Propose YC: Share office space + learn + make more money - <AUTHOR> Hey all, I'm a freelance web developer about to take a 6-month long trip down the Western US coast. (Check my submissions page for a thread about it.) Once I'm done, I need to figure out where I will live and work. I know there are other freelancers on this board, and I want to brainstorm a little. (Let's assume I settle in the Bay Area.)
1.) Does anyone want to share office space? I'd prefer not to work from home; it's too easy to get distracted. I would be very willing to chip in a few hundred a month to rent an office with 2-8 other people in similar situations as my own. It would be an really awesome environment to work around talented people doing the same thing as I, without the whole boss/coworker relationship to tiptoe around. I really like to talk about web development best practices and brainstorm ideas for apps. Plus, it gets lonely working by myself.
2.) I think once we get beyond the initial share-an-office space, we could leverage our various talents. I'm a C# and PHP guy. Java pays well (from what I hear), but I have no desire to learn another platform. I come across Java work from time to time, and I'd be happy to pass it along to anyone in the office that knows Java. I'd be more apt to do this if I'd met and worked with the programmer in person and knew they were good. Also, I'm a code guy. I can't make a pretty page to save my life. Are you a Photoshop/CSS guru? Great. I probably have work for you. Very few programmers use every platform/language; we usually specialize. Which means we've usually turned down work before. Let's share that. Or, are you working on a PHP app with a complicated regex? Let's talk about it at lunch and I can probably help you. If you want, buy me a beer later. Good times.
3.) If we get a bunch of great people I can see it becoming a co-op of sorts, where we'd emulate those big medical complexes that have a Radiologist, Oncologist, Physical Rehab guy, and Optometrist sharing a building. Hopefully we could develop a reputation and become our own "headhunter" firm of sorts, possibly even have a dedicated work recruiter. But I can see a lot of our business coming from referrals and word-of-mouth, as mine usually does once I get a foot in the door. Two .NET guys want the same project? Great, write proposals and present them to the client. Operating under a business name and having dedicated office space would let us seem more professional and charge higher rates - that's undeniable. We could also possibly share database servers, books, code snippets, bandwidth, printers, and more...(UI testers? Guitar Hero controllers?).
I think if we could do it right, we could really have fun, make some friends, learn a lot, become better coders, and make more money. What do you all think about this? I wouldn't mind it if you were founding a startup, but this is not for crazy-cheap bootstrappers with six guys on laptops around a card table.
Myspace and Facebook have led us into an era where we interact with our friends online, but our work acquaintances in person. Shouldn't it be the other way around? <comment><USER2> if you don't want to deal with the overheads associated with obtaining and maintaining office space, there are a lot of coworking areas that a small group of people could make use of on the west coast. <http://coworking.pbwiki.com/>

a dev shop definitely does carry more weight when it comes to billability and reputation. especially one with office space.

ironically, i contributed to your last big thread, too. i'm pulling up roots on the east coast and moving to seattle for personal reasons in the next few months and have no definite plans for employment. we can talk, if you're interested, although seattle != SF.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, that link is pretty awesome; I had not seen that before. I'll be passing through Seattle circa September, so send an email to samstrip at gmail and I'll get in touch. SF as a final destination is not set in stone by any means, I just figured that would best let me judge the response.

<comment><USER2> sure thing. you already set out on your trip?

<comment><AUTHOR> August 1st. Really looking forward to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> We're working on something for this in the South Bay (Cupertino/San Jose area). Email if you're interested: firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd be glad to meet with you when you get to SF.

firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Casetext Survey Finds 'Shocking' Level of Missing Relevant Cases in US Courts - <AUTHOR> https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2018/06/08/casetext-survey-finds-shocking-level-of-missing-relevant-cases-in-us-courts/ <comment><USER2> Interesting, but there are a few things you need to know:

1) in federal court there is no right to a hearing on a particular motion. Because federal courts are, stastically at least, criminal drug courts and criminal cases are heard first, civil cases go to the back of the line. But there is no guarantee at all of a hearing on a criminal motion, either.

2) "Relevancy" is in the eye of the beholder. A lawyer may leave a case out because he has a different view of the facts.

3) "Precedent" means that portions of cases get repeated in other cases. In the old days, say, pre-1975, it was easy to miss cases because case law, though computerized, was not widely available in electronic format.

4) Time and money are issues. Many lawyers are sole practitioners. Federal judges have full-time clerks and free access to electronic caselaw. That is certainly not the case for all lawyers. I personally know of situations where a judge has ordered at 7:00 pm that a matter be briefed for 8:00 am the next day. With these kind of time constraints, it's not surprising that some caselaw is missed.

5) None of this is "shocking." On the other hand, if you work in a restaurant, you know what goes on in the kitchen.</comment>


Oldest use of the word 'fuck' in 1310 English court case - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3231176/The-curse-Defendant-1310-English-court-case-given-nickname-Roger-Fuckebythenavele-historians-say-recorded-use-insult.html <comment><USER2> Gotta love how they write an article about the word fuck yet censor it throughout the article.

<comment><USER3> Yes they quote fuck verbatim but censor shit and fuck when they say it. Sidenote: Oh what a world when deplorable violence and torture and borderline pornographic scenes are okay to show on TV and yet swearing is very taboo (I first realized this watching the show Firefly)

<comment><USER4> It might be software-based; the clbuttic mistake. My favourite clbuttic error was "consbreastutional"...

<comment><USER5> Similar to this is the "cupertino" effect: there's a number of examples in the first few minutes of this episode of RadioLab (and a few more scattered throughout):

[http://www.radiolab.org/story/91721-oops/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/91721-oops/)

IT's when a legitimate word is mistakenly auto-corrected or switched out by a filter - apparently named after the word "co-operation" being mistakenly corrected to be "Cupertino". One of the examples given is a christian website which bowedlerised* the word "Gay" to "Homosexual" and posted an article about talking the 100m sprinter "Tyson Homosexual"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not certain yet that this is an antedating. OED editor Jesse Sheidlower calls it 'putative': [https://twitter.com/jessesheidlower/status/64305138542510899...](https://twitter.com/jessesheidlower/status/643051385425108993) and slang lexicographer Jonathon Green concurs but finds it probable: [https://twitter.com/MisterSlang/status/643060037221515264](https://twitter.com/MisterSlang/status/643060037221515264)

If it is, it's big news. But bear in mind that 'John le Fucker', recorded 1278, ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Fucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_le_Fucker)) would be a further antedating from a personal name if it were somehow to be confirmed as a use of the word.

