BitTorrent's Maelstrom browser enters open beta - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/10/bittorrent-maelstrom-beta/

<comment><USER2> A totally neutral decentralize network run on closed software run by a corporation? Forgive me if I don't buy into it.

<comment><USER3> Amen, I don't trust BitTorrent (the company) at all. Sync was a MASSIVE let down and it feels like they've backtracked on decentralization and are just trying to slap their name on a bunch of products that leverage bittorrent (the technology) in some way even when the products don't align with what, I feel like, the majority of BT users want (open/decentralized).

<comment><USER4> Silently bundling cryptomining software with uTorrent is what crossed the line for me (not that I had very high regard for the company in the first place).

I've since then switched to open-source alternatives of their products and will not touch anything else they make from now on, and advise everyone I know to do the same (unless they eventually open-source their products, which I highly doubt would ever happen).

<comment><USER5> Well, they weren't doing it "silently", users had to agree to install the miner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cool idea but coming from the BitTorrent company? I'll pass. After what happened with the original BitTorrent Client and BitTorrent Sync I'd have to be an idiot to give them another chance.

<comment><USER7> Care to elaborate?

<comment><USER6> After they bought µTorrent they started bundling tons of adware, including, most recently, a bitcoin miner. Sync started out as a pretty cool decentralized self-hosted dropbox replacement that was incredibly easy to use. After promising the free version would never be limited they did a 180 and limited it to 10 shares when they launched a commercial version and ruined usability with a bunch of access controls and user accounts.

Obviously they have to make money somehow and it's perfectly within their rights to do so but they've shown that their business model has been to offer a product for free and then, once they suck people in, break promises and use underhanded ways to monetize.

Knowing maelstrom is likely to end up filled with ads or under an overpriced subscription model once it's done killed any interest I might have had in the product.

<comment><USER8> You can still create 1.4-style folders with 2.0. The 10 folder limit sucks and they broke their promise with that. I think lot of people would've been happier if 2.0 shares were limited to 10, but an unlimited number of 1.4 shares was still possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Copying my comment from the other thread today (which got lost):

I gave the beta a shot. It's a chromium fork with added support for browsing to magnet links. Basically, it's making BT a Web protocol. Not a bad idea.

Performance is inconsistent so far. Sometimes the downloads stall or fail for no apparent reason. Sometimes I can't find any seeders. Sometimes it works great. (Same old bit-torrent!)

</comment><comment><USER10> Am I suppose to remember that long hash? I'd like if they provided us with some information how this works. Otherwise [http://ipfs.io/](http://ipfs.io/) seems like a better approach that works in a way that I can actually understand.

<comment><USER11> It doesn't look like ipfs has human friendly named pointers yet either? At least that's what I gather from their documentation: [http://ipfs.io/docs/commands/#ipfs-name](http://ipfs.io/docs/commands/#ipfs- name)

In answer to your question: bookmarks have been a long standing solution to remembering names. I absolutely understand that it's not the most ideal solution - but hopefully acceptable for a beta.

Unfortunately, the linked to TechCrunch article doesn't do much to explain how the browser works. One of the original-source blog posts does a (slightly) better job of explaining how things work - or at least points you in the direction: [http://blog.bittorrent.com/2015/04/10/project-maelstrom- deve...](http://blog.bittorrent.com/2015/04/10/project-maelstrom-developer- tools/)

The hashes directly represent the infohash for the created torrent website.

<comment><USER10> Do you guys plan to release a video about it works? For example, how do you deal with content changing? If my index.html file changes, do I need to distribute a new torrent?

I mean, it's a cool idea and all, but why not release a thorough explanation perhaps in the form of a scientific publication?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Similar project, but OpenSource and works on any OS/Browser: [https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet](https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet) (Decentralized websites using Bitcoin crypto + the BitTorrent network)

</comment><comment><USER13> Centralized decentralization

</comment><comment><USER14> I would really rather read technical details about how this works. I looked into the mutable torrent specification (that lets you make changes to a torrent) as a way to create a bittorrent "hosted" blog, but mutable torrents ultimately need a feed hosted by an http server, which destroys the decentralization. I am not on Windows, I cannot try this out if it's currently Windows-only.

<comment><USER15> Forgive my ignorance, but could you not use the same concept as the blockchain?

<comment><USER10> Not really. The blockchain is meant to work for transaction type of information, not documents. It also keeps all of the transactions ever made. This type of web would probably contain a lot more information than that. Therefore you wouldn't want every peer with a copy of the whole web.

<comment><USER16> The case where this is relevant is in decentralized source control. The only project I know of that set out to tackle this is dead in the water:

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain/post...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain/posts/994542)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I continue to be surprised that the Web standards folk and browser vendors haven't (AFAIK) pursued a standard for content addressable resources backed by a common DHT. There's Magnet, but it doesn't have much traction outside of the usual P2P clients.</comment>


What can OCaml do that you can't do in other programming languages? - <AUTHOR> http://camltastic.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-can-ocaml-do-that-you-cant-do-in.html

<comment><USER2> (1) Almost every high level language has a bit-struct-style binary parsing library. Python, Perl, and Ruby all have libpcap file parsing libraries. And yet the overwhelming majority of raw packet processing code is still written in C, because it's just not that hard.

(2) Ok, type checking is kind of the point of OCaml. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it.

(3) High level languages are slow and getting much, much faster. Javascript, Python, and (soon) Ruby are getting JIT'd to native code and threaded C calls. And all of them have foreign function interfaces that let you call into C/C++ code when you actually care about speed.

(4) I doubt anyone's choosing OCaml over Python for the library support.

<comment><USER3> (1) Erlang, Ocaml, Common Lisp, Scheme, and Haskell can all, with relatively mundane code, parse a TCP/IP packet in 4 lines, nicely formatted, and some of them gets it type-correct at the same time. The problem isn't that you cannot do it in C, the problem is that you are wasting your time doing it. When it is reasonably fast as well, there is no excuse.

(2) Indeed.

(3) JIT and tricks from Self will not make the code faster than a well- implemented Ocaml. Also, the complexity of said implementations leaves much to be desired. If you know how little optimization the Ocaml compiler does when compiling to native code you are pretty amazed that it is so damn fast.

The point here is: will $LANG scale along the speed axis? _Currently_ (it may change) Python doesn't. It scales up to a point at which you go write your code in C/C++. JSON decoders/encoders that are fast happens to be a nice example. Contrast that with Haskell, Ocaml, Common Lisp where you can improve your program and scale it far more on the speed axis before you have to succumb to Fortran77 for your libatlas ;)

For most problems, this scalability is not that important. But then again, there are some where it is crucial you can get that extra speed.

Personally, I program in both Ocaml and Python at work. We have most web-stuff written in Python whereas some backend parts, where correctness and speed matters, are written in Ocaml. We could have used C/C++ at the backend, but our development time is much lower in ML with a fraction of the effort required.

On the other hand, the Pylons framework does wonders for the web-frontend. We don't need the type-correctness as much there, the speed doesn't matter that much either as long as we can serve pages up quickly enough. I would be sorry using Ocaml there as it would hamper the development speed and take more time.

Bottom line: I dual-wield!

<comment><USER2> I'm not seeing what you can do with Common Lisp or Scheme in 4 lines of code that you can't do with Python and Ruby.

<comment><USER4> (format nil "I have~{ ~(~A~)~#[~;, and~:;,~]~}." '(red green blue black white yellow))

<comment><USER5> That's sort of cheating, since you dropped out of CL into the format mini- language.

<comment><USER4> You're right of course. I was also considering showing off the loop macro. That one actually wouldn't have been cheating, since it shows off macros (A pretty nifty and central feature of Lisp)

      (loop for x from 1 to 10
            as x-sqr = (* x x)
            collect x-sqr)

Or something like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> OCaml's type-checker is pretty awesome. You get the benefits of static typing, although you almost never have to declare types.

This also makes interfaces easier to understand. You can often understand what a function does without looking at the documentation or code. For example, let's say you've never heard of a map before, and you peek in the .mli file for the List module and see:

List.map : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a list -> 'b list.

This means that it takes a function (whose type signature is 'a -> 'b) and a list of 'a, and returns a list of 'b. Your first guess is that it produces the item-for-item image of a list under a function, e.g. f [a0; a1; ... an] -> [(f a0); (f a1); ... ; (f an)]... and you'd be right.

