Annoyances of API Design - <AUTHOR> http://chickenwing.software/scratches/programming/annoying-apis <comment><USER2>
        outputImageProviderFromBufferWithPixelFormat:pixelsWide:pixelsHigh:baseAddress:bytesPerRow:releaseCallback:releaseContext:colorSpace:shouldColorMatch:

No, this is _great_! I can glance at something calling this, and, without any comments, determine immediately what each parameter is!

Note that standard formatting is to place each argument on its own line, with the colons lined up, and that Xcode does this automatically, and will autocomplete the entire nonsense. It's fairly disingenuous to line the whole thing up as if you need to type it all out.

Also, this is an API that clearly bridges to C-style data structures. Higher level APIs will have much fewer parameters.

> What's the difference between a tap and a touch?

In Apple-land, at least, a _tap_ is an action (touching somewhere and releasing quickly, as opposed to a swipe, etc.), and a _touch_ is where a user's finger is currently placed.

<comment><USER3> I couldn't agree more wrt the virtues of descriptive names. An enormous set of code comments is made redundant by the use of more descriptive names. Modern tools make it trivially easy to reproduce names of arbitrary length.

I can't see the downside, yet the author of the article acts like it should be obvious.

<comment><USER4> Long names are hard to read. This makes autocompletion dangerous (I had a terrible bug where I locked the wrong of two mutexes with long, descriptive names which were too similar visually.)

A good name is short enough to read as a sign in itself, it shouldn't be parsed as a sentence.

The more code reuse there is, the less you might be using the same name, as a sister comment says - but the more names you have, and a lot of long names is really hard to read. So I disagree with sister's "downside" of "it's bad for bad programmers". It's even worse for otherwise good ones who buy into this style. (Or maybe not, maybe they just read differently from me and say Rob Pike who objected "names which are short essays about the thing they name.")

<comment><USER5> I'm a big fan of Apple's descriptive and remarkably consistent APIs, but the combination does make autocomplete errors easy to make and hard to notice. For instance:

      - tableView:didSelectRowAtIndexPath:
      - tableView:didDeselectRowAtIndexPath:

If you accidentally choose the latter, the behavior seems baffling: the first tap on an item does nothing, and every tap afterwards gives you the indexPath of the previously selected item. I'm embarrassed to admit how long I spent looking at indexPath values in the debugger and thinking "this can't be happening" before realizing what actually was happening.

<comment><USER6> I made the same mistake a couple of times! Felt so stupid once I found the bug :-/

I still prefer long descriptive method names though.

These days, I format the method so that each param goes into a newline (after Xcode autocompletes it) and this helps me catch such bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yes, XML is a big annoyance. But let me give you a bigger one: Json.

XML's saving grace was that it came with good schemas out of the box, so turning something from XML to, say, a Java object, was not very difficult. It wasn't difficult to use a SOAP service without having to do manual serialization work.

Today though, we are using something that has, at best, extremely weak types, and with schema equivalents that are bolted on, rarely used, and end up relying on humans understanding exactly what the data looks like, just for serialization/deserialization. I guess you can live with that easily if you are writing in a language that has really weak types in the first place, as you'd have to read the documentation anyway (What date format is the field using? Better go read about it), but the moment you try to do something even slightly more sturdy, the process is excruciatingly painful.

Heck, even tools like try to "help" document APIs, like swagger, end up with specifications that chill the bones.

It is as if the web was built for and by people that are absolutely allergic to both specification and types: In a more sensible world, we'd get something like: If the RDS is postgres, then the data format is like this, and if it's MySQL, it's like this instead. But what we have out there in the world is big lists of optional fields that will be illegal, or ignored, or who knows what.

I was a big XML hater, back in the days of SOAP, but the more I see how services are defined today, the better the old rust bucket looks.

<comment><USER8> > _XML 's saving grace was that it came with good schemas out of the box, so > turning something from XML to, say, a Java object, was not very difficult._

Huh? How do you know what types <e/> has? How do you transform that into a Java object? For that matter, if you manage to turn this into a Java object, how do you know how to transform it back into XML? What members turn into attributes and which turn into sub-elements?

Or are you referring to XSD, which showed up years later, is not required, and often not used? Yes, XSD grafts typing onto XML quite effectively, but this is a bolt-on just like the JSON approaches. It just turned out to be a widely- adopted bolt-on.

<comment><USER9> Who cares what the XML looks like? You import the wsdl and off you go.

<comment><USER10> _IF_ it works. Which it almost never does (in my experience: 3 fails out of 3 trials), unless you are using the same SOAP library on both ends.

<comment><USER11> Similar experiences for me. Needed to spend time tweaking a wsdl so it produced the same behaviour in 2 SOAP webservice endpoints, one using dotNET tooling and the other Java. Worked fine after a bit of fiddling but leaves an uneasy feeling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 'dup' is a bad example from C, in my opinion. ('dup' and 'dupe' are both short forms of 'duplicate' anyway.)

What about 'strncpy' versus 'strlcpy'? Or 'vsnprintf'? 'fcntl.h'? 'execlp'? 'EBADF'? 'SIGSEGV'? 'lstat'?

<comment><USER13> Course those come from a primordial age when max symbol sizes and file names were limited. Circa 1975 you were asking for trouble with a file name like string_copy.c or file_control.c

<comment><USER10> Also, I kind of like the short versions. They are not any more difficult to remember ("Hmm, was it CopyFile of FileCopy?") and you need to search for them the first time around anyway. And it does save the effort when typing.

<comment><USER14> Maybe it's just me but I find the short ones much harder. Was it strnCopy or strCopy etc.

And I mostly use some form of auto complete so I'm not worried about the effort saved from typing.

<comment><USER15> Also, if you glance at them, strcpy and strncpy look identical, which I find can be problematic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Objective-C example is not even close to the worst case :) I raise you

        shapeEffectSingleBlurFrom:withInteriorFill:offset:blurSize:innerGlowRed:innerGlowGreen:innerGlowBlue:innerGlowOpacity:innerShadowRed:innerShadowGreen:innerShadowBlue:innerShadowOpacity:outerGlowRed:outerGlowGreen:outerGlowBlue:outerGlowOpacity:outerShadowRed:outerShadowGreen:outerShadowBlue:outerShadowOpacity:hasInsideShadowBlur:hasOutsideShadowBlur:

(as queried with [https://github.com/leoschweizer/Heliograph](https://github.com/leoschweizer/Heliograph) )

<comment><USER17> Since nobody uses Obj-C without Xcode, you actually never need to type out a long method name. Typically you'd just write "sha", Xcode will autocomplete the method, and you press Tab to fill out all those parameters. Seeing them all at once as part of the method name is pretty convenient.

I'm not saying that the method name in your example makes any sense, it's definitely insanely long... But the Apple API mentioned in the original post is OK in my books because it's a rarely used initializer for a low-level object. It essentially wraps a raw C pointer into an object, so of course it needs all that metadata about what the pointer is! Putting the same data in a struct wouldn't save any typing.

<comment><USER18> Sometimes I write it in Sublime. Although even then, I sometimes just write the method in Xcode to get the autocomplete then copy paste it, or just open the non-xcode-project file in xcode.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The "self-explanatory"/"brevity" problem is quite interesting. It reminds me of the point Donald Norman made in "The Design of Everyday Things", where information is either found in the world, or in our heads, coupled with issues of information-density. When we pick names, it's a trade-off between abbreviated (-> fast to use), descriptive (-> fast to learn), and mnemonic (-> easy to remember).

I roughly divide naming problems into 3 areas mentally. Most commonly used commands(/functions/identifiers/...), commonly used commands, and rarely used commands.

Most commonly used commands are things like ls or cd or mkdir. Due to their usage frequency, an intermediate user will remember these by heart, and mentally substitute their long forms whilst reading them out. Technically we could assign these to even shorter codes, but then they would loose their mnemonic value.

Preferably they would also have a long-form alias to provide a certain amount of easing into them. (list-directory, change-directory, make-directory)

Commonly used commands should not be abbreviated as readily. The few extra characters required to type them are usually well worth the additional clarity. Pythons .deepcopy() is a good example. It copies a data structure and its sub-structures completely. .dpcp() would be a lot harder to remember given how often it is used.

It should be possible to alias these to shorter versions as well, should someone have to use them frequently. Auto-complete functionality may also reduce the amount of memorization necessary whilst typing these in.

I personally think emacs handles these two cases very well, with it's quick chords that need to be memorized but provide speed, and calling commands by name via M-x which provides ease of use.

Then there's the rarely used stuff. These names may get very long if they are to be descriptive (ncursescplusplusmusicplayer), which means that they, or parts of them should probably be abbreviated (nccppmp, or preferably nccpp- musicplayer). Runs of abbreviated words should not become too long, 3-5 characters being the maximum. Past that length, it becomes hard to remember which characters one has already typed. (ncpmpp? or nccppmp?). Past that sensible chunking through full words or hyphenation may become necessary.

I do think these are sensible rules of thumb, but then they are rules of thumb, and there are most likely thousands of exceptions to them.

<comment><USER20> > Most commonly used commands are things like ls or cd or mkdir. [...]