<comment><USER7> FWIW, the antipenultimate paragraph mentions le Fucker and its ambiguity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have to admit that after reading this thread, I did a double-take when I saw another post on the home page:

"Ask HN: Anyone in NYC area want to --ck?"

</comment><comment><USER9> There's an even earlier record of a man named John le Fucker from 1278. It's unclear whether this is an instance of the word "fuck", or whether it's just a variation of some other surname like Fulcher.

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

<comment><USER10> I think the story here is it's first use in a sexual context. As you say, John le Fucker's name is probably just a corruption of another word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> By the time it got to a court case obviously it was long since established as normal. Therefore the oldest use must predate 1310.

</comment><comment><USER12> Indeed, we modern people are incredible pussies when it comes to the more entertaining usages of certain words. If you applied today's political- correctness filters to medieval (or older) language, all you would hear was a single long beeeeeep.

<comment><USER13> I dunno...I'd imagine it wasn't too much different (barring the introduction of broadcast and other mass communication). There was polite, "courtly" speech and there was "vulgar", common speech. Just like today, you can go to any bar or playground or even plenty of workplaces and hear people swearing or using other language among their peers which would deemed impolite in other situations. In the same way, medieval citizens probably wouldn't call the local lord a fucker to his face or swear in church (or to their grandma) but they certainly did among peers.

How you talk to friends versus how you talk to those in positions of authority or respect is probably one of the first examples of "code switching" many of us learn as children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Re-capcha that identifies this writing would be cool.

I'd spend time just on a recapcha page if it helps digitise this stuff.

</comment><comment><USER15> We changed the URL from [http://www.vice.com/read/this-historian-just-found- the-oldes...](http://www.vice.com/read/this-historian-just-found-the-oldest- use-of-fuck-920). The story came up a couple times over the weekend and (strange as this may sound) the Daily Mail version seems to be the best source.

<comment><USER16> This might be better: [http://www.medievalists.net/2015/09/10/the-earliest- use-of-t...](http://www.medievalists.net/2015/09/10/the-earliest-use-of-the-f- word-discovered/)

<comment><USER15> That one seems to contain less information.

If the Daily Mail is the best source, the Daily Mail is the best source and HN should have it on the front page regardless of its reputation. A similar recent case was [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10131399](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10131399).

<comment><USER17> Not that this should necessarily be HN policy, but I think I'm probably not the only person who would prefer to read it from a marginally worse source than give page views to the Daily Mail.

<comment><USER18> On the other hand, getting visitors from HN wouldn't necessarily increase any revenue for them as being the nerds that we are, I doubt that many of us use a browser without an ad blocker ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So the 'Daily Mail' makes the front page of HN. Interesting times.

<comment><USER20> I can't click on principal. UK red tops are toxic here and contribute towards an ill-educated society that eats up propaganda without even chewing.

Not to be a _total_ buzzkill...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge

</comment><comment><USER22> In the words of Vice President Joe Biden, "This is a big fucking deal."</comment>


Ubuntu 14.04.3 Apache HTTP/2 Web Server Setup - <AUTHOR> http://pixelinc.co/ubuntu-14-04-3-apache-http-2-web-server-setup/ <comment><AUTHOR> I couldn't find any helpful resources for setting up HTTP2 for Apache on Ubuntu. Hope this if helpful to someone. Please leave constructive criticism so that I may improve the post, my workflow, or the commands involved.

P.S. Never been one to blog or submit posts to social media, but after doing it for the first time I feel a weight has been lifted off my chest.

<comment><USER2> Nice work, please continue to create coherent, well researched, concise, useful material like this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the compliment!</comment></comment></comment>


Is it boring working in Web Development startups? - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/ivarojha/is-it-boring-working-in-web-development-startups-1715 <comment><USER2> This is such a click bait headline I don't even want to comment. Web Development is boring if you think it's boring. A lot of people don't. If you do think it's boring, there are a lot of industries that need programmers to solve different problems in different ways. If you don't think it's boring, hey that's awesome, you keep on making cool stuff.

If you're bored, it's probably time to start job hunting.

<comment><USER3> > If you do think it's boring, there are a lot of industries that need > programmers to solve different problems in different ways.

Dumb, overly broad question, but I gotta ask at some point - does anyone have suggestions for figuring out what industries are out there, what they're like, where one may want to try next, how one might break into them? Career navigation isn't my strong suit, as you can probably guess.

<comment><USER4> That's actually a really good question. The thing is, this differs wildly on where you are (or where you want to be, geographically wise). In some cities, you might see entirely different positions just because there are different companies with different needs (e.g. security analysts near big bank headquarters). I too would like a general list of popular programming-related positions though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For many developers, UIs are often the most rewarding part of code to work on, the impact of making a change is immediate and obvious, and hey, pretty stuff is fun to make!

That said, the learning curve before HTML/CSS is "pain free" to develop with is huge. Especially compared to mobile frameworks, a native UI widget is easier to style and place on the screen. Also it'll probably keep rendering properly for the foreseeable future. (Or write a Windows app and it'll keep working until the end of time! :)

I've struggled a bit when I have to switch over to writing back end code for my startup. Some of it is mentally rewarding, writing a scheduling system for example, but other parts are just tedious, especially the CRUD stuff.