Pattern-matching is also a huge plus of the language, because it saves you from having to do a lot of ugly if/then kung fu and makes the code more readable.</comment>


This Micro-Algae Lamp Absorbs 150-200 Times More CO2 than a Tree - <AUTHOR> http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/microalgae-lamp-absorbs-150-200-times-more-co2-tree-video.html

<comment><USER2> Maybe things are different in Europe, but if they installed street lamps like this in major urban areas in the US, someone would smash the glass within days.

<comment><USER3> I was amazed when I went to Germany and saw working, clean ticket machines at every tram and bus stop. I'm from the UK and there is no way they would've gone a month here without being smashed or crudely tagged.

Anyway, interesting technology and it looks pretty cool too (although not to everyone's tastes, I'm sure!)</comment></comment>


Twitter Cuts Off DataSift - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/11/twitter-cuts-off-datasift-to-step-up-its-own-b2b-big-data-analytics-business/

<comment><USER2> Some thoughts on this - big error in the long run: [http://www.3scale.net/2015/04/loosing-innovation-twitters- fi...](http://www.3scale.net/2015/04/loosing-innovation-twitters-firehose- mistake/)</comment>


Macro-Economics Struggles to Cope with Reality - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-10/economics-struggles-to-cope-with-reality <comment><USER2> The article is too damning of DSGE models.

DSGE modeling accuracy is comparable to the vector atoregression with just tiny amount of parameters. They are used because they clearly capture something from the dynamics of the economy.

From two models with equal accuracy, the one with smaller amount of parameters is usually better.</comment>


Live Trending Photos for Bersih 4.0 Rally (Malaysia PM Calls to Resign) - <AUTHOR> http://geosenti.com/ps/HdkJk62fBtu6vTLmx

<comment><AUTHOR> Bersih (Malay meaning Clean) is a movement that push the government to electoral reform for Free and Fair election.

The data are collected based on related keywords and 6 locations (Dataran Merdeka, Pasar Seni, Sogo KL, Menara Maybank, Brickfields & Masjid Negara) #Bersih4</comment>


College is so stupid expensive that universities are setting up food pantries - <AUTHOR> https://thetakeout.com/college-is-so-stupid-expensive-that-universities-are-se-1821873870 <comment><USER2> Somewhat related - when I was in college (2000-2004) a number of my peers applied for and received Food Stamps. We were attending a school that ran about $40,000/yr for room/board/all the necessaries. Very few of them came from familes other than middle/upper-middle/upper class families, but they felt bad asking their parents for even more assistance with school related costs, since most parents were already shelling out for tuition, rent, and other expenses. And since the Food Stamps were accessible, why not apply? The university food generally made every one sick anyway, and the food plans were stupid expensive compared to shopping at Walmart and other low-cost groceries.

It is disgusting how hobbled students are by crushing financial obligations related to, when it comes down to it, the passing on of knowledge from one generation to the next.

edit: grammar

<comment><USER3> > It is disgusting how hobbled students are by crushing financial obligations > related to, when it comes down to it, the passing on of knowledge from one > generation to the next.

When you frame it in these terms, it's really quite troubling. Our generation actually _needs_ future generations to accept the knowledge or it effectively disappears.

<comment><USER4> > Our generation actually _needs_ future generations to accept the knowledge > or it effectively disappears.

Also consider that prior generations built these universities for us, a major advance for society. What have we built to advance the education of the next generation?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Food pantries in multiple new multi-million dollar facilities with twice the number of administrators as 30 years ago. I just can't put my finger on how they could save money instead of trying to get more taxpayer funds to pay for these.

<comment><USER4> Taxpayer funding has been cut significantly, which according to at least one study correlates strongly with the increase in tuition costs.

Do you have evidence that the number of administrators indeed increased [EDIT: as much as you say, and that what the admins do isn't valuable] and that it significantly affects tuition?

I'm tired of this easy, baseless claim, in every field, that people don't need to pay taxes and contribute to society, they can have a magical free ride by cutting mythical waste. In fact, say some, we don't even need many colleges; these kids can just be plumbers.

Meanwhile, the #1 determinant of college attendance is not academic ability or achievement, but parental wealth. College attendance dropped ~200,000 last year; the country is going backward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thanks to the government intervention with what is sold as 'free education/free money', but it is actually making education more expensive.

If you want poor people to get education, empower them. You can start doing so by NOT making it even less affordable by handing out free money.

If you hand out free money the education market will take notice and prices do increase.

Imagine if you suddenly had someone offering to pay for your food everywhere. You should expect your food to become more expensive if suppliers take notice of it. This is what happens to the education market.

Also, the suppliers start with lots of misalocation just because there is a lack of signals about what is most important. For example, they might spend loads of money on sports just because there would be money left over if they didn't, etc.

<comment><USER4> > handing out free money

What does this mean exactly? Government has funded universities for generations, and tuition was lower when there was more funding. At least one study I saw found that funding cuts were the main cause of tuition increase.

This argument is used to try to defund every welfare program, but I have yet to see any economic evidence that it's true. Is there any?

> they might spend loads of money on sports just because there would be money > left over if they didn't, etc.

They might, but anything is possible. Is there any evidence of it or is this pure speculation?

Sports, for example, is generally seen as excellent marketing for the university, increasing alumni engagement, awareness (TV networks pay the university to put the school's name on national TV for hours, rather than vice-versa for 30 seconds), and donations and applications follow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > staff heard that some students were skipping meals in order to afford > textbooks

!!!

If you're a freshman in college, please check out my book: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0992001005/noBSguide](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0992001005/noBSguide) It's super affordable and it will get you through MECHANICS and CALCULUS without too much suffering.

</comment><comment><USER8> My college has had a food pantry for the past 20+ years

<comment><USER9> I'm not surprised. Hell, even if tuition fees are free, college is still really expensive. The poverty line for a single person in the US is about $1k a month, for a 3y bachelor and 2y Master's program, without (average inevitable) delays, you're spending $50-60k just to live an ordinary life like you would've if you hadn't gone to school, only your ability to work is severely diminished.

For example, in Europe I'm expected to get 60 study credits a year at 28 hours invested per credit. Given the academic year is about 42 weeks or so here, I'm looking at a 42 hour workweek. I either study less than the system we all made up tells me I'm supposed to study and get a job, or get a job regardless and burn out, fail classes, get delayed and exacerbate my predicament, or I don't work much and borrow a big portion of that $50-60k. And this is in a situation where tuition fees are free.

Sometimes we forget that studying can be (and is at least supposed to be on paper) a full-time job equivalent in time invested, for year's on end, without remuneration but instead, costs. Some of us need a food pantry even if tuition fees were 'negative' $5k a year.

What we find is that some students spend much of their college time working, taking easy courses just to get the paper while spending their time earning money to stay afloat. And that just makes the whole 'certification inflation' problem even worse.

<comment><USER10> > The poverty line for a single person in the US is about $1k a month, for a > 3y bachelor and 2y Master's program, without (average inevitable) delays, > you're spending $50-60k just to live an ordinary life like you would've if > you hadn't gone to school, only your ability to work is severely diminished.

That's the poverty lone for a single person _household_ ; i.e., living alone and not sharing housing, utility, and other costs. Many people of college age, whether in college or not, do not live that way. (Also, a bachelor's degree is a 4-year baseline.)</comment></comment></comment>


Prepare for the future: Learn to Code - <AUTHOR> https://shecancode.io/blog/prepare-for-the-future-learn-to-code <comment><USER2> Good read</comment>


CBC head warns Netflix poses cultural threat to Canada - <AUTHOR> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/article-cbc-head-warns-netflix-poses-cultural-threat-to-canada/ <comment><USER2> I fail to see how Netflix is an example of cultural imperialism. Netflix is just a service that packages up Americana to sell around the world. It goes through the regular marketing channels, and it's ultimately up to the consumer if they purchase a subscription or not. It's a choice not a mandate.

I'm confused by the imperialist rhetoric in this article. I would think the more obvious narrative would be "if people buy Netflix they would be less willing to buy Canadian entertainment." An economic argument, a numbers thing. Why evoke thought of imperialist expansion and the negative aspects therein?

I don't understand the frame of mind that produces these types of utterances. To me, it seems silly to persuade this way.