> Preferably they would also have a long-form alias to provide a certain > amount of easing into them. (list-directory, change-directory, make- > directory)

This reminds me of MS Powershell. `Set-Location` is the command for changing to a new directory location, and it's also abbreviated (aliased) as `cd`. Similarly with `ls` and many other commands. Powershell scripts often have the full forms of the commands, while in the shell itself you get the convenience of the shorter commands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Writing a good consistent API for things of a certain complexity and maintaining and extending it for a long time is an extremely difficult thing. I have been doing this for a few years now and it's humbling to see how something that looked really smart a while ago is causing you major headaches now.

</comment><comment><USER22> API naming is hard because of the conflicting goals:

1\. You want to make it easy to type/read. 2\. You want to make it descriptive. (conflicting with #1) 3\. You want to make it consistent and unique. 4\. You want to make it compatible with older APIs. (conflicting with #3) 5\. You want to make it unambiguous. 6\. You want to make it flexible/amenable to future changes. (conflicting with #5) ...

etc, etc. It's just impossible to meet all these requirements with developers that live in a different time and space.

</comment><comment><USER23> The title is misleading because this is focused on Android, but the title seems to imply generic API design pitfalls

<comment><USER24> The last half definitely devolves into Android API-bashing. The first half does generally apply to most APIs.

The main issue with most APIs boils down to documentation. Document it well, and it will largely be usable. This means everything from cross-references ("If you are trying to do X, ThisOtherMethod may be a better fit") to examples, and also extends to the API itself (good naming, and discoverable methods). Most developers using your API do not live in your API -- they live in their application domain. So you need to put effort into ensuring jargon is explained, the API is discoverable, and basically they can use the API easily, and get on with their application.

I really like the idea of thinking of API design in terms of Developer Experience (DX), in the same way that user interface designers consider User Experience (UX) about much, much more than simply the layout and colors.

<comment><USER25> > Document it well, and it will largely be usable.

And a simple, easy-to-use API will also be comparatively simple to document. If you're at the point where writing documentation is hard, that's strong code smell that something is amiss.

<comment><USER26> Agreed! The API should basically document itself. If you have to provide long examples of how to do something then there is a good chance the API isn't that good. Easy to use for developers makes a platform more stable and produces better quality apps, IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is priceless! Pretty much contains everything that I hate about Android Development.

</comment><comment><USER27> I enjoyed the read, entertaining and to the point, thanks.

Personally I'm in favour of long and descriptive names. I'm not afraid of typing. But since I'm writing in C (mostly embedded stuff), I'm not in the mainstream of the C community with my preferences. Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER28> Haha, this has a lot about what I hate about Android. I actually did quit programming and became a barista, because of the exact thing he said. Then I slowly got into programming again.

I actually started when Fragments were being introduced. Now that was a nightmare. The backwards compatibility was a red herring. The real problem was that Fragments were a poor practice, unsuited for many apps and teams... but Google played them out as The Next Big Thing. Today it's happening with Material Design.

<comment><USER10> Not sure what you mean with the last sentence?

Anyway, Fragments are a nightmare. I learned them, I used them, and if I have to use them today I would still need to open that tutorial I have saved somewhere. That is one ugly solution if there ever was one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> So... what is an example of a well written API/SDK?

<comment><USER30> > So... what is an example of a well written API/SDK?

I think that this is an underrated question. I am not a programmer, but a mathematician; I will write from my experience in that field.

I was trying to understand a paper which used horrible, ad hoc notation that obscured the simple ideas at its centre. I invented a new, harmonious notation that beautifully revealed these simple ideas, and wrote a paper using it.

The notation was beatiful and harmonious as long as you were its inventor, and it was the most recent thing that you had been thinking about. Now, when I go back and read that paper … I think "wow, this horrible notation obscures the simple ideas at the centre of the paper."

Incidentally, I still think that the notation is better than the original; but the main thing that I've learned is to do it yourself before you complain about what someone else has done—after which (a) you'll have a good implementation and won't need to complain, or (b) you'll feel much humbler and won't want to complain.

<comment><USER31> Or maybe, the takeaway is: revisit your work later, when it's no longer fresh in your mind :) You'll understand what the strengths and weaknesses of your new design are, and are better placed to make an improved iteration.

Incidentally, writers have been doing this for years with drafts and editing. We definitely need to do that with our APIs and designs (aka. more incremental refactoring).

<comment><USER8> > _We definitely need to do that with our APIs and designs (aka. more > incremental refactoring)._

Not with APIs we've shipped. Then it becomes breaking changes that appear pointless to others. Even when it's logically worth it to go back and fix APIs, it's rarely worth it practically. If no one is using your APIs, then do whatever. If your APIs are popular, you might find yourself in "version next" limbo like so many major projects that redesigned and couldn't convince their users to follow.

<comment><USER31> You're absolutely right. FWIW, I think this iterative process should take place before publishing your API. Sometimes a design needs to 'sit' for a month or two and be used a bit before you realize its boundaries: what it does well, and what could be improved. If you're judicious about improvements (i.e. don't rewrite) you'll avoid the second-system effect and put out an API that'll be better than your first attempt. I realize that's not always possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The main ones I find are

1 Using the wrong sort of approach for your api eg using a basic REST when the obvious paradime to use would be a Queue.

2 Documentation only comprehensible to insiders who all ready know the system backwards ( I am looking at you Google)

</comment><comment><USER33> As with other types of interface design, the best way to write a good api is to get frequent feedback from the intended users.

Liberal application of the WTF test is critical[1].

As the author of the api, you yourself will be too close to it to judge fairly. Poorly named functions and over-complicated architecture will appear perfectly reasonable to you if you don't seek outside opinions.

1: [http://commadot.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/02/wtf.png](http://commadot.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/02/wtf.png)

</comment><comment><USER34> Abbreviations can be annoying, but mainly because you don't know what they mean. I'd be less bothered by them if APIs using them would clearly document the meaning. Alas, that never happens.

</comment><comment><USER35> > why say dupe when we can save that valuable E and say dup?

"dup" is short for "duplicate", a saving of 6 characters, not "dupe", which means to deceive or fool.

</comment><comment><USER36> There are only two hard problems in computer science - naming things, cache invalidation, and off by one errors.

Glad to see "naming things" made the top of the list. Names that are readable and sensible can be remarkably hard.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'll just put this here: phpsadness.com

</comment><comment><USER38> "What's the difference between a tap and a touch? I have no idea"

TL;DR api design is hard because these are the programmers we write api for. Never happy, can't grasp the basic of the platform they're using, won't read any documentation to save their lives and expect all code to come to them magically perfect as if formed in a vacuum and not having a back-compat history.

</comment><comment><USER39> > Annoyance the 5.1beta3 – Version incompatibility

That makes no sense. Yes, version X+1 is incompatible with version X. That's why we upped the version number!!!

I wonder if author never had to deal with API/Service that changed and was poorly or unversioned. Suddenly and mysteriously breaking things.

<comment><USER40> It's annoying when an API isn't backwards compatible for no good reason. Android increases their version numbers quite often, which means you have to do extra work (which is annoying if someone is paying you, but worse if someone isn't).

Crockford said, "Changing an API is an act of violence." An API designer should think long and hard before breaking backwards compatibility: usually it's not necessary.

<comment><USER41> Uh... Android's APIs are one of the most backwards compatible I've worked with (most applications written for 2.0 will work without issues on new Androids). Could you elaborate what extra work do you have to do? In comparison to what?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Jean-Philipe Thanks for speaking my mind! I especially enjoyed your word creations.

</comment><comment><USER42> I have never needed a Kardashian for an API call.

</comment><comment><USER43> These are all library/SDK functions, can you just call anything an API nowadays? What application is my application interfacing with when I call an android SDK function?

</comment><comment><USER43> Can you just call anything an API nowadays? These are all SDK/Library functions. What application is my Android app interfacing with when I call android SDK functions?

<comment><USER44> This is definitely an API; Application Programming Interface. An API can be a remote Web API such as a RESTful API or SOAP, or it can be against a shared library (i.e. a set of functions or methods) on your own computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I think the selector in #2 is great. Sure it's long, so what. Reading it tells you exactly what the hell that line of code does.</comment>


Show HN: Braand.co - <AUTHOR> Over the last 15 years I've been responsible for brand design across household names including Samsung, PayPal and LG Mobile.
In addition to my design experience, I've developed a passion for side projects and exploring new business ideas.
In the process of exploring these new ideas, I've acquired a large catalogue of brand-able domain names.
So I've decided to bring together my experience as a designer, catalogue of domain names and flare for new business ventures in to new site called https://Braand.co
Braand.co will provide founders with essential elements they need bring their new ideas to life. Fast.
Each domain for sale on https://Braand.co will come packaged with a modern, professional logo plus a suite of brand assets for your social media channels.
If you would like know when I launch please join my launch list.
Any thoughts and comments welcome : )
Craig <comment><USER2> I believe this is a good idea.

I don't have money to buy expensive domains and designs, but I hope some people will.</comment>


2048 in Idris - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/KesterTong/idris2048/

<comment><USER2> Author here. Glad to see so many people interested.

I think people will find this useful as an example is programming in Idris. While there are many other resources around, this fills a niche as a fairly complete, self contained program.