Of course worst of all was writing the scripts for and documenting how to do deployments. People who enjoy DevOps are kinda weird. ;)

As an aside, awhile back I threw together a simple WinForms app to do some trivial CRUD work in my DB. I have full Auth + Data Binding + UI working in ~2 hours. I hadn't used C# or Winforms in a few years. Porting that same UI over to the web took way too long. Getting the tooling up and running was a day! I hit a bug involving a release version of some NPM package that took hours to debug and then the framework I installed was using the globally installed version of Typescript instead of its own local version which took while to figure out and, well, a few more things like that. :/

</comment><comment><USER6> In my experience, working in startups is anything but boring. You have to wear all hats and solve all problems. You have to be ready to think on your feet. You've gotta be able to think fast and act and be able to deal with the consequences of your actions on the fly. This is start up life. It's exciting, but it's stressful. Some might call it a baptism of fire.

Working in startups - especially if they have funding, is definitely not what I'd call boring.

If you're thinking about a startup, you need to be comfortable doing full stack dev, testing, infrastructure, operations, debugging in production, debugging on your local dev, databases both querying and architecture, unit testing, integration testing, functional testing, scalability and being able to be ripped out of whatever it is you're doing that needed to be finished yesterday to debug the server that just went down taking out your primary income stream; and then when it's done and you've high fived a couple of people, you need to be able to sit right back down and get the shit out of the door you got ripped away from to do that.

This is startup life. If you don't like the heat, you'd definitely better stay out of the kitchen.

If you're working in a startup and you're finding it boring, then chances are this startup isn't going anywhere. Time to get your CV out.

<comment><USER7> _> If you're thinking about a startup, you need to be comfortable doing ..._

This list is good advice for anyone, not just startup employees. It's also really optimistic as pertains to startups, and comes off as some myth-making stuff. (Startups don't deserve myth-making and they definitely aren't glamorous. If it isn't _your baby_ , then it's _a job_. Woe betide you if you don't keep that in mind.)

I agree that anybody should be capable of those things--though to be honest I say that about wherever you're working, "specialization is for insects" is one of the only Heinlein quotes teenage-me liked that I think still fits--but the reality is that the overwhelming, overwhelming majority of developers at startups don't have most of those skillsets when they walk in the door.

I consulted for quite a while and most of my clients were startups. In my experience, most startups before or at the "elbow curve" of growth have zero to "a few" senior engineers (the group of whom may include the technical co- founder/co-founders) with a broad skillset, a lot of juniors (the group of whom may include the technical co-founder/co-founders, they just don't know it yet) who have fallen for an okeydoke of an under-market salary and toilet- paper options, and zero to one principal engineer (the group of whom may include one of the technical co-founders) who is paid something within smoke- signal distance of market rate and is expected to perform miracles on a daily basis.

You will, to be clear, learn a lot of the stuff in that list if you're at a small, growing startup; you'll have to. Whether you do it right, or whether you do it right enough to do it at your next job...good question. I _really_ wouldn't expect most developers to party on in with even a majority of those things already nailed down, though.

If they did, most startups couldn't afford them.

<comment><USER6> Yep, eventually you become sufficiently skilled at enough of those disciplines as to be able to call yourself a specialist in many/most of them. At which point, you're either in high enough demand that only those that are desperate for you are willing to pay, or you're priced out of the market... or you still just do it for fun.

And yes, in a startup you _will_ learn these things, whether you want to or not... and that growth curve will be painful. And you'll either thrive, or you'll die.

<comment><USER7> Doing it for the love of the game is certainly an option, I don't mean to exclude that. I'm going to my next gig for something a little under-market because I think they're good people and I like the vibe there. (It helps that there's a big video component to what they do, and I do a lot of video stuff for fun already and want to learn and contribute there in addition to my usual infra/mobile/frontend/backend nonsense.)

Just saying that most people coming in the door, the sorts of folks who are going to be asking this sort of question, are just not in the same position as you or I are. ;)

<comment><USER6> I went from corporate to startup... and now I just don't seem to be able to go back to corporate. Once you've had that baptism, if it didn't kill you, it's part of you. There's no going back to sitting in a cubicle after that kind of excitement.

<comment><USER7> The heroification and myth-making is, again, I think a little much. It's a job, it's working to make somebody else wealthy. It's not "a part of you" any more than any other job; it just becomes what you're used to.

Frankly I think most people who have taken a few turns in startup-land should try freelance consulting on for size. I'm explicitly not doing it right now for other, personal reasons, but I'll go back to it eventually; it's the arena in which your skills are really as-fairly-as-possible valued and where you can realize some really outlandishly-sized gains for a lot of organizations if you hustle.

And, having spent time in startups, you've already internalized that your job might disappear tomorrow. ;) Consulting at least lets you spread out that risk both in terms of clients and in terms of billing.

<comment><USER6> It's not about heroification and myth-making or what you're used to. It's entirely about the excitement found in the chaos, and either you thrive on that, or you hate it... or you get Stockholm Syndrome and learn to love it because of the psychological trauma of running that gauntlet.

It's stressful for sure, in a manner not dissimilar to jumping out of a plane for the first time. The rollercoaster of emotions. The dread and worry about how the fuck you're going to pull off the impossible. The heartbreak you feel as you think you're just not going to be good enough to pull it off this time. The relief when you manage it again. The exhilaration of having come through it, perhaps with some bumps and bruises, but you made it and it didn't kill you.

Work in this kind of environment long enough and it will either break you or make you feel like there's nothing you can't do. One thing's for certain though, it _does_ change you, in a way that those who haven't worked in startups will never quite understand.

Consulting is certainly a different mindset. You can either become attached to the project and make it as much your baby as the rest of the team, or you can function as mentor and help them to grow to the point they can handle it themselves. There's a lot of satisfaction in this. I find that the more emotionally involved I am in a project, the more fulfilling it is. The more detached I remain, the less so. I get a lot of enjoyment about being part of a team coming together for the achievement of a goal - even if that goal is to make someone else rich. When a project is personal, and by personal, I mean I'm emotionally attached to the outcome and I am vested in seeing it succeed, the emotional highs and lows are where the magic is found... that's what makes me feel alive and that is what I live for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Boring, No.