<comment><USER3> _Netflix is just a service that packages up Americana to sell around the world._

And in so doing, drowns out local culture. The CBC has the production of Canadian cultural content (CanCon) as part of its mandate. Why must everyone in the world watch American TV? Wouldn't it ultimately be better if every culture produced their own content and then we could maintain some local identity?

The word imperialism is not being used lightly, here. TV has an enormous impact on a society. It influences how people think, which in turn can influence their politics.

<comment><USER4> Can't people still choose though? In that sense there's no "must". Those who want to watch Canadian cultural content can freely do so, and the same is valid for those who prefer Netflix.

Why shouldn't everyone in the world have the choice of watching American tv?

<comment><USER3> The question is not whether people can choose; people can always choose. The issue is what choices you give to people and in what prominence they're placed. Burying a show in the archives is different from featuring it on the front page. Under what criteria should it appear on the front page? If it's only popularity, that'll bias in favour of American shows, since the US has 10x the population of Canada.

If Canadian shows are on the front page, they have a much better chance of getting views and thus surviving, so that people have a choice to keep watching. Canadians can and will find out about the most popular American shows through other media channels, so why do those shows also need to be on the front page?

<comment><USER4> You say people can always choose and on the next phrase argue for limiting that choice...

I don't know to which front page you're referring but honestly the comments from the CBC head quoted in the article sound like those of a bureaucrat who's seeing her power to influence what Canadians should watch being diminished by Netflix's presence, and being angry about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Personally I've loved discovering more and more foreign content on Netflix.

I'm also really tired of this attitude of protecting our culture and worrying it'll be swallowed up by foreign culture. What is Canadian culture? It's always just been a synthesis of foreign culture moulded by our site and situation.

As a Canadian I want us to scoop up as much foreign culture as possible, mix it together, bake it in the oven of our environment, and discover all kinds of new flavours.

<comment><USER6> > I'm also really tired of this attitude of protecting our culture and > worrying it'll be swallowed up by foreign culture. What is Canadian culture? > It's always just been a synthesis of foreign culture moulded by our site and > situation.

Canadian or any other culture is culture produced domestically. Yes everyone can watch the higher production and marketing budget from netflix. But that leaves domestic artists without an audience because they can not afford the reach netflix has.

This ultimately destroys opportunities for local artists and thus also destroys local culture. It creates social issues because a segment of the population is denied a career option they would otherwise be able to pursue.

<comment><USER5> Something feels off that we have to forcibly make room for local culture. It should stand on its own merit. It even has an advantage of being locale unique and physically local.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Pains me to see CBC go down this path - from their recent modernization changes that made their website unusable for basic things like news, to seeing comments like this. Makes me wonder why "non-tech" companies just copy tech companies that are able to innovate and move faster without considering their own fate. But then I remember how they work and that every company is now a tech company at the apparent mercy of FAANG. I'm seeing a lot of talk about our neighbours down south but not a lot of action. This piece made it seem like CBC is losing a piece of the pie and they are salty. Makes me feel sad to see this from the top down. We have the same tech available and the similar resources but it seems that we would much rather partner or purchase than take some risk and try something different. I hope I am wrong.

<comment> 52-6F-62 They're not losing a "piece of the pie", though.

They broadcast in HD and SD for free, funded in part by public funding, advertising, merchandising, and licensing.

Netflix buys CBC content, and they're not the only ones.

While I might not appreciate her crassness, I understood it as a caution-call for new content delivery companies from other countries not conforming to Canadian broadcast law. Much like Uber skirted taxi laws. I'm sure most people here could run with the like examples from there.

As for the CBC site, if you're looking for a pared down version, they provide rss feeds and their site works perfectly fine as a news reader with JS disabled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Echoing what others have said: Netflix is an opportunity to see more independent and even foreign-produced programming than was ever possible under the old broadcast/cable regime.

I would love it if the CBC worked with Netflix to offer some of their superior programming such as international sports including the Olympics here in the states.

<comment> 52-6F-62 CBC also produces a lot of great original content. I echo your sentiment

Is the CBC streaming app available in the US?

Here they offer it all for free* on their own platform and it works great.

*Yes I know we pay for it in taxes and I'm happy to

Edit: Actually the BBC did just what you've suggested but rather than sports or news—which they seem to host themselves— they've licensed some shows to Netflix like the IT Crowd and Still Game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Funny, because if you check out Netflix they have all sorts of non US movies. At least in Europe. I'd say a traditional TV network is far more likely to only have US made content.

<comment> 52-6F-62 The issue they're raising is one that started with the influx of US cable television. Canadian content was getting drowned out by the raw volume of other content. It's one of the main reasons for the controversial requirements by the CRTC of a certain amount of Canadian-made content aired by Canadian broadcasters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> CBC is so well funded and yet fails miserably to provide good content. This is just an attempt for this horrifically inefficient media company to extract even more money from the Canadian people.

</comment><comment><USER11> I read this as, "Netflix doesn't buy CBC shows because people don't like watching them. CBC publicly complains to government to stifle competition."

<comment><USER12> Well, the article claims it was the opposite:

> Ms. Tait's comparison to the Raj came after she had already expressed > frustration with the marketing success of Netflix, noting that "it was very > painful" to read a recent Vanity Fair article about Schitt's Creek that > thanked the streaming service, even though the show originated with and was > supported for years by CBC.

Not that it makes her argument any better.</comment></comment>


SF Tickets for 'Geek Reading with Randall Munroe' on sale now - <AUTHOR> http://action.eff.org/site/Calendar?view=Detail&id=100141

<comment><AUTHOR> For those in/near SF, the tickets for the SF stop are available now. I'll be there, anyone else planning on going?</comment>


Visual Rust 0.1 is out - <AUTHOR> http://blog.piston.rs/2015/05/14/Visual-Rust-0.1/ <comment><USER2> I can't wait to try this. If it can just get to the level of the first F# plugin, I'll be so happy.

If MS picked up interest in Rust that'd be even more amazing. And it'd actually solve their security problems, unlike the more and more convoluted codegen they're doing for C++.

Edit: to be clear, I mean the security problems that their C++ codegen is trying to solve, like stack cookies, ASLR, or the new stuff they were boasting about at build in the ObjC VS2015 codegen video. (Some special function call thing that stores a map of legitimate function call targets and checks before calling.) All that stuff is eliminated by having a sound design in the first place.

<comment><USER3> It is much more likely that the way forward lies in .NET Native than picking up Rust.

According to the C++ code generation talk at Build, their new C2 compiler backend appears to evolve into something like how Apple is using LLVM for.

<comment><USER4> Microsoft has put effort into extending C# for systems programming:

[http://joeduffyblog.com/2013/12/27/csharp-for-systems- progra...](http://joeduffyblog.com/2013/12/27/csharp-for-systems-programming/)

<comment><USER5> Would love this. I know it's not "easy" but would love to have a "delete" keyword.

<comment><USER2> Offering manual memory management would be a huge win. Even if it's just hints. For instance, if a function was pure, then we know the arguments to it can't escape. So suddenly we can safely allocate many things right on the stack. This can be a huge win in high perf scenarios.

I'd also love an arena system, so I could provide a context and allocate objects in it and enforce they never leak. (Say, per request in an HTTP app.) Then the GC could just free that chunk in one go, no matter how much garbage I've loaded in it. I know that generational GC is supposed to handle this in general, but it isn't free, plus fails when some requests take a long time (and thus all their stuff gets promoted).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This thread may also be interested in this PR, which adds MSVC support to the compiler itself: [https://github.com/rust- lang/rust/pull/25350](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/25350)

Windows + Rust has come a long way. It's still not perfect, but it's getting there!

<comment><USER7> Hopefully they do not kill mingw support, since this was their intention some time ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here [https://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/c6075d2f-8864...](https://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/c6075d2f-8864-47c0-8333-92f183d3e640) Your can see features, download and try

</comment><comment><USER9> It's a nice start. I installed the plugin and was able to create a Rust project and run it from Visual Studio Community 2013 without any hassle.

Although, there are a few issues holding it back from being a pretty sweet Rust IDE...

\-- (Major) The indenting for braces isn't handled properly. Try creating a function you'll see what I mean.

\-- Errors in the Error List are too vague.

\-- Would be awesome if the rustc build output was displayed in the Output window.

\-- Syntax highlighting could be greatly improved, it's pretty basic atm.