Since I wrote it, I've noticed that my programming style is not very standard, especially my approach to proofs, so I'm still working on it.

<comment> T-R Thanks for this - I've bookmarked it to read later. It looks like you've explained everything pretty thoroughly in the readme, and looks like an excellent example for getting started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm new here. Is there a new language mentioned on Hacker News _this_ frequently? I have skimmed the front page and seen at least a dozen or so being mentioned in the last month.

<comment> T-R I think this past month has been a bit of an outlier with new languages, such as Avail, being posted. That said, I wouldn't count Idris as one of them - it's been around for a little while now, and in the community of people familiar with purely functional languages, it's probably about as well known as Elm or Agda: If talking to a Haskeller, there's a good chance they've at least heard of it.

Of course, it's all relative - this community does have a good number of early language adopters and people involved in programming language research. At the other end of the spectrum, just a few years ago, I met a Java developer who, at the time, hadn't even heard of C# - I'd imagine he'd've been quite shocked by the languages talked about here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 2048 in 'x' is some kind of meme now. It would be nice to do a compilation of all these so you can compare the languages by various metrics.

<comment><USER5> Here is one comparison for 2048:

[http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/24134/create- a-s...](http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/24134/create-a- simple-2048-game-clone)

I think the idea of comparing languages based on a variety of tasks is interesting. We've all seen "hello world" in many languages[1], but including other tasks (like 2048) would provide a much richer summary of the language. Thus, a language could be efficiently summarized by tuples of "complexity parameters:"

\- lines of code \- number of characters \- total number of tokens \- number of blank lines (which might approximate modularity) \- ...etc

For example, using "hello world" and 2048 as code targets:

complexity("java", "num-characters") would yield: (115, 1269). complexity("python3", "num-characters") would yield: (25, 2048).

1: [http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Hello_world/Text](http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Hello_world/Text)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Demo somewhere?</comment>


Ask HN: Help me remember which conference presentation I'm thinking of - <AUTHOR> I am trying to locate the video recording of a conference talk that I saw a few years ago online (I did not attend the conference) and I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called. I just tried searching for ~30 minutes online and cannot track it down. I am hoping that someone on HN will know exactly what I'm talking about when I describe it and can share a link to the video recording.
I believe the presentation was from a conference for UX and designers (cannot recall the name). The presenter was a man and he was discussing the ethical responsibilities that designers have to prevent malicious and dangerous things from being built. He used as a primary example the incident in 2012 [1] where two college students who had their Facebook permissions locked down to private joined a club called Queer Chorus and had their membership published on that group's public page, outing their sexual orientation which they had not yet shared with their families.
The argument the presenter made was that the UX designers who worked on the security and privacy features at Facebook should have spoken up and pushed back and refused to design/implement a page which was so confusing for users that they were not getting the privacy that they thought they were getting.
I seem to recall the phrase "last line of defense" used in the presentation as well.
If anyone knows what I'm talking about and can share a link to the video, that would be super helpful.
Thanks!
[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/press-here/Facebook-Outs-Gay-Kids-To-Their-Parents-174440971.html <comment><USER2> Likely Mike Monteiro "How Designers Destroyed the World".

Google gives multiple video's, for example:

Webstock '13: [https://vimeo.com/68470326](https://vimeo.com/68470326)

BlendConf '14: [http://2014.blendconf.com/schedule/how-designers- destroyed-t...](http://2014.blendconf.com/schedule/how-designers-destroyed- the-world/)

An Event Apart 2015: [https://vimeo.com/122022963](https://vimeo.com/122022963)

USI: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIcM21l61TE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIcM21l61TE)</comment>


Show HN: The Ontology for the Call of Cthulhu Character Sheets - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/acomagu/ccs <comment><AUTHOR> Ontology Specification: [https://ontology.acomagu.me/ccs/](https://ontology.acomagu.me/ccs/)</comment>


Show HN: A web API to query HN posts(stories only) in a customized way - <AUTHOR> http://www.productioncompilers.com <comment><AUTHOR> As a new user to HN I was curious about all the context I can gain from earlier posts and the native search engine isn't flexible enough(not enough customization).

Made a spring web API over the weekend to query HN stories in a better customized way. I am still to put a front end onto it(shelving it as I am not very good with JS).

It does take significantly longer to query as it scans over like 2.2 million stories and I haven't had enough time to optimize queries(any suggestion will be awesome). However it does get the work done.

Anything that I need to improve?

Any suggestion(s) will be more than welcomed.</comment>


Nightlife: The Mobile App Redefining Your Night Out - <AUTHOR> http://nightlifetonight.com

<comment><AUTHOR> See the full featured article in TechLli. [http://techli.com](http://techli.com)

We cannot wait to share our Nightlife dream with the world.</comment>


Show HN: React with Meteor Back End Social Feed Example App - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/adambrodzinski/react-ive-meteor/

<comment><AUTHOR> I've love to hear feedback on what people think about using Meteor for the backend. Meteor has some cons but the pros outweigh it for most of my projects.</comment>


What Was Fermat's "Marvelous" Proof? - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsVl7_R2MvI&feature=youtu.be <comment><AUTHOR> I was still waking up when I watched this today, but I only spotted one mistake, which is pretty good for a video about a technical subject and aimed at a general audience.

It also gives a plausible reason why Fermat (a) thought he had a proof, and (b) didn't.</comment>


An unofficial WWDC app for OS X - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/insidegui/WWDC <comment><USER2> So refreshing to see a nice desktop app built without Electron.

A well defined interface, designed specifically for the platform the author targeted. Major props to the author!

<comment><USER3> Curious, what do you have against Electron built apps? I feel like the last few apps I've used that were built on Electron actually worked quite nicely. Wondering what you found bad with them...

<comment><USER2> Their UI feels alien on every platform. The startup time, memory consumption and general performance is subpar to native applications. Generally, I feel like developers who make software for platforms individually care more for user experience. Like this app, for example, it feels polished, uses the native OS X UI elements and performs super fast (much due to Swift in its nature being faster than JavaScript).

I certainly see the point and some use cases for Electron, however I dislike the recent trend of reinventing the wheel of every application using Electron.

<comment><USER4> I'm developing an Electron application and I have to agree with you. Although I do not care much about memory consumption, the startup time on a Windows laptop I have sucks too much. Also, I've been doing web development for the last 5 years but web frontend tools are such a PITA even comparing to desktop crossplatform tools, let alone platform specific frameworks..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I mis-parsed the headline as "WWDC for (OS X 4.0)" instead of "(WWDC for OS X) 4.0". I was confused until I clicked.

<comment><USER6> I was confused until I read your comment.

I thought that was some "funny" ancient app with technology from way back when. I know nothing about the Apple ecosystem and did not really read much of the text, but that screenshot did kind of look like the past.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I thought this was an official app for a moment. Saw this:

"The app has a powerful search feature. When you first launch the app, It indexes the videos database and downloads transcripts from ASCIIWWDC, so when you search, not only will you get search results from session titles and descriptions, but also from what the presenter said in the sessions."

And was all pissed off.

"Damnit, Apple, how about you do something similar for the App Store?!?"

Then I realized...

</comment><comment><USER8> Amazing! So nice... When I saw github page, and that Swift yellow color in language details line, smirk was drawn on my face! <3 Native desktop apps

</comment><comment><USER9> This a superbly designed app and really well implemented. Thanks for posting it here.

Genuinely useful both for past WWDC videos and (presumably) for keeping up to date next week. Love the ability to search text within the talks.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is pretty convenient for watching past videos. The inclusion of subtitles from ASCIIWWDC is a nice touch.

</comment><comment><USER11> I wish there was an easy way to support projects like this. Click a button? Put a quarter in the tip jar.

<comment><USER12> Click the link that says "Psst, want me to love you? Then check this out "

<comment><USER11> I mean in a general sense. I'd pay for all sorts of things I currently get for free — writing, art, software, videos — if it was as easy as clicking a button. Getting out my wallet, entering a credit card number, and going through the payment steps is too much work for a quarter.

<comment><USER13> This is what [http://flattr.com](http://flattr.com) was meant to solve. Gratipay and Patreon also work but I'm allergic to recurring billing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would pay for a app like this. Congrats to the author, and great work on making it an native app.

</comment><comment><USER15> Pretty cool. I've been wanting something like this for a bit sine I've been wanting to make an app and this coming up so I can keep in touch with the new technologies being announced . Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER16> Electron based app takes way too long to start up. Yes, I like visual studio code etc. But I hate its startup time so for quick changes I just use sublime text or vim.

</comment><comment><USER17> Anyone else notice the string "macOS" in the screenshot? Is Apple moving away from the OS X naming scheme?

<comment><USER18> > NOTICE: The sessions shown in the screenshot are NOT REAL.</comment></comment>


Ask HN:What are the best IT skills to work/live in Tropical islands of Pacific? - <AUTHOR>

I am a 10-year-experienced mainframe programmer. I want to work and live in small tropical islands of pacific ocean for the experiences of peaceful island living. What technology/progaramming languages would help my wanting ? If IT skills aren't going to help it,what else will ? <comment><USER2> Last year I went to visit a friend who has spent the last 2 years living on a Pacific island. I had the feeling that there was not a lot of programming opportunities on this said island but there was a market for IT generalists. There was a case of a person from Switzerland who moved to the island and purchased a shipping container and turned that into his office and workshop. Like most places there will always be need for IT support(business and home), so that was his core income. I believe he also did work on websites for businesses, resorts and small programming tasks on existing in-house applications. While remote work is certainly a possibility, you must be weary of the internet links that these islands have, some are very very slow and not very cheap.