Painful, Yes.

I have programmed to the Web in 20 years and it has become worse over the years.

I believe, that if you make an effort and stay vanilla you will enjoy the work many fold.

I love the Web but it's not the Web it was yesterday. Unfortuneatly imho

<comment><USER9> Exactly, I wouldn't call it boring. Things break in interesting new ways all the time, and you have to constantly be learning, because the pace of change is so breakneck.

It's frustrating as all hell though. Debuggers and tooling are in a pretty sad state in comparison to what I'm used to developing server-side and desktop applications, and the iteration loop for making simple changes can be pretty bad, depending on how involved your JS compilation and build pipeline is.

<comment><USER7> I feel like the pace of change has slowed a lot over the last few years, to be honest, and I wouldn't use that argument as a reason to not get into web development today.

I kind of divide web development into three eras: pre-jQuery, jQuery, and post-jQuery. There was a lot of thrash in the pre-jQuery-to-jQuery era; remember MooTools? my first job was using that in _2010_ , that sure was a time to be doing that kind of thing. I missed most of the jQuery era because I was busy building the systems that the jQuery folks talked to, so I can't speak too much about that, but it seemed relatively stable, if not static, for a long time. And just as I was getting back into web development there was also a lot of thrash in the jQuery-to-post-jQuery era; Angular 1 or Angular 2 while wearing your regulation blue tie or React cool-kids wearing sunglasses at night and you've got the Ember guys over here quietly doing things and I am contractually obligated to mention Vue or I will have between two and thirty responses saying that I forgot about Vue, it's the Ansible of the frontend world.

But at this point it seems...mostly stable? The browsers are mostly predictable and mostly cover everything the 99% case cares about, everybody's browser engine is _fast enough_ even if it isn't _fast_ , and the various ecosystems out there have off-the-shelf solutions for most things and the crowd of Github starrers have given the rest of us decent signals as to what we should give a real look at. I feel like debuggers have gotten a lot _better_ , though admittedly not at the level of something like IntelliJ; I have VSCode set up to breakpoint TypeScript (aside: a lot of what made frontend/JS development suck _a lot less_ was TypeScript winning the metaphorical war) in Firefox and the experience is pretty clean.

Build pipelines can still be bad. Kind of a "doctor, it hurts when I do this" problem, though. Happy-path pipelines seem pretty speedy, although I do most of my development on a thoroughly un-heat-throttled Linux desktop rather than the metric standard Macbook Pro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article sets up the idea that 80-90% of a project gets done well, but the rest gets ignored because it is boring. However, the article does not describe what the boring parts are, or how to integrate them in scheduling to dull the pain.

I did like the idea of taking a break before product launch. The push to make a deadline carried forward into a release brings charged emotions that won't match the new users'.

</comment><comment><USER11> This article seems to be saying that getting the data infrastructure built (i.e. backend) is the exciting part, but when it's time to build the front end it becomes boring.

Is that because it's boring, or is it because people think front end is easy/straightforward and then realize it's not? I'd argue that the front end is a much more difficult task than the backend in the beginning of a startup.

</comment><comment><USER12> I find it boring, but that's why I'm trying to get out of the industry and find an alternate career. Software development has broke me.

</comment><comment><USER13> If the title ends in a ?, the answer is a definitive "No".

<comment><USER14> "Should women have a right to vote?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If work is boring, it's probably repetitive. If it's repetitive, you should automate it. I think this applies to any kind of development.

</comment><comment><USER16> Betteridge's Law applies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

</comment><comment><USER17> Huh, the rare and elusive Betteridge's law exception.

</comment><comment><USER18> Not in mine ;-)

There is more to web development than putting in style properties. For example I deem TypeScript one of the nicest language I've ever worked it, and React (Native; especially after they introduced hooks), and WASM fascinating technologies.</comment>


Parkinson's disease may start before birth - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200127134825.htm <comment><USER2> This is great. I wish the government invested more in more and better disease models. I don't think it'd be hard to argue that good animal models do more for effective drug development than almost anything else.

<comment> j-pb We've also been heavily lead astray by animal models, with a lot of drugs failing in trials because of that.

In vitro models, as well as better and cheaper sensors and lab work that can be done in-vivio in humans is clearly the route forwards. Stuff like labs and organs on a chip.</comment></comment>


Work Chrome – Android Apps on Google Play - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chrome.work <comment><USER2> What was it? Seems to 404 on this end.</comment>


Iyokus - Decide your own price - <AUTHOR> https://www.iyokus.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Iyokus is a marketplace where buyers and sellers come together to trade at prices that are mutually beneficial, a place where buyers can express their willingness to pay and be heard. Iyokus deploys the first viable system that allow buyers to bid for the price they are willing to pay and receive feedback or counter-offer instantaneously. Our mission is to build a platform where buyers pay only what they are willing to pay while helping sellers to optimise their prices so that their products can reach the maximum number of willing buyers</comment>


A Google Chrome Extension to Stop Wasting Your Time - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/work-mode-block-all-socia/dmijhfnjdfpaanlbahmklnhjkbhegepm

<comment><USER2> Chrome Extension is Fastest Compare to all. For Developers Mozilla is best.</comment>


Hackbright Academy Turns Women Into Developers In 10 Weeks - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/hackbright-academy/ It's probably too early to talk about how many of the recent graduates actually get jobs, but co-founder David J. Phillips (who also co-founded location startup Banjo) shared some earlier data. Eight out of 12 students in Hackbright's first class, were looking for immediate employment, he said, and all eight of them got offers from companies like New Relic, Survey Monkey, Cisco, and Bump. <comment><USER2> 10 weeks is not enough time to learn _any_ skill.

I wish people would stop these boot camps with ridiculous claims. We've had a couple of victims of these schemes apply to us and we've had to rather sadly tell them 'no way' and explain why.

A lot of them have come from business and arts backgrounds and think it's an easy way to make quick cash (hint: it isn't - writing software is hard and laborious and pays crap for the first couple of years, if you can stomach it that long).