<comment><USER8> We will be very appreciative if you add your notes in issues of project [https://github.com/PistonDevelopers/VisualRust/issues](https://github.com/PistonDevelopers/VisualRust/issues)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would prefer a cross-platform solution much more... like an IntelliJ IDEA plugin, for example.

<comment><USER11> I think a Visual Studio plugin is a very good start, since the IDE already supports C/C++ and I guess these users are a very important target audience for Rust.

There is also a Rust extension for the IntelliJ platform [0]. It supports some basic IDE features, but the last commit was in February. The Rust extension could fit really good to Jetbrains' new C/C++ IDE CLion.

[0] [https://github.com/Vektah/idea-rust](https://github.com/Vektah/idea-rust)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Does this use the rust ast? Ala llvm?

I keep hoping for a new age where editors can simply use the language itself to define structure.

<comment><USER13> Racer, the autocomplete engine, does. I'm not sure if there's more plugin usage since I haven't looked at the source yet.

Rust has great support for hooking in to the compiler and/or creating drop-in replacements. I'm hoping this pans out well and leads to some excellent tooling! :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What are the features?

</comment><comment><USER7> It is a pitty I do not use visual studio. But anyway, congratulations.

Any other Rust ide suggestions on MSWindows?

</comment><comment><USER15> Is this using the Roslyn project to do intellisese stuff?

<comment><USER16> Roslyn is a C# compiler, so I would assume no.

Nitpicking on that technicality aside, I'm curious about the same thing. Does it offer intellisense or not?

<comment><USER8> Visual Rust has simple autocompletion based on Racer

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Emacs-crowd is usually pretty crazy about supporting anything under the sun. But if this[1] is the best Rust-support the Emacs crowd can conjure up, this Visual thingie here actually looks like a better package for people looking into rust for the first time.

Not bad.

[1] [https://github.com/toshok/rust-mode](https://github.com/toshok/rust-mode)

<comment><USER17> There's also [https://github.com/phildawes/racer](https://github.com/phildawes/racer) (haven't tried it myself, I've yet to get into Rust).

<comment><USER18> I use Racer with Sublime Text 3, it works pretty well!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sadly doesn't work with Visual Studio Code: [https://code.visualstudio.com/](https://code.visualstudio.com/)

<comment><USER19> Because Visual Studio Code isn't like Visual Studio at all. It doesn't support any of the VS extensions (because it's a completely different product).

<comment><USER20> Perhaps they shouldn't have given it virtually the same name then. I can understand that he had an expectation given the naming choice. It also means that this support is Windows only.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I'd like a "license type" setting for GitHub projects - <AUTHOR> http://mir.aculo.us/2012/04/05/why-id-like-a-license-type-setting-for-github-projects/

<comment><USER2> For "GPL type" licenses, it would probably be better to use the term "copyleft" rather than "restrictive" since their copyleft nature is really what's particular about them.

That said, I'd almost prefer a setting that lets you specify the exact license. The problem is, what do you do about dual/multi licensed projects, or projects which contain code that's under a mixture of licenses? I suppose you could argue that it refers to the "dominant" or "main" license, but - to be pedantic - you can't always describe a project as being under one single license.

<comment><AUTHOR> Many people don't know what "copyleft" is, so "restrictive" makes more sense. There are more restrictions.

For complex situations, you can always choose "other". As stated in my article, this isn't a replacement for a project's LICENSE file.

<comment><USER3> Prepare for an uproar if an entity the size of GitHub summarizes the GPL as "restrictive".

The GPL enables freedom for the end user, who's entitled to obtain and modify the source of the programs he uses. It offers some protection against repressive governments and monopolistic companies, a much broader scope than what permissive licenses enable (freedom for the developers).

"Copyleft" is well defined and easy to google. Education doesn't hurt people.

<comment><AUTHOR> So what if there's an uproar? Other license writers could also want to be treated specially.

This is just about a general filter, into "proprietary", "do whatever you want to", and "restrictive" open source licenses; for developers when they choose which projects on GitHub might be a good fit for their needs.

If you read the GPL it puts a lot of restrictions on what you can do as a developer. So do other licenses (for example licenses that allow you to use the source in open source projects but require some form of payment when used for commercial products).

<comment><USER3> > _So what if there's an uproar?_

It would be boneheaded from a PR stand point, and it is insulting towards the GPL.

> _Other license writers could also want to be treated specially._

You seem to have a serious gripe with the GPL. The GPL (its unnamed ancestor, to be pedantic) is the mother of open source licenses. It enables Freedom, with a capital "f" for its users, at the expense of obligations for people who _distribute binaries_. Liberal licenses turn the situation around.

Labeling the GPL, but not liberal licenses as restrictive is heavily biased, and simply does not reflect reality (since liberal licenses put implicit restrictions on binaries recipients).

I speak as a license author, BTW: <https://github.com/pygy/The-Romantic-WTF- Public-License>

<comment><USER4> I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can with the source?

Restrictive isn't hate. It's a description. GPL licensed code is useless code to people who develop for top tier gaming platforms other than the PC.

<comment><USER3> _> I'd love to release source, and USE gpl software, and even make a unsigned binary available that if you could hack your own hardware to run, you could. But even if I did, the GPL would prevent me from releasing said software using GPLed libraries, as the actual binary they get has to be trivially copyable. That's crap. That's restrictive. Why can't I supply you with an alternative binary on a website just like I can with the source?_

I'm afraid I don't understand your point... You can distribute GPLed software as binaries, but you must provide the source on request.

Edit: Perhaps you mean that you want to release your source code under another license?

 _> Restrictive isn't hate. It's a description._

My point is that all licenses are restrictive in a way or another.

Even WTF-type licenses or the public domain have implicit restrictions.

Singling out the GPL as restrictive is insulting, because its restrictions are designed to enable the freedom for people to check the source code for vulnerabilities or user hostile features (how many backdoors for the US govt. are there in Windows?).

 _> GPL licensed code is useless code to people who develop for top tier gaming platforms other than the PC._

... because of restrictions imposed by the SDK user agreement.

<comment><USER4> Section 6 of GPLv2 says:

> Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), > the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to > copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and > conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' > exercise of the rights granted herein.

This is the issue: You HAVE to put Fairplay on the programs (aka, drm, aka, Further Restrictions).

It is not Apple's licensing agreement, but instead the uniform Fairplay system on the device.

This is the same issue on Nintendo, Sony, and Xbox (although some platforms have source provided libraries which likely would have to be GPLed as well, and you can't under NDAs, the uniform DRM makes GPL2 incompatable with those platforms).

GPL3 has changed this area, which I take to be admission of the flaw there. Then again, GPL 3 added a ton of stuff people disliked as well, so it's adoption is less than full.

You can meander back and forth that many licenses are restrictive or not, but the GPL is designed to force certain actions from users of the code. That's fine that they release their code that way, but the fact they're trying to do more then get attribution and not get sued with the license, or even get fixes back for their own parts of the code, means people should be warned about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> More annoying than people that choose licenses in an uneducated fashion, are people that do not choose a license at all. Under the Bern Convention, your work is copyrighted by default. If you don't add a license, I cannot use it. Period.

At the very least, it would be nice if Github could provide a warning to that effect. Github is doing a wonderful job of growing the open source movement from an infrastructure angle. I would love to see them also grow the movement from a community/education angle as well.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why on earth would the GPL ruin your day? What's with all the fear mongering?

The only practical difference is you're forced to put up your patches somewhere… which you've probably already done when you hit 'fork' on Github.

<comment><USER7> I can't include code under GPL in my own code without changing my own code to GPL. That's why it ruins my day.

<comment><USER6> 1\. This only kicks in if you're distributing the program. If you're building a web service, you're good to go. It's only an issue if you're using the Affero GPL.

2\. You're using _free code off the internet_. If you don't like the license terms, don't use it. It's within the author's prerogative to set his or her own license to his or her own code.

(The most you can do is send them a politely worded email on how you want to use their code without being obliged to the virality clause - I imagine a lot of people would be okay with moving down to the LGPL at least. If not… deal with it.)

<comment><USER7> "You are using free code". It's not free. The cost for this "free" code is that I apply the same license to my own code.

Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license.

And it's simply very disappointing when I see that someone has already solved a problem I'm struggling with, and advertises their "free" solution, that then turns out to be not free for me.

<comment><USER6> >Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license.

