium I bet you would cause a riot. ;-)

<comment><USER7> In the Netherlands the thin fries McDonalds sells are referred to as French fries (franse frietjes): [http://i.imgur.com/n0F248C.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/n0F248C.jpg).

Slightly thicker (square) fries are just called fries (patat): [http://i.imgur.com/tui5FDe.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/tui5FDe.jpg). These are served most often.

The big rectangular fries are referred to as Flemish fries (vlaamse frieten): [http://i.imgur.com/QDwv9IA.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/QDwv9IA.jpg).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Gotta love a) this guy's passion for fries, b) that McDonalds gave away their secret recipe (blanching) without which Kenji seemed to be totally stuck, and c) the vinegar trick to make it easier for us to do back at home.

He doesn't mention what's he using to cut the fries?

<comment><USER9> It's hardly a secret. In fact one of the worlds most renowned chefs, Heston Blumenthal, openly describes the practice.

<comment><USER10> I'm actually in the middle of The Fat Duck Cookbook. Blumenthal's recipe for top-notch pub chips (large and slightly bulky, not thin like fries) even goes by the name "triple-cooked chips".

In the TV series, _In Search of Perfection_ , he goes the extra mile to figure out a way to reproduce the recipe in reasonably well equipped home kitchens. One of the many tricks is that having salt in the blanching water is mandatory. It helps to create the porous surface. His recipe is so good I can make delicious chips at home even without access to a temperature controlled fat fryer.

(Incidentally, Jamie Oliver blanches whole skinned potatoes before roasting them in the oven. I've tried that too and it does make a big difference to how they come up.)

But the vinegar trick was something I hadn't heard before. I'll have to give it a try, because it would seem to give some extra leeway with timing. For a home cook, that is an important factor.

<comment><USER11> Pretty much _everyone_ parboils potatoes before roasting them in the oven. (About 10 minutes in lightly salted water. After boiling them and draining the cooking water, put the lid back on the pan briefly and give it a good shake to roughen the surface of the potatoes. You'll get better crunchy outsides that way.)

Is that what Jamie Oliver recommends, or is it some further less standard trick?

<comment><USER10> > _Is that what Jamie Oliver recommends, or is it some further less standard > trick?_

Just one deviation: steam-dry step instead of putting the lid back on. The potatoes are poured out to a colander and left there for a few minutes.

<comment><USER12> Yes, and tossing them around gently in the colander is the ideal way to roughen the surface. This is also Raymond Blanc's method. If the water can be kept vigorously boiling, it's usually only necessary to parboil the potatoes for a few minutes: just enough to soften the outer 5mm or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Two other recipes by the awesome chefs at ChefSteps

Thick: [http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/thick-cut-french- fries](http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/thick-cut-french-fries)

Thin: [http://www.chefsteps.com/classes/science-of- poutine/#/thin-c...](http://www.chefsteps.com/classes/science-of- poutine/#/thin-cut-french-fries)

disclaimer: I'm working on a project with ChefSteps

</comment><comment><USER14> > I find it remarkable that the bigwigs have discovered a way to create a > frozen fry that even a one armed eyeless chimp has trouble screwing up.

I find it in general remarkable that McDonalds' business processes seem to be so foolproof that any one armed eyeless chimp is able to create BigMacs, Hamburgers and any other McDonalds dish always and anywhere in the world with the same high quality.

<comment><USER15> Obligatory joel article.

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000024.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000024.html)

<comment><USER16> Now that I've had personal experience with FogBugz (from FogCreek) I heavily discount Joel's wisdom.

<comment><USER17> What was wrong with it?

<comment><USER16> It was slow, full text searching didn't work (literally), when using their API to delete repos and recreate them there would be race conditions that would leave us in a state where their support would have to go data spelunking on their end to correct them.

I could nitpick the GUI and such but the real issues were these fundamental problems. I was shocked. This happened for years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here are Heston Blumenthal's triple-cooked chips: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIiQbeVHgX0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIiQbeVHgX0)

<comment><USER19> I watch all Heston's videos he seems like he makes fantastic food, I think he shows how to make really good food sometimes in a different way not pretentious but fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> To me, the most interesting part of this article was the quest to obtain the frozen fries in the first place. I'm amazed a McDonald's manager gave them out.