<comment><USER3> Thanks for your feedback. This is not a boot camp. Have you ever committed 100% of your time to learning a new skill over a short period of time?

<comment><USER2> No, I believe learning a skill is an investment, which is why I take my time (sometimes years) and study for a long time before I even put pen to paper.

My latest learning exercise was postgresql. I've done a proper engineering evaluation on it which has taken a whole year, but i tell you, i know it inside out now. I am confident i can handle any edge case or problem. Can your 10 week old developers even handle a simple edge case failure efficiently? That's where the skills are important or there is a roadblock every 30 minutes in this industry.

<comment><USER4> What does a proper engineering evaluation entail?

<comment><USER2> In my case, a simplified view: reading the documentation, building a list of scenarios based on proposed functions and associated risks, testing each one and documenting it in a concise manor. Then building something serious, testing it, breaking it predictably and unpredictably and reworking conclusions from above. Also doing research on best practices, bad practices, performance reducing functions and hints/tips, integration paths etc.

When I reliably can answer most stackoverflow questions on the subject, I am then confident that I know what I'm doing and then will sell my skills.

<comment><USER5> I think it would be insane for someone with little or no experience in the field to devote years to a specific skill (say, complete mastery of Postgres), before working on problems in the real world.

Even in areas where failure has high costs (say, medicine, or war), you don't go off and try to master a specific skill before doing anything -- you master some basic skills, practice using those (in increasingly realistic environments), then learn more advanced skills. For one thing, you don't even know beforehand where you may have particular strength, and you also don't know what opportunities will arise.

Even a junior developer with basic knowledge can make meaningful (and thus compensated) contributions during the learning process. I'd rather spend 10 weeks or 6 months or whatever building some skills, then get a job and learn while being paid, vs. spending my whole life in isolation trying to become a zen master and write the one perfect line of code.

Breadth first, then depth.

<comment><USER6> _Breadth first, then depth_

For "deep" areas such as mathematics, medicine, and theoretical computer science one needs an extensive theoretical background before being able to advance the field. A depth-first approach may be the only way of learning a useful subset. This may also apply to something like "database theory in general".

However for "product skills" (such as learning a specific database package or API) there's something to be said for a breadth-first approach. Especially nowadays, where today's hot skill can be neigh useless tomorrow. If you spend years only perfecting some skill you may be too late to profit from it! Also as the field is moving so fast, by the time you learned the PostgresSQL manual from beginning to end, there has been a new major release that invalidates many of the best practices that you spent so much time learning...

<comment><USER5> Yes, but even more so:

You don't even need to be able to "advance the field" to contribute meaningfully.

Take medicine. It's possible to teach someone some specific skills quite quickly (I probably have 200 hours of first aid training, essentially much of EMT-B plus lots of specific training in trauma, specifically dealing with massive hemorrhage from traumatic amputations, dealing with GSW, tension pneumothorax, etc., and various diving related issues, and some extremely basic radiology knowledge to assist technicians and rads in debugging a PACS.) With that level of training, or even 4 hours of really basic first aid training, you know enough to help. I won't be writing any dissertations on the best way to deal with a specific kind of trauma, but I can do a pretty good job of stopping bleeding in most cases. You're not going to have a top-flight trauma surgeon in every car. The 200-hour tech isn't going to be operating on his own (ideally), but can be a part of the solution. For some fields, like datacenter operations, experience is worth more than formal training, too.

Plus, there actually are a surprising number of cases where a relative newcomer to a field actually does end up advancing the theoretical limits. Maybe it's due to not knowing and accepting the limits of the field at the time, or maybe it's because that moderately passable junior programmer also happens to be a world-class expert in some other domain which just happens to be similar to the problem at hand, but it's not all that uncommon.

I'd still prefer any pending neurosurgery on me be done by someone with a good amount of experience, credentialing, and expertise, but it's a rare Django app which requires that level of caution :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Will sound like an asshole to many people, but:

      Hackbright Academy Turns Men Into Developers In 10 Weeks

      Hackbright Academy Turns Blacks Into Developers In 10 Weeks

      Hackbright Academy Turns Whites Into Developers In 10 Weeks

Do we really need MORE discrimination? If I go ahead and try to join in, they will say "sorry, no men accepted"? That sounds equally as bad to me as "sorry, no woman accepted" or "sorry, no latinos accepted".

Can anybody explain?

I honestly hope the girls will get the skills they're looking for in 10 weeks, and I support that, but I truly don't get why do they have to discriminate against. Maybe so they get media coverage?

<comment><USER8> Well, what you're seeing is a backlash from the way programming has been taught thus far. For whatever reason all computer science education is geared toward someone who's already had about 6 years of self-education. Typically that meant that women, minorities, and the poor couldn't learn programming and so never went into computer science.

Now what you're seeing is companies meeting the demand from these new groups because the education techniques for teaching computer science are changing. At first it's going to be classes like this focusing on these groups demanding these kinds of environments, but soon it will just spread to how all CS is taught.

Incidentally, Harvey Mudd university is basically demonstrating that simply changing the education model so that it works for people without prior programming experience accomplishes the same thing:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/giving-women- the-a...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/giving-women-the-access- code.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Quote:

> To reduce the intimidation factor, the course was divided into two sections > — "gold," for those with no prior experience, and "black" for everyone else. > Java, a notoriously opaque programming language, was replaced by a more > accessible language called Python. And the focus of the course changed to > computational approaches to solving problems across science.

So I predict most of these "for women only classes" will fall away and be replaced with better introductory material.

<comment><USER9> > Typically that meant that women, minorities, and the poor couldn't learn > programming and so never went into computer science.

I understand that poorer people have no opportunity to learn programming and other less-immediately applicable topics outside of class, but I don't see what's stopping women from learning how to code. Most middle class people today spend their entire days on facebook--why is it "harder" for a woman to take some time to learn how her computer works when countless men begin learning in their late teens/early adult years?