</comment><comment><USER3> Telecommunications, utilities (electric/gas/oil/water) & networking, and supporting fields (they need programmers, engineers, and admins for all this infrastructure).

</comment><comment><USER4> a full remote work contract pipeline.</comment>


Show HN: Parley.co Pre-Beta Launch - Encrypted Email for Everyone - <AUTHOR> https://parley.co

<comment><USER2> Sounds interesting. When you say it will interoperate with existing end-to-end encryption, does that mean that I could suggest it to my clients as a viable alternative for receiving secure content I send via GPG/Enigmail?

That would be fairly fantastic since, while I am vaguely comfortable with GPG (the user interface is abysmal but the functionality is fine), my clients hate the very idea of using it. So what do we do? Send sensitive data via phone calls. Don't we feel like fools lately, eh?

Also, thank you for building a Windows client. It's so untrendy to do so these days, but we Windows users appreciate it when it's done.

I'm a little hesitant to sign up just yet, but I'll keep an eye on the project!

<comment><AUTHOR> _does that mean that I could suggest it to my clients as a viable alternative for receiving secure content I send via GPG /Enigmail?_

Absolutely!

 _Also, thank you for building a Windows client._

To be honest, it was a bit outside of our comfort zone but we thought it was important. So, you're very welcome :)

 _I 'm a little hesitant to sign up just yet, but I'll keep an eye on the project!_

Awesome! Thanks bhauer. I totally understand your hesitation--it's still a very young, raw piece of software. Is that the only thing holding you back, or do you have other questions/concerns?

<comment><USER2> My concern right now is that I don't feel mentally up to evaluating the product. If I signed up for this early build I would feel obligated to provide you with meaningful feedback (even if you said, "don't worry, just use it," just because it seems like the right thing to do). Sounds lame, but it is what it is.

That said, I do really like the idea of a PGP/GPG endpoint that laypeople would be comfortable using!

<comment><AUTHOR> No, that makes complete sense! Thanks for your candor, and I look forward to showing you a more polished version of Parley when it's ready :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Parley's been in the works for the better part of a year, but this simplified version of the original vision started from scratch about two months ago. It's still _very_ rough around the edges, but we thought people would appreciate being able to poke around a bit!</comment>


United States of Paranoia: A growing tribe of troubled minds - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/health/gang-stalking-targeted-individuals.html <comment><USER2> I'm a psychiatrist. When I went to med school I thought I would go the radiology route, because that's where all the cool tech is, but one of the things that drew me in was the unexpected consistency in the themes of severe mental illness. Paranoia is, on an academic level, a fascinating phenomenon. It also causes a lot of suffering.

Please remember that these kinds of communities have sprung up in the context of the ongoing stigma of mental illness, and the limitations of present medications for psychosis (most have unpleasant side-effects). Other contributors are a mistrust of authority, and the always-complicated balance between individual liberties and involuntary treatment.

Finally, a plea for some compassion. Many of these people live a deeply tormented life, and feel like they can't trust anyone. It's a hard existence for both them and their families. It might seem like a humorous phenomenon, but there's a lot of suffering here.

<comment><USER3> I think a huge source of blame lies in organizations like the NSA/CIA that have proven to be deceptive / secretive / manipulative. There is a long history of secret experiements done by government that breeds distrust. Add mental health issues and the internet and you have a cauldron which can easily brew up this sort of thing.

I think a good type of treatment for this would be body cameras and mikes which a therapist could review with a patient and provide them with rational explanations.

<comment><USER4> There's also a long history of governments using accusations of mental illness to suppress dissidents.

<comment><USER5> Is it still paranoia when they really are following you?

<comment><USER6> Likely, since even in a situation where they were the subject of a real campaign, inducing clinical degree of paranoia would very likely be an objective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "They end up in a closed ideology echo chamber,"

I cannot deny I often find myself pigeon-holed into this category, the derision poured upon me to "fix" something has been consistent & unwavering. Problem is, I was always more interested in books/work over socializing before the netz, I don't hear voices in my head besides my inner- monologue(hopefully=not-schizo) and my 'echo chamber' is anything but... I am drawn to alien, re-framed & unique perspectives of the world I live in. My solitude is a result of not being current on the TV shows, my choice to avoid Web2.0 style social(sic) media and a very low consumption fueled lifestyle... all these are past-times for the mass majority. Good for them, if that is what people choose. Good for me for not choosing to do the same. My outlier mentality has subsequently been reinforced by the writings/works of some very smart people. A few examples:

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon- Haunted_World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World)

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_%28Taleb_book%2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_%28Taleb_book%29)

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

edit:added conclusion, 3rd and 2nd to last sentences.

<comment><USER8> Just so you know, you can live a non-solitary life and not stay up on TV, not be on social media, and live a low consumption life. None of those things preclude interacting with other people.

There is obviously a spectrum between fully social and fully anti-social, and it is important to find out where you fit on that. There is always value, however, in avoiding being on the far end of the anti-social spectrum. Having our thinking challenged by real people, with real interaction, is important to our mental health.

<comment><USER7> Hear, hear. Everything in degrees; spectrums. Too much of anything tends to be unhealthy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I do "government watchdog" work, have bipolar and have dealt with paranoia on a relatively unhealthy level before and to some extent, now.

It's not fun. It's very hard to determine what's "real", who's telling the truth and who's trying to "get me". I've spoken to my psychiatrist about this multiple times, but every time I bring it up, he says that it's a perfectly rational feeling to have considering what kind of work I'm doing and that thinking through it is all I can do.

To make matters worse, I met up with a journalist the other day to discuss a couple large projects I'm working on. Later in the night, I was mugged. My phone, license and credit cards were stolen. My bag with my laptop, etc wasn't stolen, though. It's very hard to express the sorts of paranoia it caused. The lack of empathy, lack of cops in a usually cop-laden area and a genuine lack of interest in checking city camera footage didn't help.

What's worse is that talking about it makes others consider you a paranoid crazy person. There's very little area for discussion, because the default discussion is, "stop acting crazy", rather than "Let's discuss why you feel this way."

<comment><USER10> Why do you think you're interesting enough to be gang stalked?

<comment><USER9> Because I'm very, very aggressively seeking Chicago mayor's phone's records through FOIA.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTR...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hgG79eIr8MbkjYrCvcTRN8n876KL8aXYYu5it8Lg0g8)

<comment><USER11> Why not tell your pyschiatrist that you'd like to discuss the details of why you feel that way?

I gather you are looking for someone who will believe you, and without evidence, nobody is likely to believe you, leading you on a deeper and deeper quest for something that passes as real evidence.

That sounds super tough. Take care, good luck

<comment><USER9> (unstructured dump)

I have, and his assessment is that it's basically stress driving something similar to paranoia. Talking about it with friends and posting on places like HN helps, though.

It's kind of a long story why I'm doing a lot of this. After a project I'm (still) working on to analyze parking tickets in Chicago [0], I managed to get invited to Bob Fioretti's [1] office to show them what I found. They really, really liked what I had to show. When I brought up proof of [2] from a FOIA request that they could have used in their campaign, they told me to never mention it again and never contacted me back. It was very odd and gave me a very negative vibe. To make matters worse, they began using parking tickets as a large part of their campaign - without me. A friend suggested that maybe Rahm was involved with Fioretti, which led to an initial request for the mayor's phone records was submitted. The weekend before the election, Fioretti dropped out and gave his support to Rahm, so the negative vibes were possibly accurate.

The initial reason for the request isn't as important to me anymore, though. These days, the strong lack of privacy reciprocation and negative comments such as, "You're naive to think you can do this.", "Stop stalking the mayor." (my family), "You're crazy", "Nothing will come out of this", etc drives me to continue. It's incredibly frustrating, but when I finally got the phone records, a huge weight was lifted, as it showed that those negative comments were largely unjustified.

That said, a lot of people do believe me and do want to help me out. I expect to have a story published in the next month or so thanks to those people.

Thanks for the support. :)

[0] proof of concept: [https://plot.ly/~red-bin/6.embed](https://plot.ly/~red- bin/6.embed) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fioretti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fioretti) [2] [https://thamovement1.blogspot.com/2015/02/is-willie- wilson-f...](https://thamovement1.blogspot.com/2015/02/is-willie-wilson- financing-dock-walls.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I will probably not be convinced to believe these group of people, but I am troubled by the fact that the author has written this article with the pre- assumption that these people are absolutely, without any doubt, sick and being paranoid.

When you are covering a story where there are conflicting views, it is not nice to pick one side and see the opposing view as an illness that needs to be treated. It is just not right, no matter how absurd the opposing view sounds to you.

<comment><USER13> Always trying to present a 'balanced' view is an extreme form of bias. 10 million well informed people on one side 10 fools on the other. Let's give them equal air time.