Corporations like McDonald's rely on trade secrets: things that can't necessarily be patented, or which might be placed in danger by being patented. (Applying for a patent makes a recipe public record, and the lifetime of the patent is finite.) The secret recipe for Coke, or in this case the secrets behind McD's fries, are worth billions of dollars.

For all the McD's manager knew, Grant might have been a rival doing some corporate espionage. Or he might have been a government inspector of some sort. It sounds farfetched. But many people in store management in retail and fast food are _very_ aware of these possibilities, and they're trained to err on the side of extreme caution.

Kenji isn't lying when he says the employee/manager in question could get fired for having given these out. Trade secrets in multi-billion-dollar corporations are a fascinating subject: they're often tied to the most seemingly minute details, and they're guarded as carefully as gold.

<comment><USER21> I doubt McDonalds really cares that much about their trade secrets.

Even though I love McDonalds fries (you can almost taste the oppression and cultural hegemony), perfectly emulating McDonald's fries is always going to be a tiny niche. No competitor is going to want their fries to be exactly the same as in McDonalds since brands _want_ to position themselves as interesting and unique.

That said, I don't really like the deception he (and his agents) practiced, but it seems like a minor sin in the scheme of things.

<comment><USER20> They have about $1.7 billion in intangible assets on their balance sheet, of which trade secrets are not necessarily delineated but are a significant component.

I have no real idea if the fries are a trade secret; that much is pure speculation. But my point was more that I wouldn't be surprised if the fries _were_ a trade secret, as such is the norm for large food companies. You'd be surprised at the level of granularity involved in food company trade secrets. It's not so much about protecting the quality of McDonald's fries; it's about protecting the properties of those fries that permit logistics at McDonalds- level scale: fries that are designed a certain way as to always cook consistently despite freezing, transportation across complex supply lines, inconsistent on-site storage and preparation, etc. It's not a huge stretch to call McD's fries a product of engineering as much as nature.

Source: [http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/sec_filings.html](http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/sec_filings.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This article takes a while to get to the good bits, which are:

triple cooking (blanch, cool fry, hot fry) and the sciencey stuff about sugars and starches.

I love the batches and notes about temperature. This is something I need to start doing so I can recreate the sucessful cooking I do.

What I'd have liked to see more of was a discussion of different types of potato, and different treatment of the oil.

</comment><comment><USER23> For anyone interested in a broader look at the science of cooking I strongly recommend 'How to read a french fry' by Russ Parsons. It explains equally important factors like the need for natural soaps (surfactants) in the oil as it breaks down, for that perfect color. If you've ever tried to fry something until golden brown in a perfectly clean pot using new oil you've run up against this. The food is still white when it's done and cooking it until brown means overcooking it. You have to save a bit of the old oil to mix in with the new stuff.

It's an easy read with recipes for several dishes and the book can serve as a really solid base for understanding how to be a much better cook.

</comment><comment><USER24> Now can someone PLEASE post the recipe for KFC batter.

I walked into a KFC and ask to buy a bag of batter, it is how funny they turned very serious all the sudden and asked me to leave to store.

I mean I just want to use it on real organic chicken. Anyone???

<comment> chestnut-tree _" Now can someone PLEASE post the recipe for KFC batter."_

[http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/jul...](http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/jul/24/kfc- secret-recipe-revealed)

<comment><USER24> oh chestnut-tree, I love you! I will look to make this in Denmark at some point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Really weird; I just made these last night and the post shows up here today. They're delicious, by the way.

</comment><comment><USER26> One thing that McDonalds do is add the salt to the fries for you. This seems a little bit odd if you have been used to buying 'chips' from a British Fish and Chip shop.

However the 'salt' they add isn't just salt. It is a mix of sugar and salt. This does work wonders for making them taste really nice, it works well with regular 'chips' too. Yet it is tantamount to deception, unless you are in the know you would never imagine that McDonalds fries are sugar coated.

<comment><USER27> Urban legend, I believe.

<comment><USER26> Cite sources?

I have none either. However I asked a chef I worked with why his chips tasted so good. He said that it was the sugar in the salt that made the difference, a trick he learned at a British McDonalds. Hearsay true, however sugar in the salt does actually work, as it should given our tastes: sugar/salt/fat = yum!

<comment><USER28> As someone recently employed by a Golden Arches franchise, I will attest to using only "table salt" to salt french fries. More specifically, I'd load the fry salting device from a 4-lb paper box of commercial non-iodized table salt [1].