<comment><USER8> I think a big part of it is that there is a very strong hatred of intellectualism in the US, to the point that people who learned to use computers are called nerds and other vile things as well as abused and beaten for it. I think previously the potential of computers as a career wasn't strong enough to overcome this with many young kids, boys or girls, but more so girls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Training programmers in 10 short weeks? Albeit these have experience with programming via codecademy, but 10 weeks? That is a fantastic turnaround and sounds a bit too marvelous. How does it work? This is just the first batch, but does it work consistently? This is fascinating.

Do the programmers at Hackbright have any particular traits? Ambition, drive, or a ridiculous work ethic? Surrounding themselves with the help of coworkers, or something else?

I'm somewhat incredulous at the short time span, but maybe that's enough because of the small class size and perhaps the involved teaching style. And if that's enough to let graduates intern at a company... well.

This program definitely looks exciting.

<comment><USER11> Looking into the article, they don't start from zero:

 _It helps that Hackbright students usually aren't starting from scratch, but have instead developed their initial skills using Codecademy or by attending development workshops. After all, Phillips said, Hackbright is for people who are serious about programming as a profession, and you can't decide that you're serious until you've tried it out._

So as I see it's for somebody who knows some basic programming but wants to get some skills that would get her hired.

<comment><USER12> I think you would be surprised to know what level I started at. Everything I had learned about backend development was passed up within two or three days, and that Friday we went over HTML and CSS, which passed up everything I knew about that. Hackbright is, of course, no easy road. In fact, I can easily say it was harder than all of my AP courses in high school, harder than moving to a German city where I knew no one, harder than deciding to jump into the marriage boat (trust me, that was difficult), and harder than even the decision to make such an investment. And that's why it's worth it. Of course we'll all continue learning, just as every programmer does, but Hackbright was a fabulous kick in the right direction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is this even legal?

My understanding from the article at techcrunch and the hackbright about page suggests hackbright is charging tuition ($7500) for participation in the program.

It's late for me, so maybe I am forgetting something, but what is the legal basis for being able to discriminate on the basis of sex for an educational program, especially from an organization that doesn't appear to be a non- profit, or accredited in any manner.

Seems like a great program. I know some young men that would benefit from such a program, the intensive environment, the location within the heart of the SF Bay hiring region, the networking, etc.

<comment><USER8> There's quite a few same-sex educational organizations around. I think you're confusing this with equal opportunity employment, which only applies to certain sized companies or ones that take Federal money.

<comment><USER13> Well, I think I am comparing it to any company selling any product, of which very few seem allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex.

<comment><USER11> Some definitely are. I don't think there are many male waiters in Hooters, are there?

<comment><USER13> That's employment discrimination, not discrimination of who your customers are. The case of Hooters vs. the EEOC is discussed here: [http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2009/04/can-men- be-...](http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2009/04/can-men-be-hooters- girls-when-can-businesses-hire-only-women.html)

Perhaps a better comparison would be to women only gyms. If you google "are women only gyms legal" you'll come up with a slew of articles suggesting women only gyms are probably not legal, up until the various state legislatures pass specific laws making them legal.

I am not a lawyer, I have no good idea if hackbright is operating legally or not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find what they are doing is not legal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Women only courses and equality in education don't normally mix well with me. The whole subject is however rather interesting, being a very political subject but also one where experiments and statistics tend to go against common opinion.

Okey, this is from a Swedish perspective, as that is the only perspective I got. Anyway, the Swedish state educational overseeing body has made several attempts to improve equality in education, normally marked at getting more women and colored people in white men dominated areas. The biggest attempt, which was started in the 1990s, were a rather simple rule. It said "If a student applying for a class would be a minority in a the class thanks to race or sex, that student shall receive a small bonus in the application". No judgment call was used in the applying of the bonus, but in 2007 it ended, and the primary reason it ended was because the target group (women and colored people) was not in the group actually normally receiving the bonus. Rather, 95% of the time, it was a white male, applying to a class where he would be a minority in.

This is actually not that extremely surprising if one consider that 2/3 of the students in Sweden are women. It also not that surprising given that every areas of education except engineering and one form of math (abstract-math past 3rd year university), have women as the dominating group. Classes are rather clustered in women and men density. The state overseeing body for education did suggest after reviewing the program that maybe they should start some men- only courses in areas which are highly dominated by women students. That suggestion however got turn down rather immediately, as it was viewed ludicrously impossible.

Maybe there is some pedagogical value of women-only and men-only classes. There clearly are anecdotal evidence on it, and the numbers do tell that men are more willing to attempt entering a woman dominated class, than a women trying to enter a men dominated class. But as a method to get more equality in education and encouraging a 50/50 setup, based on the Swedish attempts I must say it does not work as intended. To reach that goal, I think further studies of what actually work is needed. Something great this academy could do is to create a research study on the effects, with an control group, and maybe even a men-only class to match.

</comment><comment><USER15> Congratulations to David, Christian, Charles, and of course the graduates of Hackbright!

I remember visiting your classroom when the Summer cohort was just starting to take those first uncertain steps. Seeing them now, successfully working and growing in their first dev jobs is truly inspiring!

From one dev training program to another, keep up the good work!

doug at catalystclass.com

<comment><USER3> Thanks, Doug!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Not necessarily a response to this article, but more generally about "learning" (complex) things such as programming languages, the impact of impressionist art, particle physics etc.

With all these things, I would argue, that you through a kind of 3rd order polynomial experience of time vs. your confidence in your own knowledge. At first you know nothing, and you're aware you know nothing. After some short amount of time you've learnt a huge amount, relative to what you did know, so you feel like you have a good grasp on the topic. But, over _more_ time, you begin to realize how much you actually don't know (which may reflect everyone, or just reflect yourself, the latter meaning you can learn from others, the former meaning you better get your thinking cap on). Hopefully then over EVEN more time you begin to slowly increase your knowledge base, but this time from a more informed perspective.

The point is, I guess, that it's hard to assess your own knowledge of a topic at this very moment in time unless you've spent a decent amount of time getting your head around it's true complexities (where both, "a decent amount of time" and the true complexity of the topic will vary HUGELY from case to case).