I've learned through much harsher experiences than the one you describe that life is unfair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Don't you just hate it when you find some great piece of code on GitHub and > then you realize that somewhere at the end of the README the frightful > acronym GPL is ruining your good mood?

Yes. But what I 'hate' even more is not finding _any_ license info. Adding this would probably help in that area as well.

<comment><USER9> This happened to me yesterday, and it was the only type of code of it's ilk I could find. Real shame, probably going to have to write my own version.

<comment><USER10> Have you considered emailing the author?

I know that personally, I've relicensed code to be more permissive on request. Of course, you have to ask, but sending an email might be less work than writing your own version.

<comment><USER11> Does it make you more vulnerable to law suits if the author says no and you decide to code/acquire something similar?

<comment><USER10> Honestly, I don't know. I'd suppose it depends more on the sort of thing we're talking about than anything. If it's something like "Obtvse", or a fully formed system and you're copying it outwardly, then probably yes.

If it's a ilbrary that fetches RSS feeds as part of a larger system, I'm guessing no.

Of course, it also depends significantly on the author. If it's a public git repository, one assumes that it's something people wish to be forked.

Though I suppose an interesting experiment would be to publicly post closed source code with a closed source license attached as honeypots and sue everyone that forks / modifies your code base.

<comment><USER12> Yes, however, GitHub's Terms of Service section F.1. ([http://help.github.com/terms-of- service/#f_copyright_and_con...](http://help.github.com/terms-of- service/#f_copyright_and_content_ownership)) specifies "By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories."

I suppose you could write a license that allows others to view and copy your code, but not make any modifications, as fork doesn't seem to be defined to include modification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think having a hard-coded drop down for actual licenses is a good idea, because then we can do the searching and filtering you suggest.

I don't like grouping them into 'types'. I think that's too much of a value judgement. Any enterprise's legal department is going to approve or disapprove of specific licenses, so that's what developers like me will be looking for.

Potential issues: * Modified licenses (eg: JSLint's MIT + "do no evil" clause)

<comment><AUTHOR> A list of every type if license can't work, because it needs to be constantly updated and people may want to write their own, etc.

That's why the general type makes much more sense for a quick glimpse if some code is _probably_ suitable license-wise for your project.

<comment><USER14> You're against the GPL, but you're okay with people writing their own new licenses?

<comment><USER15> If one feels that the license is flawed, then why not? It's possible to not like the viral clauses for various reasons, such as incompatibility with other viral licenses, but feel there is some issue, like patents, that are not well- covered under the BSD license, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was actually rather surprised when switching from Google Code to Github that they didn't have a license option. Especially if you need code for a business licenses are pretty crucial.

I don't like this idea however. It's too general. I would make the license an input field with autosuggest with 10 or so of the most popular licenses (like Google Code). If you have something funky you can still enter it.

<comment><USER14> The FSF has a pretty decent list of licenses -- [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license- list.html#SoftwareLicens...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license- list.html#SoftwareLicenses)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> GitHub already parses README files of various formats. I wonder how hard it would be to just parse a LICENSE/COPYRIGHT file if it's available. This would make sure the licenses are distributed with the code. If the license file couldn't be parsed, a "Custom License" link to the corresponding license file could be a good general fallback too.

<comment><USER18> GitHub detects the presence of README files by file name. It'd be pretty easy to do that for LICENSE files too of course. Look for LICENSE, MIT-LICENSE, etc.

The trick is actually identifying what type of license it is.

Pop quiz: What license is this?

<https://github.com/sinatra/sinatra/blob/master/LICENSE>

This problem would be perfect for a tiny ruby script like Linguist: <https://github.com/github/linguist>. Just something simple that's given some filenames and contents that can return the license type.

It'd also be nice to handle non software licenses, such as creative commons. I'm not sure what the convention is for specifying that in Git repositories, however.

<comment><USER19> That's the MIT license.

<comment><USER20> MIT-X11 license to be precise; MIT has spawned a number of licenses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If I could only spend all my karma on upvotes for this, I would.

I regularly look at various projects that I can use. And the _first thing_ I check is whether the license is MIT/BSD/Apache/EPL. If it's GPL I won't even look at it, if it's LGPL I _might_ consider it, but it would have to bring huge benefits. If there is no license, I have to contact the author and ask him to include one.

I'd love to be able to just set a filter "never show me any projects which do not have a license in my preferred set".

Please note that I am not editorializing here, nor am I discussing any values. This post is about facts and about what would make my life easier.

</comment><comment><USER22> tl;dr: the author dislikes the copyleft nature of the GPL, and shoehorns his dislike into what could be a useful feature request.

</comment><comment><USER23> And when the drop-down disagrees with the COPYING or LICENSE file...?

<comment><AUTHOR> The LICENSE or COPYING file in the repository wins, obviously. Also, not everyone would set the setting. But it's a start.

<comment><USER23> Just seems like a source of potentially expensive misunderstandings.

<comment><USER24> Sourceforge and Google Code have had these license options available to show on project pages forever. I think it'll be fine.

<comment><USER23> Fair enough!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've been thinking about this for a while, because I write about several open source projects a week and like to mention the license in my articles. It's often hard to find the license: it might be in the readme, a license file, or in a boilerplate comment at the top of a source file.

Sometimes a license file is included, but the name of the license is not, so I have to try searching for fragments of the text to figure out what license it actually is (I have quite a few memorised now).

It's possible GitHub could solve this by interpreting files intended for packaging systems like package.json. For example, I occasionally find authors of Node modules actually include a 'licenses' property in their package.json but don't mention the license anywhere else.

</comment><comment><USER26> For that matter, perhaps Github could just treat the LICENSE file like magic the same way it does README. It would have the added benefit of convincing me to add a LICENSE like it did for README.

</comment><comment><USER27> How about a tool that gets authorization from your github account and let's you automatically upload LICENSE files to your project. The particular license is based on user input, similar to [1]. Does something like this exist?

[1]. <http://creativecommons.org/choose/>

*edit - this way it could just be an open source project instead of waiting for github to implement it.

</comment><comment><USER28> The problem is: there are Open Source projects that are a compilation of works of different licenses that are sometimes more permissive in one term but less in another one (see for example the table on <http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility> to see what kinds of problems can occur).

How would you solve this problem?

</comment><comment><USER29> I started a project on GH with a starter python implementation:

<https://github.com/tantalor/detect-license>

Looking for contributors to add more implementations (JavaScript, Ruby, etc), examples license files, and tests.

</comment><comment><USER30> Google code has a license type setting long ago. Github should get one too. It definitely helps everybody, no matter you are a GPL hater or lover.

</comment><comment><USER31> I would love this, but there are at least a thousand open source licenses. Even if you limit it to licenses that have at least 1% adoption rates, you still have at least 40 (there are more, i just stopped counting).

As such, this would be a confusing dropdown. A free form text field with autocomplete (and synonyms, so if you typed "general public license", it would still autocomplete GPL.

<comment><AUTHOR> The drop down has 4 entries. Please read the article again. :)

<comment><USER31> Even in that case, he's trying to classify 1000+ open source licenses into 4 categories, which doesn't really work out well without a dictator.

People have different views on what "permissive" is. Even if you told people what they should choose for each license, they will still choose what their ideology says is right about the license.

IE plenty of people will choose "permissive" for GPL.

I've spent an inordinate amount of time classifying licenses into ~4 categories for compliance at Google, so i know where this path leads :) In my case, I can end discussions by fiat and say "this is how it's going to be". When you have 1000+ different project owners who each get to make their own decision, the field will become useless because you won't be able to tell what it really means.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's actually really simple:

"Permissive": anything that is generally MIT/BSD/WTF/Apache 2.0

"Restrictive": anything that is GPL or requires you to pay for or share all sources

Given that the vast majority of software use only one of a handful of licenses, I think that's a non-issue (tho there may be edge cases, I agree with that). For stuff that is not categorized, people can just put in "other".

(Do you have a list of those classifications btw, that would be useful.)

In general, a setting like this would likely raise awareness of people sharing code that they should choose a license in the first place. Far too many useful pieces of code on GitHub don't come with a license or copyright statement at all.

<comment><USER31> Okay, so let's start simple: Where does LGPL fit into these two? (LGPL is in the top 5 licenses, so it's important)

So, vast majority depends on how you look at it.