Someone is always going to disagree and trying to accommodate extreme fringe beliefs basically prevents you from communicating accurately. Worse it adds a fake air of legitimacy to every wack-job out there.

<comment><USER14> By your standard, truth is determined by consensus. Ignore the number people involved, because it's irrelevant, and just look at ideas and arguments.

It's not about creating a numerical balance between groups of people with differing views, it's about refining an idea by challenging it. If those 10 people really are wrong then the evidence will dismiss their point immediately and you have nothing to worry about.

Presenting an idea without challenging it, or worse challenging it with straw man, makes your work less persuasive.

<comment><USER13> I can find plenty of people that think today is Tuesday, but it's consensious among the informed that it's Sunday. Should I really present a counter argument to the date?

<comment><USER15> You should be able to say why it is Saturday, not rely on "consensus among the informed".

<comment><USER13> Sure, articles are not debates. So, I can simply report the truth without bothering with nut jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really like the play on words in the title.

These communities seem natural given the nature of the internet. The barrier to publishing or forming a community is pretty much non-existent, and because the internet transcends most borders the critical mass of people required to form communities with non-mainstream ideals is incredibly low. And so you get groups of holocaust deniers, flat earthers and apparently (+ unfortunately) paranoid schizophrenics.

It seems like the internet might almost reinforce the echo chamber by amplifying the feeling that everyone else is a 'sheep', because you see the big communities of people (news organizations, social media etc) dismissing your communities ideas and so people turn more inward and focus more on others who hold the same views.

<comment><USER17> The internet also forms a sort of release valve.

People being bigots with words over the internet is better than lynching or public beatings imo.

<comment><USER18> Is there evidence for this?

<comment><USER19> It sounds like the Catharsis Hypothesis, which states that the release of aggression in small ways prevents large expressions of aggression. This has been rather thoroughly discredited. Small displays of aggression (e.g. ranting online) train an individual that aggression is an appropriate response, and leads to larger displays of aggression (e.g. physical attacks).

Source: [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/PSPB02.pdf](http://www- personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/PSPB02.pdf) [http://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/four-questions-on-the- cathar...](http://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/four-questions-on-the-catharsis- myth-with-dr-brad-bushman/)

<comment><USER5> I provide an alternative hypothesis - most people are basically lazy. I don't mean that in a very negative sense, but that our brains are wired to take the path of lesser resistance whenever possible. I forget where I read this first, but I have seen it corroborated by academia. It is INFINITELY easier to type out a hateful message and be agreed with by your peers, than to do something violent and risk real repercussions.

<comment><USER20> That has nothing to do with laziness though, and everything with risk perception.

Still, if micro-aggressions aren't checked, it is easy to assume they are accepted. That will lead to an escalation of aggression like the GP described.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> First, I want to say that I believe people when they say they are seeing things. Most humans appear to have a mechanism by which they can visualize objects as if they are real. This phenomenon of visualization has been largely unexplored. It would appear people visualize in widely different ways.

These people are apparently tormented by bad visualization system security. I've hypothesized about visualization systems going bad before when I looked at working at Magic Leap. If we all end up wearing AR headsets, how is it that I can guarantee what I'm seeing is an accurate representation of what I want to see? Don't let anyone tell you we a solution for trusted security for this stuff! We fucking don't. Yet.

How is it that human's visual systems are secured against penetration? How is it that some appear to be vulnerable, while others, such as myself, appear to be completely "locked down" in their visualization systems?

I'm beginning to suspect that this so called affliction "Aphantasia" is actually a strong feature that is related to insanity. I'm thankful to the fact I don't have the ability to visualize. I also may be crazy and don't realize it.

</comment><comment><USER22> > The similarities of the cases spoke to a wide-ranging campaign, he said. "If > the psychiatrists want to say that this is schizophrenia or delusional > disorder, that's fine," he said. "But every one of these victims have the > same story."

Just because there's thousands of folks suffering identical symptoms doesn't mean it's not psychosis. But it would be interesting if somehow there were an environmental component to the problem. Likely not a pernicious, perpetrated- by-ne'er do wells one, but it could be that something most people interact with daily and thought to be harmless has a harmful effect in some small number of people.

<comment><USER23> In fact, there is an "environmental component" to the problem, mentioned right there in the article: the self-organized groups on the internet which amplify and reinforce the persecutory delusions these people are experiencing.

<comment><USER24> People have been developing schizo persecution complexes for as long as I remember. Just the contents of the delusions differ depending on the victim's experiences.

I wonder if modern society exacerbates or amplifies it, though by "modern" I mean post-Agricultural Revolution. We humans tend to think that we can handle any problem that we create for ourselves, but I think there is some strain, and everybody has a breaking point. We don't all break the same way. See also: Education practices.

It certainly doesn't help that the government really is trying to spy on you, the government really is pushing people to do crazy things ([0] and others), and the people in government offices really are lying to you ([1], [2], for why the President is wrong about Snowden having official channels). The article mentions MKUltra[3], which obsesses one of the relatively harmless schizos whom I know. Some things are clearly false, or false but difficult to falsify (mind control satellites, anyone?), but I feel that this nuance is usually lacking in persecution complexes.

[0][http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/do-f-b-i-stings- help...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/do-f-b-i-stings-help-the- fight-against-isis) [1][https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130809/12594124128/obama...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130809/12594124128/obamas- simply-wrong-whistleblower-protections-would-not-have-applied-to- snowden.shtml) [2][http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how- pentagon-...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon- punished-nsa-whistleblowers) [3][http://gizmodo.com/project-mkultra-one-of- the-most-shocking-...](http://gizmodo.com/project-mkultra-one-of-the-most- shocking-cia-programs-1370236359)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> this is incredibly sad. could loneliness be a contributing factor? This reminds of _This American Life_ episode about a man who got off his medication and felt like there were trained assassins after him. He ended up causing a lot of damage, attacking cops, and being shot in the process (not deadly). Luckily we do have medication that can help with such conditions.

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/579/m...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/579/my-damn-mind)

<comment><USER26> >being shot in the process (not deadly)

Being shot is _always_ deadly, I think you meant to say he was not _fatally_ shot.

EDIT: This is not a point of idle pedanticism, it's a very common misconception that there are 'safe' places to shoot a human body such as the shoulder. There are no safe places to shoot somebody, all shots taken by police are shots to kill.

[https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to- wound](https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound)

<comment><USER27> Huh? I think you may be confused. Being shot mean being struck by a bullet. Inanimate objects can be shot. Whether it's deadly/fatal is a consequence of the injury.

<comment><USER26> Merriam Webster definition of 'deadly':

1: likely to cause or capable of producing death <deadly poison>

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deadly](http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/deadly)

<comment><USER27> I see what you mean, but when people use "deadly" in retrospect, it's typically synonymous with "fatal". It would be one thing if there were potential for confusion, but here, there's really not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's not paranoia if they're really after you. Read my blog at [http://surroundedbyspies1.tumblr.com](http://surroundedbyspies1.tumblr.com). I have written about 1) Cops trying to get me to talk about Muslims in a bar, after posting a lot of anti Muslim stuff online about ground zero mosque. 2) Finding a user avatar of Osama Bin Laden on the profile of a contractor I paid, reporting it to the FBI, and being involuntarily committed few weeks later for 20 days. 3) Being recruited by the UN and then finding proof via Rapportive gmail tool that they were spying on me via someone I fell in love with on Twitter. I wrote Rapportive asking about the proof and Rapportive stopped using Rapleaf, their data provider, that day. The service Rapportive is named for. We are not all delusional.

<comment><USER29> A few months ago, I was in hospital for a major surgery. It went OK, I saw family but was going to be in for a few days to deal with recovery. Heavy painkillers.

After a few days, I woke up just after sunrise and discovered an eerie silence. I realized that I had been kidnapped and put on a train to some foreign country - they had been coming in every few hours to interrogate me and check my papers as we passed through different territories - but now the train had stopped and I was completely alone.

There was a strange city outside the window and I knew that it was my job to escape - I am a security operative and I'd been taken against my will.

They were putting drugs in me to keep me sedated - I ripped the IV out of my arm and made my way to a closet area where I ripped through supplies until I found street clothes (I realized that there was another sedated agent in the train car as well - he stirred, but I managed not to wake him.)

I snuck out of the train and into the landing tube, which was empty except for some thugs at the far end; I snuck the other way and had made it to the elevators before I was caught.

And gently led back to my hospital room, had the blood cleaned from my arm, and put back into my hospital bed. Where I woke up a few hours later, with memories of this strange dream.

But it wasn't a dream - I did rip out my IV and try to escape from a hospital. There was a strange city outside my window - I had to travel for surgery. And I was conscious when I made my escape and completely and utterly convinced that what I thought was reasonable and real. Of course I was such a valuable individual that they would kidnap me - and that there was an external "they" (or to put it another way "the other") that was doing something to me.

I believed this completely - it was as true to me as my cat (or what I like to think of as my cat, if you prefer) throwing up on the carpet in front of me right now.

But now I know that my cat is not doing this on purpose, nor was he poisoned by the NSA.