</comment><comment><USER11> I wonder what's special in this training program that makes it more suitable for women?

<comment><USER3> Hackbright may not be for everyone. We have received positive feedback regarding the composition and community surrounding our classes. We create a positive and productive environment to maximize the effectiveness of the program. The quality of instruction is high - and with a strong, supportive community, we have seen some success so far.

<comment><USER11> _We create a positive and productive environment to maximize the effectiveness of the program_ \- this is very generic. Of course everybody would try to create productive environment and maximize the effectiveness - did you ever encounter an education establishment that tries to create negative and unproductive environment and minimizes the effectiveness of their effort? The question is _how_ you do it - and _how_ it is specifically fit to women. This is the interesting topic. I understand if you don't want to reveal trade secrets, etc. but there must be something beyond genetic platitudes that can be said about it.

Why Hackbright may not be for everyone? So far what you explained is certainly for everyone - everyone would want high quality instruction in a positive environment and a supportive community. So what is different?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm pretty sure they're still women after they become developers.

</comment><comment><USER18> Interesting that these guys train in Python/Django rather than Ruby/Rails, like the other 'bootcamps' do.

<comment><USER12> I'm a graduate of the most recent class. I've done a bit of rails, and I now understand why some programmers look at Rails and scorn the "magic." I think the point of technology is to make things easier for people, and since Rails makes it really easy for just anyone to make a site within minutes, that's great--for someone who doesn't want or need to go into anymore depth of understanding about what's going on behind the scaffolding. I'm glad we did Python--it's a good basis language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Congratulations, David and Christian! I hope your entire class rules the world soon!

<comment><USER3> Thanks, Dan!</comment></comment>


Laptop fixed - <AUTHOR>

I just talked to my Principle and he said he can arrange for a portion of the costs or getting it fixed to be payed off by the school. Thank you. <comment><USER2> Some thoughts:

\- If you replace it with other laptop, people can find out. Serial numbers can be compared either manually, or by wherever software is pre-installed by school.

\- Likely you cannot get the exact same laptop as was given to you. Even models with the same name can come with different configurations causing issues in the future.

\- If you can buy a replacement laptop, (since you have somewhere to transfer the data to) why don't you just say this to school and remove parents from this exchange?

\- Being secretive about it will likely cause more issues than just saying what happened.

\- Schools may have insurance or deals covering all such cases, so it may not cost them anything. Consider how many laptops they have and how many may get accidentally broken every year.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, I can't believe I didn't think of this. I can get a bit out of hand but thanks this really helped.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There are better ways of achieving what you want.

When you say "broke" what does you mean? Someone might be able to give you advice about fixing it.

You should probably work out a plan for telling your school, explaining things you could do to replace the laptop and also why you do not want your father involved.

Get help with the wording of the letter.

I'd like to think that teachers would see this as a sign of maturity and would work with you (clearly a non-malicious person) to repair or replace the laptop, but perhaps I am ridiculously optimistic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thankyou so much, I was so worried that I forgot the more reasonable ways of fixing this problem. Your optimism is reassuring, thanks again:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Transfering the data or even the whole harddisk is possible. However if the scool has registered the serial numbers of the laptops, for example for warranty tracking, you're out of luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, thank you anyway.</comment></comment>


Really well-designed parallax(?) scrolling - <AUTHOR> http://www.madogatari.jp/ <comment><USER2> They could at least have run it through PNGquant...

Original image is 1MB: [http://www.madogatari.jp/teaser/images/s06_illust4.png](http://www.madogatari.jp/teaser/images/s06_illust4.png)

PNGquant version is 250kb: [http://i.imgur.com/4R0hZkQ.png](http://i.imgur.com/4R0hZkQ.png)

<comment><USER3> Do do you mean PNGQuant? There's the usual issue that it's lossy, for that image you might as well use mid-level JPEG compression.

<comment><USER2> It's got alpha transparency, you can only use PNG or GIF for that, the issue is that most sofware only saves proper transparency for 24-bit PNG while for 8-bit it becomes jagged.

PNG quant does this properly, see here:

[https://pngquant.org/](https://pngquant.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is called a Zooming User Interface [0]. Parallax scrolling refers to a 2D CG technique [1] that has also been used as a scroll-hijacking effect. It doesn't refer to the general case of scroll-hijacking.

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

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

<comment><USER5> This is definitely parallax scrolling. Watching the items far away as you scroll forward and backward. The ones farthest away seem to gather at the center of the screen. As you scroll you don't just move in and out you move left and right as well. Watch the movement of the things in the back vs. the things in the front when this happens. The things in the back move left and right very little while the things closer to you move left and right a lot. It's definitely parallax.

<comment><USER4> You are right that it is parallax [0], but you are wrong that it is parallax scrolling.

Parallax is a necessary property to create the illusion of depth, regardless of the technique used to achieve that parallax.

"Parallax scrolling" is a 2D technique where layer translation is dependent on both progress and layer index.

This technique is computing a layer _scale_ that is dependent on both progress and layer index.

Translation vs. scale. This isn't parallax scrolling.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What is the real advantage of this over clicking on the page ?

As i see it, usual scrolljacking implementations give the illusion of a more immersive experience with the following tradeoffs over clicking navigation:

\- interferes with the inherent perception of what the scroll does (moving a page up/down)

\- harder to navigate (you have to scroll a lot to trigger a section change)

\- harder to understand how much more is left to see

\- harder to implement and to debug potential bugs

\- needs a menu to mitigate all of the above (defeating the purpose of scrolling)

and probably more stuff that i can't think of right now

<comment><USER7> _> \- harder to navigate (you have to scroll a lot to trigger a section change)_

 _> \- harder to understand how much more is left to see_

I think in this page, unlike many other scrolljacking implementations, this one is actually fully scroll-functional. ie You can drag the scrollbar from the side of your browser window, use pgup/pgdn, or click a point in the scrollbar and it still functions well, so the scrollbar gives you all the same navigation flexibility and information as a traditional page, without breaking the aesthetics.