If you'd like to verify this fact at your local McDonalds go ahead and order some fries "no salt" and do the salting yourself. As a bonus, you'll also most likely ensure you get fresh fries. Don't do this in the drive thru, as it's kind of an asshole move. 3:20 for fresh fries.

[1] looks just like this: [http://www.webstaurantstore.com/bulk-iodized-table- salt-4-lb...](http://www.webstaurantstore.com/bulk-iodized-table-salt-4-lb- box/102SALT4.html)

<comment><USER26> Love your nom-de-plume!

I had lived with the lie of sugar in salt for more than a decade, glad to have that settled.

I am actually thinking of getting some of the 'Diamond' salt they use in the US. It is not just granulated, it has a 'diamond' shape to the crystals so you get the taste but not the high quantity of sodium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'll concede that Kenji (the food lab author) definitely has a hacker-ish point of view when it comes to cooking, but I feel like we may be diluting the content of HN with a french fry recipe. Maybe everyone just loves fries?

Oh and for the record, I'm a huge Food Lab fan and have been a regular reader for some time... But I think that this Cook's Illustrated recipe beats Kenji's fries (and it's way easier too): [http://deep-fried.food.com/recipe/easier- french-fries-cold-o...](http://deep-fried.food.com/recipe/easier-french-fries- cold-oil-method-cooks-illustrated-415262)</comment>


Times New Arial - <AUTHOR> https://timesnewarial.liebermannkiepereddemann.de/ <comment><USER2> Those who enjoy this sort of thing might also enjoy reading Donald Knuth's "The Concept of a Meta-Font" (from 1982): [http://visiblelanguagejournal.com/issue/61/article/748](http://visiblelanguagejournal.com/issue/61/article/748) — although the technology used is very different (it was designed for print after all), he plays a lot of lovely tricks with the font on the page (changing x-height, "e-height", etc), including gradually transitioning from a serif to a sans-serif typeface. Note that even the "production" Computer Modern family available by default with TeX distributions itself has all its typefaces (including sans-serif, monospaced, bold, italic, etc. variants) by varying parameters in a single font. Direct link to PDF: [https://s3-us- west-2.amazonaws.com/visiblelanguage/pdf/V16N1...](https://s3-us- west-2.amazonaws.com/visiblelanguage/pdf/V16N1_1982_E.pdf)

Also, look at Metaflop modulator: [https://www.metaflop.com/modulator](https://www.metaflop.com/modulator)

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks kinda nice in the middle there...

<comment><USER4> That reminds me of Cambria

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very cool! Looks like it was done with a bit of jQuery magic :)

[https://timesnewarial.liebermannkiepereddemann.de/js/script....](https://timesnewarial.liebermannkiepereddemann.de/js/script.js)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's only for convenience, the magic is in the font: css({fontVariationSettings: '"srff"' \+ yy + ', "ital"' \+ xx})

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font- variat...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-variation- settings)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As suspected it struggles with 'g' :)

[https://imgur.com/umYbkbn](https://imgur.com/umYbkbn)

<comment><USER7> Can you explain what you mean by "struggle"? If you click on the page, it brings up what amounts to several character maps; there's a 'g' in the upper right-hand quad. Then you can move the cursor around as before to observe the changes. But I'm not sure what's wrong with the 'g'; is it on the X- or Y-axis that you see problems? what kind of problems?

<comment><USER6> > Can you explain what you mean by "struggle"?

An Arial 'g' and a Times New Roman 'g' are fundamentally different because

1\. The stem is on different sides

2\. They have a different number of loops

For most letters you can transition between the two fonts by simply adding or removing serifs and and making things either more or less curvy. But for the 'g' you have to change the fundamental shape. As you can see in the screenshot, I've added a 'g' to the example text and expect to see a 'g' which is 93% Arial and 7% Times New Roman - however the 'g' shown is a Times New Roman style 'g' and looks nothing like an Arial 'g' (which has the stem on the right not the left, and one loop instead of two)

> If you click on the page, it brings up what amounts to several character > maps

In the character map view, I can see that the Arial 'g' is nothing like a real Arial 'g' \- it's a Times New Roman 'g' with fewer serifs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The backslash behaviour with slant is... unfortunate.

</comment><comment><USER9> This Nice Alphabet

That's Newly Arrived:

Truly Natural Art</comment>