Andy, I'm very sorry that you're going through what you're going through, and my experience informs me that what you feel is absolutely real is what is real to you - but there are objective and subjective realities and if you can externalize yourself from the situation you find yourself in, you may discover that coincidences are coincidences and you don't need to find a hypothesis to fit a random pattern.

I think that pareidolia can be applied to situations and feelings as well as visual artifacts. Humans pattern match compulsively.

<comment><USER28> Thank you salgernon, everything is fine now with me, but I will never forget what happened to me. I wrote my blog before Snowden, btw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> If they only knew the real, actual surveillance they're under every second of their lives - every call, every packet online, every entrance into public space, every single move from one location to another...

It's scary that we call these people are "paranoid" for thinking people are watching them - mentally ill, even - when the reality may be (edit: is) far scarier than the fantasy.

<comment><USER29> The difference is that while the cost of performing electronic surveillance approximates zero for each individual in a society as a whole, these people believe that the government will pay X agents $N salary to spend time to target them specifically.

Individual surveillance of course happens - but it probably isn't happening to most of these people. It isn't reasonable.

<comment><USER31> And regardless the yardstick by which we measure the paranoia of people, and especially paranoid schizophrenics, is whether they are prompted to perform harmful actions.

"Sometimes they bumped into him and whispered nonsense into his ear, he said." is a different ball park than believing that the government is watching everything you say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Mental health professionals say the narrative has taken hold among a group > of people experiencing psychotic symptoms that have troubled the human mind > since time immemorial. Except now victims are connecting on the internet, > organizing and defying medical explanations for what's happening to them.

I think that paragraph has implications _far_ beyond just the paranoia described...

<comment><USER11> Maybe if they see themselves in a mirror some will be able to identify the illusion..

Group therapy works for other stuff

(I'm joking and not an MD, please don't take this seriously)

<comment><USER33> Ha, that reminds me of this here:

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

<comment><USER11> > Rokeach added a comment in the final revision of the book that, while the > experiment did not cure any of the three Christs, "It did cure me of my > godlike delusion that I could manipulate them out of their beliefs."

LOL alright, well, it seems the people in the article/video are asking for help. They similarly would be unreasonable to demand that someone give them help in a specific way. Beggers can't be choosers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's not paranoia if they're really after you!

Kidding aside, while I know the article is talking about gang-stalking and paranoia of things that aren't there as variations of psychosis, there is a deeper conversation to be had about the role of real government and private business in actions and methods that actually encourage them, along with the fact that sometimes people _aren 't_ just crazy and things really are happening to them.

So as not to get to distracted from the original topic, I won't expound too much, but in an era of mk ultra, emf weaponry, massive surveillance societies, silencing of dissidents, including assassination, and various other trust breaking experiments or operations against our own citizens, perhaps they arent all crazy.

<comment><USER35> Don't know why the downvote for OP.

A variant on the same joke: I had a friend who used to occasionally say

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!"

which always made me laugh. I laugh still but less, because our surveillance society has now reduced the vague "they" to government/police agencies who seem relentlessy devoted to shredding any concept of privacy that ever existed in Western thought.

And the OP is right: the revelation of so much previously-unrevealed surveillance by government and law-enforcement can only, to someone who is from suspicious to paranoid, increase their suspicions or in some cases _prove_ (to them) their fears. When I was a child I feared because my parents told me that "God is watching you!"; today I fear because God knows who's watching me! At least, in the case of "God", I understood his intentions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The saddest part about this is probably how alienating it must feel. Any of your friends that try and convince you that you have a problem are simply part of the problem working against you.

I bet that at least plays a small role in the documented unwillingness to seek out professional help.

</comment><comment><USER37> The article goes right into lumping up all the people who doubted official story on 9/11 with paranoids. Nice.

Reminds me of the way psychiatry was used in Soviet Union to put people who objected the official party line into mandatory detention in the hospital.[1]

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

</comment><comment><USER38> Reminds me of [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons)

<comment><USER39> OMG. From the linked article:

      Morgellons successfully lobbied members of the U.S. Congress
      and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
      to investigate the condition in 2006.[4][9]

You know your political system is broken when....

<comment><USER40> You think the system is broken when they investigate a disease? You think because it's "mental" it's no medical condition?

<comment><USER41> WRT my comment below, not the poster you seemed to have replied to, I am not at all upset about investigating a disease, mental or physical, however, I believe the initial impetus was to lobby to look into it as a physical disease (worms, tiny bugs, whatever), and that was where my astonishment came from; 6 years of finding no chemical, or organism, or other physical disease-causing entity. Maybe I misread the link, but that's how I took it. I am sorry you took it the wrong way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> There is one sense in which they are almost certainly correct in their claims of being victimised by a group: Trolling.

The article says that _Targeted Individuals_ support each other online. I cannot imagine trolls do not represent a good number of such a _support_ community.

</comment><comment><USER6> Having run into people like this and the fact there really are people that are the subjects of targeted psychology operations, it's a very troubling and complex topic.

Guess I'd be curious if there's a way to prove to someone they're not being targeted.

<comment><USER43> No doubt targeted operations exist, but unless you have good reason to believe you should be targeted (such as you having left the church of Scientology or a similar organization) then you aren't targeted.

Believing that you were _randomly_ selected for a form of psychological terror that would take enormous resources from the attacker is a pretty clear sign you are delusional.

This is a group of people with mental health issues that unfortunately also self sustain by suggesting relatives are "in on it" and that seeking help is bad.

<comment><USER44> To be fair, some people (to a lesser extent) were targeted at random when Facebook was showing some people more negative posts on their newsfeeds as an experiment.

<comment><USER6> Fact that it's random means it's not the same; explicitly talking about targeted efforts. Also, online efforts are not as resource intensive as in the real world.

Only way this might be similar is if for training or testing reasons that someone randomly became the subject of some effort. Given the resources this would take, such efforts would be short in duration and likely near known R&D or training spots for entities that would engage in things like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This article touches on a host issues very similar to those associated with "The Truman Show delusion." There's a good New Yorker article ([http://bit.ly/1ULiZr6](http://bit.ly/1ULiZr6)) from 2013 about these delusions and their relation to media and social media.

</comment><comment><USER46> The problem with these articles is they mix delusional paranoia, which is a real thing, with investigation into government corruption, which is also a real thing. The article muddies the waters between the two in a politicized way and thus helps to legitimize ad hominem attacks.

</comment><comment><USER47> These people found an ally in California's anti-mind control candidate for U.S. Senate:

"... the freedom to think one's own thoughts free from interferance such as that from Voice to Skull (V2K) mind control technology ... legislation to ban non-consensual human experimentation and mind control slavery by means of satellite weapons systems and and GWEN Tower platforms ..."

[http://www.massiemunroe4ussenator.com](http://www.massiemunroe4ussenator.com)

<comment><USER11> Voice to skull is much too obvious..

It'd be something innocuous-sounding like the fluffy unicorn program, FUP

<comment><USER20> "Smart media -- for smart people"

<comment><USER11> Haha, what does that imply, all tech is unnecessary?

<comment><USER20> No, it was just my lame attempt at coming up with a marketing phrase for the OP's "Voice to Skull (V2K) mind control technology".

<comment><USER11> oh, haha. Since smart media already exists and is a real thing, I thought you were making fun of people who use SmartMedia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Look up "ratting computers" on Google.

It's when someone takes remote control of your computer and then uses it to harass you (among other things)... e.g. by suddenly opening your DVD tray, etc.

I wonder if some of them are victims of "ratting."

</comment><comment><USER49> Why not make sleeping meds and other meds that treat mental illeness over the counter drugs ? There is simply too much friction to get proper medicines in USA. A walk into drug store lowers human dignity as one is treated like a criminal by default.

<comment><USER33> The problem is that medication isn't a cure-all, and can actually significantly worsen a situation. It would be like selling 'radiation devices' people can use to treat their own cancer.

Of course, if we have medication that has been proven to work without side- effects, I'd be all in favor.

<comment><USER49> I know people who had psychological issues. The doctor gave them a simple prescription for "Restyl"[1]. The person has then simply buys the medicines by walking into a drug store with the same old prescription for the rest of his life.

One doctor's visit that is all.

In USA the guys will have to make several doctors visit, renew the prescription every month. Not to mention the insane amount of friction to get that doctor's appointment.

I do get the point you guys are making but letting the drug companies actively advertise their medicines will help in informing customers what drugs they may buy.

[1] Restyl, also known by the brand names of Niravam, Xanor, and Xanax, is a benzodiazepine-class, short-acting medication used to manage moderate to severe panic attacks and anxiety disorders. It is also used as an auxiliary treatment for anxiety caused by moderate depression. It's available in both generic form and extended release form (Xanax XR). In America, this medication is a schedule IV controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think it is just being reported more, organizing with support groups forming due to the internet and other new technologies.

I can't help but recall the opening to the 1997 movie 'Conspiracy Theory' with Mel Gibson. This is pre-9/11, so there must have been enough whiff of the zeitgeist to make it then into a mainstream movie. That sort of lends evidence to my position that this is common to heavily populated urban areas where the disenfranchised can go unnoticed, and it is not a new phenomenon or necessarily growing more; it's just more visible.