 _> \- interferes with the inherent perception of what the scroll does (moving a page up/down)_

As for that one, I think it's evident very quickly that it moves you forward and back, unlike some other scrolljacks that try to do weird things like animate images and run slideshows and things and mixes a bunch of paradigms.

In fact, it actually felt good when I move my fingers on my scroll wheel forward and it pushes the world forward, and back when I pull back, it felt more connected than a classic up/down scroll.

<comment><USER6> Yes, you are right, i was mislead by the final animation (it is indeed an animation and not a scrollable part).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nice trick, aesthetically, but horrible for anything else. Drawing stutters on both FF 39 and Chrome on an i5 system. Breaks the scroll wheel (I had to use page up/down or the scroll bar). Basically impossible to navigate accurately to anything.

A gimmick, of the same kind I hate flash for.

<comment><USER9> > Basically impossible to navigate accurately to anything.

There is a lot of people who would like this.

Purpose of such a tunneled scroll isn't _navigation_ in the traditional sense. It's rather a visual drive-through between two points where the artist gets to introduce the characters of her animation. In a sort of gallery.

Like billboards on either side when you're on the highway.

IMHO it does what it is supposed to do. Works for the artist. And that is great!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For the lazy, the source reveals these jQuery dependencies:

[https://github.com/camoconnell/lazy-line- painter](https://github.com/camoconnell/lazy-line-painter)

[http://ricostacruz.com/jquery.transit/](http://ricostacruz.com/jquery.transit/)

[https://github.com/jquery/jquery- mousewheel](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-mousewheel)

</comment><comment><USER11> Shaft is a well known anime studio, famous for several series including [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puella_Magi_Madoka_Magica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puella_Magi_Madoka_Magica) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogatari_(series)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogatari_\(series\)) shown here.

</comment><comment><USER12> The scrolling is very jumpy for me on a macbook pro, it's almost impossible to zoom to a specific 'frame' of the animation, the whole thing just jumps around everywhere.

<comment><USER13> It's very smooth for me on the Windows version of Firefox, on a Haswell quad core i5. I'm actually surprised since Firefox has issues with other graphics heavy sites.

</comment></comment><comment> dimi-31 Yes it's very well designed but the load time is huge and honestly I still dont like it. I think dislike scrolling in general...

<comment><USER14> I had to wait about 15 seconds for it to load, on fibre it felt like a lifetime, that said the experience delivered was great, crisp and fluid, worth the wait. As this is targeted at people with a rich appetite for visual content and well used to content heavy sites, the experience seems appropriate and well executed, it's not a bus timetable or directions to the A&E!

<comment><USER15> I completely didn't notice the loading time. Fibre is beautiful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This... needs QA. Slow loading. A bit wasteful on iOS [1]. But interesting and original (to my knowledge) design.

Things like these remind me of _wow_ effect of Flash websites of late 90s. Those worked reliably across browsers though.

[http://imgur.com/wuMIpR0](http://imgur.com/wuMIpR0) Kyubey being funky again.

</comment><comment><USER17> I liked the idea, but not the execution. There's a huge amount of aliasing which is distracting and deteriorates the images. Also, I felt like there's too much information on the screen, it's hard to focus on one thing. I liked how they changed the background color.

</comment><comment><USER18> Great work! thanks for share the idea with us.

As some else mentioned, this is a example of use CSS 3D transforms. Here is a nice intro [https://desandro.github.io/3dtransforms/](https://desandro.github.io/3dtransforms/)

</comment><comment><USER19> The first time when I scrolled through it felt like automatically pulling through each pages taking away the control from me.

So I am not sure, if the well designed parallax scrolling really does mean anything.

<comment><USER4> Let's try not to hijack the term "parallax scrolling" to refer to scroll hijacking in general. This is "zooming user interface".

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is a nice use of CSS 3d transforms. I wonder why it isn't 3d on an iPhone, which ought to support these transforms. Perhaps it was too slow or memory-hungry?

</comment><comment><USER21> This is pretty well done. Scrolled fairly smoothly. My only qualms are the loading time and the image quality (SVG version of drawings not available?).

</comment><comment><USER22> Interesting to see such an CPU intensive site directed at the Japanese market since many people living in Japan are known for not having as up-to-date computers as the US and Europe. But that could be a stereotype from a few years ago. IE6 died really slowly over there at least.

</comment><comment><USER23> This effect may induce motion sickness in those who are sensitive to zooming and panning. Be careful to scroll slowly.

I played around with it for about a minute and started feeling a bit off, but then again I can't play FPS either without getting the same effects.

</comment><comment><USER24> Mobile experience is completely different, but the desktop version is really impressive.

</comment><comment><USER25> Why dont make it animated and click-navigable?

I understand that some people/business want or need to be different to get more attention, but you should mantain a good level of user-friendliness, just my 2c.

</comment><comment><USER26> This degrades very gracefully on mobile too.

</comment><comment><USER27> Works well on my i7 MBP with 16gb of RAM. I really like the effect. It's clean and suits the purpose.

</comment><comment><USER28> Stutters and goes berserk even on my i5 dev machine. Is there an alternative version of the website?

</comment><comment><USER29> Doesn't look like anything special on mobile.

</comment><comment><USER30> I like it great stuff!

</comment><comment><USER31> doesn't work at all on my ipad mini</comment>


Websites are clients, too - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.foursquare.com/2011/12/08/web-sites-are-clients-too/ The site redesign and recently launched website features like the homepage map, lists, and notifications, have brought them closer together. With these features we've begun consuming our own public APIs, via JavaScript, directly from the website. <comment><USER2> Glad I am not the only one who exploits similar solution to solve problem for mobile/ajax on server side!

One question here is for generating search engine friendly web pages without javascript, do you guys use server side requests internally to api to get data?

</comment><comment><USER3> This has been discussed so many times now! It's not news! In a world where content is consumed on different devices with different "views" I think this is a necessity.</comment>