If you are talking about organized software projects, yes, the vast majority use about 20 licenses (I cut off the count at 90%)

If you are talking about code that is out there and has a license marking, "Other" is the #3 category, and we classify over 1000 licenses. (I hand check a lot of these, and only about 1% are classification errors, not really licensed, or munged).

So as you can see, the story is not great, particularly for people who want to just take pieces of code.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely and completely agree that things should be marked with licenses and give people some idea of what they can do. I'm just saying doing it usefully is not as simple as giving people 2-4 categories and saying "have at it!"

As for the categories we have, our categories are based on what would be required if the source is used in a product shipping outside of Google. The categories have been mentioned publicly before, so i'll mention that they are "notice", "reciprocal", "restricted", and "use by exception only" (IE you can only use it if you talk to us first)

<comment><USER2> Right, and likewise for the MPL, which is a sort of copyleft license, but is generally considered "weak copyleft" unlike the GPL, which is "strong copyleft."[1]

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyle...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Strong_and_weak_copyleft)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> so many different versions of free. let's just have two licenses free and non- free.

</comment><comment><USER33> I like this idea.

</comment><comment><USER34> The unnecessary editorializing is annoying. The point, which I agree with, could have been made without the self-centered snipes at licenses you happen to dislike.

<comment><USER22> I'm usually in favour of modified BSD or a similar permissive license; but whenever I read someone who is bitching about the GPL because it is too restrictive (i.e. it forces them to give back as they were given,) I consider only adhering to the GPL in the future.

<comment><USER35> I don't know anyone who complains about GPL forcing them to give back.

I know many people who cannot touch GPL3 code because of corporate legal departments' fears (especially with regard to patent clauses) and the absence of test cases, but who frequently contribute back to BSD/Apache/MIT/etc- licensed projects.

<comment><USER4> Or who code for the Xbox, Sony, Apple or Nintendo platforms, where you can't turn off the DRM on your binary, so can't use GPLed code in your project even if you release the entire project as source/art/whatever.

<comment><USER22> Copyleft tries to discourage closed platforms. As such, you wouldn't expect Copyleft-ists to support those platforms by making developing for them easier/cheaper.

They give you the carrot of free code; the stick is the viral nature of the license. Expecting to reap the fruit without giving anything is best left to spoiled brats, not clear thinking developers.

In fact, the FSF proudly claim that by keeping some libraries GPLed, instead of LGPLed, they caused some software that used those libraries become FOSS, where it wouldn't be released as such had those libraries been licensed under a more permissive license.

PS You can not distribute GPLed software for Nintendo's platforms not just because it would go against the GPL, but also because it would also go against Nintendo's SDK license, which prohibits use of FOSS with their code. See: [http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violat...](http://sev- notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violations.html)

<comment><USER4> You can use most libraries on Nintendo, just not the GPL, because you have to release source code that is nintendo IP.

I'm happy you've decided I'm a spoiled brat when I give back fixes, libraries and presentations all the time, and this includes several Linux kernel drivers.

Either way, the GPL is _intentionally_ restrictive, in part to thwart these platforms you do not like, so perhaps we should label it so to be forthright and honest with developers so they don't find out thousands of dollars later in some GPL violation suit? Perhaps "Restrictive to persuade others to do software our way"? Or just "Restrictive"?

Software was better before source was hidden away. While the LGPL has gone far (and I contend the Linux kernel is far closer to the LGPL than pure GPL), the GPL is still a bit too idealistic to fit the practical nature of some projects.

<comment><USER22> I've stated earlier that I'm more of a fan of the BSD license than of the GPL.

But no matter what philanthropic tasks you or I may have done, in software or otherwise, I don't feel as if others should make their code available to us under my preferred license.

Therefore, unlike some commenters here, I don't bitch when I can't use a piece of code due to its license, or go on tirades about how people release their own work under a license not to my liking, even if I think they are choosing the wrong license.

<comment><USER4> I'm happy all of this is your opinion, but I haven't done any of those things

I just say "restrictive" is a fair description of the Apple appstore, Sony's Approval process of the PS3 game catelog, and the GPL, and labeling it as such is a worthwhile service vs permissive licences that almost everyone can use the code of.

For a service such as github, which is about social coding, it's okay to point out some people being idealistic and somewhat slightly less inclined to share.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Virgin Media goes offline for thousands - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52448607 <comment><USER2> For me, it seemed to keep going offline around :15-:20 every hour or so.

I also heard that it was also affecting a larger portion of Liberty Global ISPs, and not just Virgin Media.

</comment><comment><USER3> I rely on 4g for my internet and mine was totally down yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon until about midnight. SMS and calls weren't going through either. Other people in my neighbourhood also experienced issues with both Virgin Media and 4g.

The article doesn't seem to say where was affected, but does say it was fixed Tuesday morning, which is not what I experienced.

Local news is reporting that the outage was due to a cable being accidentally cut: [https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2020/04/28/shropshire- in...](https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2020/04/28/shropshire-internet- services-down-after-cable-accidentally-cut-in-telford/)

<comment><USER2> That was an unrelated localised issue. There's no details on the evening's Libertal Global issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Happened to me last night while playing a game on boardgamearena. Funnily enough the other people on the game (who weren't with virgin) also got disconnected. Added to the general confusion. I guess the website must be using virgin media as an isp as well. I was losing anyway.</comment>


Ask HN: Can't stay at a company for more than an year. - <AUTHOR>

The job gets bored, i quit find a new, same from past 3 years! Help me. <comment><USER2> You have to start analyzing, what is it that you really want out of your career? Mastery of a development stack? Creating a start-up company? Project Manager? Set a goal, start with the end in mind and from there you can dedicate your steps towards that.

When you keep jumping jobs, it means you haven't figured out what you want to dedicate yourself to because you easily get distracted by 'new and interesting' things. Truthfully, when anyone is really passionate about their job, they never see it as 'work', they naturally tend to stick to it for the next 3 or more years of their life - and those people are the ones who tend to naturally create "interesting" things (ex: 10gen, 37signals, Redis, NodeJS etc.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the advice! I'm confident about my coding skills and have done few interesting freesoftwares that people have appreciated, but not really like those you have mentioned, the thing is I don't feel people whom I work with are up to the mark and that make me feel low and all people target me and wait to bring me down at times....this makes me feel sick!

I'm capable of being all those which you have said, but still not sure which :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why not go freelance? Or - a bit better - take medium-term contracts? That way you get to dive into things long enough to enjoy them, learn something new and (just as importantly, IMO) contribute something meaningful to the company you're at, then you move on as part of the agreed plan.

While that is effectively what you've been doing for the past three years, it'll come with a different mindset that might mean you're happier. (I'm assuming "help me" means you're not happy). For me, that's certainly one factor in why I prefer being an independent dev - but at the same time, I also get to enjoy working on good projects with great people for a run of time.

(Of course, being independent is for everyone, and has downsides, too)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'm not happy, first few days would be a good feeling and later on....doh! As a hooby I do work on freesoftware and contribute a lot via github. Being independent is indeed the best thing to happen, but as you said it has it's own downside.

<comment><USER3> Well, if it helps you work out if being freelance is right for you, please accept a copy of <https://leanpub.com/freelancedeveloperbook> for free.

Use the coupon MERRYCHRISTMAS at the checkout to get it for $0.

(The coupon runs out after five uses, in case other HNers get there before you.)

<comment><USER3> Three uses gone already - is one of them, you @ init0 ? If not, hit me up directly and I'll email you a code - details in my profile

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a ton! "Thank you for sending the gift with Leanpub! We have sent an email to the lucky recipient of your gift. You can see your gift on the Gifts tab." Still waiting for the mail.

Edit : Thanks for the Christmas gift! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've changed jobs 4 times this year, same shit. Also, a new grad.

I learn fucking fast, so after some months in the job I know everything and it gets fucking boring and I start to get depressed :-(

<comment><AUTHOR> You their sir, I see me in you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you continue this trend, you are going to look like a ticking bomb to employers. They will assume you will leave within a year, and thus not hire you. Of course, unless you are a development god.