I worked in the B. Dalton bookstore on 8th Street in the Village in NYC back in the 80s. One of the clerks was really into conspiracy theories and other fringe occult and alternate lifestyle stuff. He would throw me a book either self-published, or from an obscure publisher about many things like the U.S. government using Orgone energy guns to control the public and weather [1]. These texts were always similar to real academic publications - footnotes, bibliographies, photos, graphs - they were very fun to read!

He also turned me on to the book 'The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail' published 21 years before Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code', and before learning of the plagiarism lawsuit, it seemed like a fictionalized account of the book. Of course Dan Brown created a story outside of just the conspiracy theory premise [2].

Another was 'Spear of Destiny' published 1973 about the history and occult powers of the storied spear used to pierce Jesus Christ's side [3]

I also used to go with my bookstore buddy to visit some squatters living in the East Village. I'd listen to all of the theories about mind control, tainted water, secret cable TV brainwashing messages, and on and on. Great fun, really, but there were some truly neurotic people in the bunch. But then again, also some real rational people just living an alternate lifestyle. I can relate to being the participant-observer in my life's adventures. I guess its part of ethnography formally.

But then again, this was the time of the conspiracy-driven, weird film 'Videodrome' by David Cronenberg. I really need to get hold of a copy, and still see how it compares to how much I enjoyed it back then [4]. Just to see the video cassette inserted into James Woods' stomach!

'Call me, call me any, anytime' \- Blondie

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone) [2] [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/28/danbrown.books](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/28/danbrown.books) [3] [https://openlibrary.org/books/OL8111347M/Spear_of_Destiny](https://openlibrary.org/books/OL8111347M/Spear_of_Destiny) [4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videodrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videodrome)

<comment><USER50> The original _Deux Ex_ (2000) used that same zeitgeist to brilliant effect.

Early in the game, you'd encounter various disheveled homeless characters, some clearly mentally ill. Many would ramble about seemingly far-fetched conspiracies.

In my opinion, that was one of _the_ best narrative and immersion devices in the history of interactive entertainment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> "United States of Amnesia"

\- Gore Vidal

</comment><comment><USER52> This looks like a preparation for society to dismiss anyone who will be actually targeted as insane. Technique widely used during Soviet regime times. Asylums were for nonconforming opinions. This looks ripe for abuse for just that.

</comment><comment><USER53> This is a serious question.

what differentiates these people from those who say they were born with the wrong genitalia? In both cases there is evidence to the contrary of the person's claims (no one is watching the paranoid person, a person's genitals exist as they exist). Why do we accept a transgendered person as being reasonable but a paranoid person as not?

<comment><USER54> There are several reasons this comparison breaks down, but here's one:

Transitioning as a solution to gender dysphoria _works_. It drastically increases the quality of life of those who suffer from it. Sure, in an ideal world where we had full knowledge of human biology and an ability to edit the brain, we'd treat gender dysphoria simply by making people believe they were the "correct" gender. But lacking that ability, we do the next best thing possible that we can do.

On the other hand, you can't cure paranoid schizophrenics in any sort of similar way.

<comment><USER31> At the risk of derailing this conversation, do you have resources to show that transitioning works? The debate on both sides has muddied the water for me and I'd love to see evidence for this. Thanks in advance.

<comment><USER55> I know this is largely anecdotal and not very scientific, but just listen to [what trans people have to say about it][]. There are some people who do regret transitioning, but usually the reason they give is the discrimination they experience because of transitioning, not any genuine dissatisfaction with themselves.

There is [a small propaganda war being waged by transphobic conservatives][] to create the illusion of a large percentage of trans people that regret their transition, but just look at their references. You'll find every link is either to the Daily Mail or some other hate group referencing even more hate groups in a big web of circular reasoning.

Generally, there's not a lot of hard data to work with on issues relating to the trans community right now, which is a little frustrating, but hopefully there will be more soon as the scientific community is finally starting to recognize the LGBT community and conduct real science on this stuff.

[1]: [https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/search?q=regret&rest...](https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/search?q=regret&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) [2]: [http://www.sexchangeregret.com/](http://www.sexchangeregret.com/)

<comment><USER31> Thanks for posting. It would be more interesting to see better studies without sampling bias, but it was still interesting to see otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Its a real phenomena; I'm a programmer and run r/gangstalkingmkultra.

Humans did not evolve defenses against biohacking, We did not evolve: scales, snake eyes, ear drums seperate-enough from the skull. We consider these features ugly, not necessary...

The animal mind is a sensor [of light, color, heat, sound, vibration, emf], and is extremely sensitive to these. There are 90+ patents for mind control, everything from Radio, EMF, Infrared, Pulse positioned sine waves, and ultrasound.

Science wont talk about most of this stuff, for example a scientist told me radio could not affect the humans nervous system since we are 96% water; they now claim we are 60% water, but forgot they said radio was not the cause.

Scientists are purposely discrediting these people, and are wrong about/lying about/not studying so many topics i have compiled a partial list [ reddit.com/r/gangstalkingmkultra/comments/4fb98a/science_lies_relevant_to_mind_control/ ]

Its rather bad because psychiatry was a complete fraud. The "treatments" for one mental illness were [ reddit.com/r/gangstalkingmkultra/comments/4a4y1d/psychiatry_is_a_medical_fraud/ ]

        hand crank drill to the skull and drain blood
        dr freemans icepick lobotomy
        dr freemans shock until KO
        more bizzaro surgeries
        straight jackets 24/7
        tying the person to a bed 20 hours a day
        drugging them and locking them up
        lithium a toxin so poisonous its used for chemotherapy to kill unkillable mutant cancer cells
        sterilization and eugenics

and current treatments are worth 10,000,000,000 a month, but I dont think they cured anyone [their previous treatments were stopped because they did not work and were barbaric].

Anyways its a real phenomena, web and youtube have videos and articles, ex- CIA, ex-FBI, ex-Army, ex-NSA, have testified that a global mind control system exists. google agency name + DEW, mk ultra, or mind control. Theres something like 30-40+ serial killers/spree shooters that said mind control exists before they went on their spree.

</comment><comment><USER57> I have a paranoia clicking a link to nytimes because of tons of ads in the first place.

<comment><USER58> I just want to point out the lack of paywall on this article. Either it's not a big money-maker, or they're going to make up for the paywall profits with the volume of other ads they're showing today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> > An internet search for "gang-stalking," however, turns up page after page of > results that regard it as fact. "What's scary for me is that there are no > counter sites that try and convince targeted individuals that they are > delusional," Dr. Sheridan said. "They end up in a closed ideology echo > chamber," she said.

Could Google help here?

<comment><USER60> What could reinforce this viewpoint any more than one of the most powerful entities on the planet modifying their results to convince them it's all in their heads?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> When it's just tens or hundreds of thousands of people that believe in something ridiculous, we call it delusions but when that number gets into the millions we call it truth. Popularity is indeed the harbinger of truth. In other words, how is this different than the idiots who are convinced terrorists are after them? Just because we haven't yet identified the mental sickness in the latter group doesn't mean their conspiracy theories are true rather than delusions, but we are fine with even going to war to protect them. I see no difference between delusional psychotic patients, in other words, and many run of the mill idiots.

</comment><comment><USER4> Immediately the article associates 9/11 truthers with mental illness. That is the main point of the article -- to remind everyone that if you believe your government did something truly heinous, you must be crazy.

There is a long history of governments using accusations of mental illness when they get caught.

Maybe you are all just living in a false reality created by constant propaganda on television and a type of collective denial.

9/11 was a false flag attack.

Now people will tell me to 'get help'.

<comment><USER10> Or - is it possible that they weren't talking generally (that is - if you believe a government can do anything wrong, you're crazy), and they were talking specifically(if you think the US government did 9/11 - you're crazy)?

Just because governments can do bad things isn't proof that a particular bad thing happened from the government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Anyone from Hollywood on here, I can think of a couple of movie opportunities from this story right here:

* people who are actually being targeted because they have some kind of "hidden" genetic "power" or something like that (eg x-men mutants)

* ordinary people who are actually being targeted by some tla organization testing out "mind weapons"

Of course, making a movie like either one of these isn't going to do much good for the poor people from the story...

<comment><USER63> sounds like sense8 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense8)</comment></comment>


C# 7 Work List of Features - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/2136 <comment><USER3> Wow.. This "Strong interest list" is awesome:

* Tuples (Proposal: #347)

* Pattern matching (Proposal: #206)

* Records / algebraic data types (Proposal: #206)

* Nullability tracking (Proposal: #227)

* Async streams and disposal (Proposals: #114, #261)

They seem to be really useful for a "more-functional style" of programming.

When comparing these ambitions and the level of transparency to Java's ambitions & transparency, then it seems that C# is (or has) overtaking Java. Combine that to the fact that dotnet is now an opensource project, and MS seems to be more "open" nowadays then Oracle has ever been: I'm stoked about this news.

<comment><USER4> I've been using Java for almost 6 years mainly with IntelliJ and I've heard many times that C# is better than Java. Recently I've got chance to work with C# (on Visual Studio 2012 with Resharper). Oh boy, I don't know how to express my feeling, but in one sentence "It's just suck to the core".

I completely agree, as a language C# is more rounded, but as far as the ecosystem and tooling concerned its literally nowhere near to Java.

<comment><USER5> That's funny to me because my experience was the exact opposite. After an undergrad experience of Java, C, C++, Python (at least from the OO/C-likes) on *nix systems, trying C# 5 w/ VS2010 + ReSharper was some kind of transcendent experience.

I LOVE the language and I've found the entire ecosystem fine. There are some corner cases for some more advanced systems level stuff, but I've yet to be unable to do something I needed to.

Java feels like a clunky dinosaur to me now. But hey, different strokes for different folks.

<comment><USER6> I have a similar background and my experience was the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The fact that this is so out in the open on Github is pretty amazing - <USER2> how much Microsoft is changing.

Can you imagine the feature list of C# 1.0 being discussed like this?

<comment><USER3> Yups. They day I read their massive open source release announcements I knew that MS is from now on not the same company it was.

Mahatma Gandhi supposedly said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Which I think is very applicable to MS attitude to open source.

Now they have a new attitude: If you can't beat'm, join'm.

<comment><USER8> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they embrace you, then they extend you, then they extinguish you.

<comment><USER9> That'll be quite a trick with an MIT license, community promise on patents, and published language specs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Improved tuple support would be awesome, it's something I often miss when working with C# and coming from a Python background (that along with a nicer dictionary syntax). The nullability tracking proposal also looks interesting.

Overall looks like C# 7 is going to be awesome even if only a few of these get implemented.

<comment><USER11> Agreed! I really like the idea of symmetry when calling a method. I have never gotten why we can send multiple values in, but only one value out. And polluting the source code with structs for every method which needs to return two or more values is ugly.

<comment><USER12> Well, that's what out and ref parameters are for

<comment><USER13> Except out and ref parameters are exactly zero fun to use. Wheras returning two values is a lot of fun, esp. with pattern matching.

<comment><USER14> This is somewhat subjective...

I'm not sure I find either more fun than the other.

<comment><USER13> You are _absolutely_ correct. Perhaps fun is the wrong word. It is however, a royal pain to use the first, and way less so to use the second...That's something I feel I could probably defend in an objective sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nice.

At what point would it make more sense to just leave c# as it is and move on to a new "language"?

I like all the changes and more importantly I guess I actually understand the intention and the need for them, at same time I'd like to question how all those actually fit into one language...

I understand MS has a very strong record for support of legacy software, systems etc. So for sure on point would be to still "support" legacy C# code and allow for more modern paradimes in the same language, but given all the other .net languages and the interoperability provided: what is the drive behind pulling it all in into C#?

<comment><USER16> They're far too heavily invested in C#, and good alternatives, like F#, are viewed as too difficult for the majority of their customer base to deal with.

They can add these features, let less ... able ... customers argue over "var" and what they'll use, while pleasing other users. C#'s seriously annoying to code in due to it's statement-oriented nature and lack of basic features.

Additionally, because libraries take dependencies on C# compiler implementation details, other languages do not interop as seamlessly as the .NET/CLR concept would have us believe. Looking at things like the precise output of lambda expressions, or all these APIs that take object, then read the properties as an argument list (which should just take a list of tuples instead).

Also, just imagine the fallout of "Microsoft abandons main .NET language!"

<comment><USER17> Seriously annoying? If you don't like it, don't use it and comment on other things. There's plenty of people that think it's one of the best languages available today.

<comment><USER16> Yes, it is very annoying. It's overly verbose for no good reason. Well, if you count internal compiler complexity a good reason (that's why fields don't have type inference according to Eric Lippert, though they still haven't fixed up that inconsistency in Rosyln it seems).

Plenty of people think C++ is a good idea for common apps. Plenty of people think node and JS are awesome. Plenty of people loved Flash. What's your point?

Because C# is so popular (like JS), its questionable decisions ripple all over and affect people even if they aren't directly using C#.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Man these guys don't stop. They haven't even released C# 6 and now we're discussing 7.

With the "strong interest" features and type providers, is there any reason left to use F#?

Also, I don't see why array slicing would require CLR support. That would be a welcome addition.

<comment><USER19> I would only use F# if I already knew it. Otherwise it just doesn't give any killer features anymore to justify the effort needed to learn it. I don't consider things like no nulls and default immutability a killer feature. Also there is just a handful of F# jobs and they don't offer an outstanding salary for knowing F#.

<comment><USER20> F# async and parallel programming (Async.parallel, Agents/Mailboxes, Array.parallel.map, etc) are vastly superior to C# right now. Every latest C# iteration has repeatedly borrowed everything great from F#, that should be a sign alone that F# has tons of killer features (and continues to be ahead of the curve).

I picked up F# in about 3 months by reading a few books, then refactoring a C# library into F# (this taught me a lot of the interop quirks), and then doing a full project in as much of the F# idiomatic way as possible.

As far as jobs, I don't know anyone who uses the .NET stack that considers themselves strictly an "X" programmer. I've never used VB on a project, but I'd be pretty confident I could consult on a large VB project based on how much C# I've written. Mixed projects are really the best of both worlds anyway, learning F# will improve your C# simply because it teaches you new ways of reasoning about your domain.

If C# 7 ends up implementing Tuples, pattern matching, ADTs, etc... those are all bread-and-butter of F#, might as well learn how to use them ahead of time.

<comment><USER19> Parallel.x is already implemented in C#, I don't care who had it first. Akka.NET covers the actor model (note that Mailboxes do not support distributed scenarios). Those are not killer features (at least anymore).

I already improved my C# by reading about F#, there is nothing magical about deconstructible tuples, pattern matching and ADTs that needs too much time to learn. It's the rest of the "succinct" ML syntax that puts me off. That and lack of ReSharper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If I wanted to learn C#, not knowing any other compiled languages (but knowing PHP), where would I start? Another gotcha: I'm on OSX, and would prefer to learn C# from the standpoint of CLI first, then GUI components.

<comment><USER22> You have a couple options:

1) Code up some simple C# code in a text editor (sublime) and then compile it using the mono c# compiler.

2) Run Windows on Parallels and download visual studio community edition.

Folks are working on a CLR that will run on Darwin and the core framework as well as an alternative to Mono. This won't be released until later this year though, and tooling is still TBD.

<comment><USER23> Sublime? Parralells?

Why not just Monodevelop[1] instead? It's an open-source .NET IDE. Although not on par with Visual Studio, I doubt anyone would expect that anytime soon.

For a beginner it will probably be very relieving having Intellisense and code-completion, not to mention it will encourage exploration of the APIs in a much more playful manner than trying to read MSDN docs.

If you're going to start getting into C#, don't start with your hands tied behind your back. Get the full package!

[1] [http://www.monodevelop.com/](http://www.monodevelop.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The one thing that worries me about the tuples proposal is it would be confused with System.Tuple. The proposal seems similar to Python's namedtuple, so if possible, perhaps they could add some new .NET type (System.NamedTuple?) and use that?

</comment><comment><USER25> Not sure to get the Tuple (#347) ... Why not use an anonymous type or the already existing Tuple class ?

<comment><USER26> Anonymous types can't be returned from a method. Well, they can, but not with any kind of safety (casting to object, or dynamic). Using tuples is all about representing a type by its 'shape', not its name. With anonymous types there's no shape declaration; but I could imagine that it would be useful for C# to allow implicit casting of anonymouse types to tuples (where the shapes are equal).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The great thing about .NET is that it has a ton of great features but never feels overwhelming or slow.

</comment><comment><USER28> More features == better language. A tried and proven strategy.

<comment><USER29> Are you willing to say the same for C++?

<comment><USER30> Yes.

Most of the C++ warts are caused by the need to be copy-paste compatible with C, expectations of C developers being lured into this new language and be a drop-in compatible replacement for C tooling.

"The Design and Evolution of C++", [http://www.amazon.com/The-Design- Evolution-Bjarne-Stroustrup...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-Evolution- Bjarne-Stroustrup/dp/0201543303)

<comment><USER29> If the entire C++ codebase I worked with was mostly C, my job would be so much easier. I think the 2000+ page C++ manual proves my point.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Do You Resist New Tech at the Office? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-you-resist-new-tech-at-the-office-11560159001 <comment><USER2> >Attorney Paul Cannon was surprised when some employees at his Houston law firm fought his decision to replace obsolete software they'd been using.

I'm not sure this should be surprising. In my experience among lawyers there are a high percentage of Luddites.

I think the point that people's identity gets mixed up in it all very much plays a part. People's identity is often tied to work and if they use software all day then a bit change in software certainly impacts that identity, and even just job satisfaction.

I think new tech can send messages about what a company values and etc, possibly who it values too.

I remember a change in a CRM app I used years ago. The new application was largely influenced by the local management bureaucracy. Accordingly things like dates, SLAs and etc got a large chunk of the screen real estate. The "notes" section, the area where I and my technical coworkers actually kept notes that helped us solve problems, spent most of our time, was reduced to a postage stamp size, only took plain text (the other fields had formatting options)... and was reduced in the amount of characters it would accept.

The message felt very clear, the important things were book keeping like dates and times, and special notices for each and every customer. The space where we did the majority of our work was tiny and thus unimportant / not valued.</comment>