<comment><USER6> I expect to see people change jobs often early in their careers. But once they've been in the business for a few years, changing jobs or projects that often is a bad sign. It's not just the fear that they'll leave quickly, but it's a sign that they possibly can't get along with anyone or aren't competent. It also means that they've never been on a project long enough to experience the results of their decisions on architecture, coding, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> How does one even survive if it gets very boring to do what you have been doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> May be you are looking for something that would challenge your skills.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes! Don't like to work on the same $hit for long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Keep exploring new jobs. Or do something you actually enjoy.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do have a technical blog where I blog about code and stuff I really enjoy, but at work it's so freaking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What are you into ? What kind of gig did you do ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Software Development.</comment></comment>


What Gripes about Apple tell us about Computational Literacy - <AUTHOR> http://www.bogost.com/blog/flash_is_not_a_right.shtml

<comment><USER2> _I wonder if it doesn't amount to an indictment of the state of computational literacy._

It doesn't. Developer outrage over this policy has nothing to do with having to learn a new language and everything to do with imposing artificial restrictions on the development process.

If anything, developer outrage is a sign that developers value creative solutions to programming problems.

</comment><comment><USER3> While there probably are some proportion of programmers that program in flash want to stay in flash because they don't want to try new things, sometimes, it's a more practical matter.

Hell no I don't want to maintain 4 code bases for each of the iphone, android, palm, and blackberry platforms, especially if my app doesn't depend on anything special that one platform provides.

<comment><USER4> Two distinct responses, so two separate replies. First, the same old argument that has nothing to do with the OP:

> especially if my app doesn't depend on anything special that one platform > provides.

Why is it in Apple's best interests for your app to run on iPhone? What competitive advantage do they lose if your app--which doesn't depend on anything special--runs on android, palm, and blackberry but not on iphone?

<comment><USER5> _What competitive advantage do they lose if your app--which doesn't depend on anything special--runs on android, palm, and blackberry but not on iphone?_

Let's look at Macs instead. Walk into any large company, which probably spends millions of dollars a year on computers (and IT support). No Macs. Why?

(Because their half-assed IE 6-only app doesn't run on Macs. Hence, they waste millions of dollars a year supporting Windows XP.)

Similarly, why do the corpo-drones all have Blackberries instead of iPhones? Not because the Blackberry has an awesome UI or is cheaper -- because the app they need is Blackberry-only.

<comment><USER6> _Let's look at Macs instead. Walk into any large company, which probably spends millions of dollars a year on computers (and IT support). No Macs. Why?_

Because most IT staffs are not savvy enough to support both PCs and Macs on a corporate network. IME, IT is often barely competent enough to support PCs.[1]

[1] Design shops are the exception to this rule, since Macs tend to be popular with creative types

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a terrible blog post, because it makes specific claims about why developers are complaining about Apple's actions and whether they are justified in doing so, which are torn to shreds quite lucidly in the comments, at which point the author dismisses the criticisms by saying they miss the point, he was really just ranting about computational literacy.

So, according to the author, he's really saying "Apple's actions, right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, do perhaps call to mind the matter of computational literacy, and that sometimes people don't appreciate that different languages are adapted for different purposes." If you read any other meaning into the article, which I do even from the title, you are apparently attacking a straw man.

I don't why it annoys me so much when someone abdicates their intellectual responsibility, but it does.

<comment><AUTHOR> I read into it mainly that _one reason_ some developers are complaining about Apple's actions is that they don't get the idea of working on different platforms, etc., but have an "I do Flash and doing Flash is my _right_!" sort of view. Which seems right to me, even though there are clearly other reasons to dislike Apple's actions as well (like the antitrust concerns, and reduction in language experimentation).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Your statements are flawed. Yes we program on some platforms in certain languages because we are forced to do so (due to the inability of certain languages to operate within those bounds). However, if we restrict capable languages from platforms in which they would thrive, we are effectively blocking progress.

There was a time that assembler was the best language. If we restricted platforms to only asm, C would never exist. Where do you think computing would be today if Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson had shared your views and refused to challenge the de-facto standard of a platform?

</comment><comment><USER9> An iPad is sure to make your children computationally literate.

</comment><comment><USER10> I am sorry to comment harshly but this is most WTF article which i have ever read!

To quote the Author """ Specifically, a large number of developers seem to think that they have the right to make software for the iPhone (or for anything else) in Flash, or in another high-level environment of their choosing. Literally, the right, not just the convenience or the opportunity. And many of them are quite churlish about the matter """

I mean come on! Some one write a translator which converts code from one language to another! And stupid tactics are being used by Apple to stop it!

Does this person does not know about the Turing Completeness of programming languages??? It does not matter which programming language you use as long as it is Turing complete!

The article goes on to make dubious arguments about computational creativity on different platforms which make totally no sense!

<comment><AUTHOR> Turing-completeness of programming languages is pretty irrelevant: different languages make some kinds of things easier or harder, support some idioms and discourage others, tend towards certain kinds of programming, etc. That's why programming in Haskell, Ruby, C, and asm are not all identical in practice, even though in theory any program written in one _could_ be written in any other. And yes, they do support different kinds of computational creativity.

<comment><USER10> Yeah i know they are different but when one has created a bridge between two languages, disallowing it for some non nonsensical reasons of "computational creativity" seems utterly stupid to me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Programming language to be used is determined by the underlying problem to be solved and not the device interface (touch, keyboard or a Mars rover!). If some app is more suited to be written in an FP language that choice is independent of device that app is being run on as long as the machine code is Turing complete!</comment>


Things Real People Don't Say About Advertising - <AUTHOR> http://tpdsaa.tumblr.com/ <comment><USER2> You could just as easily make a blog "Things Real People Don't Say About Your App"

"I like the functionality, but it doesn't follow best practices."

or "Things Real People Don't Say About Science"

"These findings are compelling, but I'd like to see some corroborating studies in peer reviewed journals".

Any consumer facing industry is going to have a world of jargon that is inaccessible or ridiculous to the layperson. And similarly, these industries can support those who want to participate but don't have anything to add.

I don't see this as a jab at advertsising (although, it very well may have been intended as such) I see it as a jab at wannabes.

If you still don't believe me, try reading tech job postings...

[edit: typo]

<comment><USER3> Actually, I like the idea for "Things Real People Don't Say About Your App":

"Clearly this app is unusable because it doesn't follow HIG"

"This minimum viable product just isn't minimal enough"

"This site works with just me on it, but I don't think it will scale to millions of users"

<comment><USER4> "I love the way the columns are too narrow for the text"

"No it's OK, do something irrelevant - I'm happy to wait"

"Sure, I'd love to join your community so I can be notified of updates and future releases - I don't get much email and would love to hear from you."

"I really enjoy the way all your driver downloads have random numbers for filenames, HP"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. But I disagree with a number of them.

> I love the copy, but it feels off brand ...

I remember the first time I saw a McPizza ad. It talked about how if you didn't like one kind, then you could get a different one. And it felt really strange.

Later I figured it out. Until then, McDonald's ads had always maintained the premise that everyone likes everything they sell.

> If only this solution was more scalable...

I am constantly annoyed at the idea that "scalable" is a meaningless word. Nonsense, it is a precise, well-defined, and useful term. True, it does get misused by marketing people. But the fact is that anyone who is purchasing a large system of _any_ sort, if they know what they're doing, will have some concern for scalability.

> Finally, a place for me to share MY story!

Isn't this a huge reason for people going to blogging platforms?

On the other hand:

> This website's music is great - turn it up!

Definitely. No one has ever said that, ever, in the history of the web.

<comment><USER6> > Isn't this a huge reason for people going to blogging platforms?

Yes, but that's not what it's lampooning. TONS of ads and websites invite people to "share their story" or try to take advantage of user generated content. It's a cheesy cop out. No one wants to share their Doritos story on the Doritos website.

<comment><USER7> Correction: You wish no one wanted to share their Doritos story on the Doritos website. The sad part is that many times people do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think that advertisers _want_ consumers to consciously think these things.

Relevant:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYEf8XZKlUU>

<comment><USER9> I agree with OP, here. This site had the guys at my agency rolling, but it's so funny because it's true. No one in my office thinks real people talk like this.

We know that when my aunt Kay visits a website and thinks it feels _cheap_ or _just doesn't hang together_ or _seems like it's not safe to give my credit card to_ ; it's because they used tired stock photography and their web copy is in three different voices, or that their copy leading and margins are inconsistent, or that they have no design language or brand focus.

Real people don't pick it apart like that because they don't care, don't have the talent to do so, won't acquire the skill to do so or a mix of all three. However, WE do think like this. And the fact that most people don't think like this is why all six of us still have jobs after five years.

Also relevant: [http://wademeredith.com/2010/12/your-customers-care-about- de...](http://wademeredith.com/2010/12/your-customers-care-about-design-even- if-they-dont/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the real world, _people hate advertising_.

This is why as an app developer I am deeply sceptical about Google's model. Okay, so the consumer saves a buck, but then you chip away at their goodwill every time you show an ad. And note, when you're showing an ad, to make it effective you have to make it intrusive, you either have to lock them out of the free functionality for a while or you need to make it eye-catching.

I don't know anyone that said "I'm so glad Google bought Youtube and plastered ads all over the videos".

 _People hate advertising_ so much they will go out of their way to avoid it.

In economic terms, as an app developer the way I see it is that free+ads is really just burning up my user's good will to enrich Google. The more I annoy my customers like this, the less likely they are to recommend my app. To the extent that it is less than a zero-sum game... it's not just an even 50:50 trade-off between for pay and ad-supported.

<comment><USER11> The right kind of advertising is pretty awesome, because it provides value for me. Right now, Stack Overflow and Amazon have the best ads out there, IMO. SO took a while to get decent ads too.

I watched some stuff on Hulu the other day. Fancy cars, teeth whitening commercials, drugs I don't ever anticipate using, and other _useless stuff to me_ was marketed at me. That's just not a good ad model I think. I would love to see some really new and interesting products - not Another Car|Soda|Beer commercial.

<comment><USER12> TechCrunch had a good guest article arguing that Hulu's poor targeting is intentional: <http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/08/hulu-opec/> Hulu has enough information on its users to target ads very narrowly, but since it's run by a conglomerate of media companies, it intentionally does not do this in order to avoid competing with traditional (untargeted but highly profitable) television advertising.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a mix of half-amusing misconceptions -- "Of course I'll spend eight minutes of my life watching your branded content" -- and details that advertisers should care about -- "I love the copy, but it feels off brand". Most of the pictures fall into the latter, and are very "inside baseball". Why would you expect "real people" to talk like that, or chastise advertisers for doing so? People who buy from Amazon don't care how many servers Amazon has allocated to recommend products to them, but Amazon engineers certainly care. People searching Google don't care about the inner workings of how MapReduce distributes the work over multiple servers.

This website feels like a bunch of immature complaints and useless mockery.

<comment><USER14> I think you're taking it way too seriously. The author clearly has a good grasp of advertising and why the statements being lampooned are necessary. Humor doesn't have to be derisive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Maybe not, but those things may still wield pretty heavy influence. Advertising is a strange world of subconscious desires and difficult-to- rationalize preferences (colors and shapes of buttons, for example).

<comment><USER16> The captions are hyperbolic and quite funny, but perhaps funnier is the fact that our unconscious brains do have these kinds of reactions (though muted, of course).

From an article I read the other day:

"The cognitive revolution of the past thirty years provides a different perspective on our lives, one that emphasizes the relative importance of emotion over pure reason, social connections over individual choice, moral intuition over abstract logic, perceptiveness over I.Q."

\- [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/17/110117fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/17/110117fa_fact_brooks?currentPage=all)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The best ones work because they use great stock photography where the shots convey a clear message: <http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lexcpscLrw1qziezc.jpg>

<comment><USER18> <http://i.imgur.com/6BSYe.jpg>

;)

<comment><USER19> Even better: [http://tpdsaa.tumblr.com/post/2731266235/submitted-by- adamle...](http://tpdsaa.tumblr.com/post/2731266235/submitted-by-adamlefever)

That silly call center woman that's on millions of websites.

<comment><USER2> <http://www.headsethotties.com/>

<comment><USER20> I love the 17 star 'Perceived Helpfulness' scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Marketing people say the darndest things.

It reminds me to this youtube video somebody posted recently on Twitter: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRDhx8Lo37E> It's totally viral!

No, I'm not related to the video or whoever made it.

</comment><comment><USER22> In case you're wondering -- yes, the non-real people in the ad world say this shit -- all. the. time. And without irony.

</comment><comment><USER23> "This website's music is great, turn it up!" - LMAO!

The funniest part is that most of this stuff actually works: on message copy, brand structure (<http://bit.ly/fmyD7T>), the word "solution" has sold hardware for 3 decades, buzzwords like "social currency" causing enough confusion to get your attention, focusing on intent increasing conversions/revenue, font size increasing conversions, branded apps (REI ski report, Oakley surf report), website users love introspection, stock photos increasing conversion, focusing on benefits (value prop).

</comment><comment><USER24> <http://tpdsaa.tumblr.com/post/2724755436/submitted-by-tomheg>

By far the best.

</comment><comment><USER25> If anyone wants to see an incredible look into how Sigmund Freud's research was turned around to manipulate people into consuming more, then Adam Curtis' excellent The Century of The Self is available to watch here: <http://thoughtmaybe.com/video/the-century-of-the-self>

If you've never seen an Adam Curtis documentary before, this is a good one to start with. His style and delivery is unique among documentary filmmakers and is definitely worth a watch.

<comment><USER26> You can also buy Edward Bernays books Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion for a very fair price on Amazon, though Propaganda at least isn't so great.

<comment><USER27> Also, a book written by Vance Packard at the height of 1950s advertising called "The Hidden Persuaders", if you can find a copy. All about 'motivational research' and how subconscious cues can be used to sell and persuade. Very interesting -- for example, how some customers liked extremely- strong-smelling soap because it provided them with the same type of 'defense' in a socially-accepted way that B.O. did.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> In a similar vein: <http://businessguysonbusinesstrips.com/>

</comment><comment><USER29> > I wonder if my user experience is living up to their intentions

I think this a lot, actually.

> Hooray, we fall into the correct segment

If segment means target demographic, then I think this a lot too.

<comment><USER30> > I think this a lot, actually.

By "real people" they mean "people who don't read HN".

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I don't think the post was intended to say that advertisers actually think that people talk or even think this way, I think the post was to point out that often, marketers will have a certain perspective on their product and try to force that perspective onto its users. The reality is, users don't care about your perspective. They only care whether or not the product meets their needs.

<comment><USER7> Ha! If that was the case, 95% of products in industrialized countries wouldn't exist.

Good advertising and branding works -- they generate demand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I thought the music on pinkberry's website was pretty cool: <http://www.pinkberry.com/>

</comment><comment><USER33> Let's just go ahead and coin the term "lol ads".

<comment><USER34> Ad fail.

In all seriousness though, humor used well for the right type of product is extremely effective. I can no longer find the source, but I read somewhere that the Old Spice Body Wash sales went up close to 100% when the Old Spice Guy commercials were running. My wife even bought some for me the next she went shopping after she saw the ad. She said it was just to reward them for the ad itself, then she decided she liked how it smelled and kept buying it for me, all because the ad was funny.

<comment><USER11> Old Spice Guy was a pretty striking ad series. I don't know that it _resonated_ with me, but it sure is memorable!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is by the same guy as Never Said About Restaurant Websites: <http://neversaidaboutrestaurantwebsites.tumblr.com/>

</comment><comment><USER36> On a similar note: [http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with- sala...](http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/)

"Women Laughing Alone With Salad"

</comment><comment><USER37> The address <http://tpdsaa.tumblr.com/> makes me think the blog was originally missing the baiting 'Real' adjective.

</comment><comment><USER38> The use of common stock photography just makes it even better lol

</comment><comment><USER39> where's the call to action?! I can't find the fucking call to action!

</comment><comment><USER26> They wouldn't say it those terms, but they might very well think it or say it in other terms. You wouldn't say, "Holy shit! This call to action button is better" but you might want to click it more.</comment>


Saying "so long" to Google Helpouts - <AUTHOR> https://helpouts.google.com/

<comment><USER2> Sorry to see Helpouts go. For all Helpout providers that see their business ended by this decision: we at 24sessions.com are happy to welcome you to our platform. #heretostay</comment>


Huawei on NSA: If foreign spies attacked a US firm, there'd be "outrage" - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/huawei-on-nsa-if-foreign-spies-attacked-a-us-firm-thered-be-outrage/

<comment><USER2> Except this happened as recently as 2009, when 'Operation Aurora' targeted several US companies out of China.

<comment> line-zero Yes. As long as "they" do things that are wrong, it's okay for us to do them.</comment></comment>