Getting ownership in a company co-founded by NON Immigrants + US Citizens - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
I am currently on F1 Student Visa working in a small startup company . We are group of 4 ppl in this startup where 2 are on F1, one is having greencard, other is a US Citizen. We are planning to start a company. Can anyone help me in getting answers to the following questions
- Whether 2 ppl who r on F1 can get H1b sponsered with the new company they co founding - Can they get ownership or Equity in the company. - Would they be allowed to work in the new company. - How should the company get incoporated as a C-Corp or S-Corp
It would really be of  great help.
Thanks <comment><USER2> Yes it is definitely possible, but not easy, since the INS is as incompetent as they get. However, the brief overview that you have given does not contain all the details required. First of all, have you graduated yet? If yes, then it seems that you should be able to use your OPT until then, and can continue to work on the startup. However, on OPT you cannot receive ownership of any company stock and as such have to be excluded. You are free to work, but not free to own. The company can pay you some salary, provided it has the ability to do that. The rules could be murky here, but as far I understand it, my lawyer expressly stated that I should not own any shares before obtaining my visa. (Although my visa category was an E2 investment visa, which is a different designation)

For your company to sponsor you for an H1 visa, it needs to be able to show that it has considerable financial resources (either revenue, or investors). So if in a year from you have a LOI from an investor or revenue, you can show that to the INS for credibility.

As far as the incorporation goes, I think initially its best to have it as a partnership LLC, since it is pretty flexible and gives you enough wriggle room since LLC's are often open-ended and can be structured in a variety of different ways. Once you go big, have your H1B you can think of shifting towards another incorporation model, as most investors would want you to anyways.

IF you have not graduated, then best advice: take a min number of credits while in school and work on the startup till you get decent sized enough that you can attract funding or have enough revenue to get an H1B or an E2 investor visa.

Hope that helps. I know how hard these immigration issues are to wrap ones head around, so let me know if you have any more questions. I have been through it.

There is also a great blog post written by one of the principals at K9 ventures. I suggest reading all of his stuff on visa issues as well: <http://bit.ly/nTsGTy> (its a text only version since actual page is not loading)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for your info.It really helped me to understand some of the things clearly.Appreciate it. I would give the information about me. May you can guide me in the right direction.

\- I graduated in December 2010. I started working from January 2011 in let say Company X.I have 12 months OPT with a STEM extension of 17 months only if company is e-verified.

\- I am working in a Company X , whose founder's is planning to start a new venture(Let say Company Y) with me and other 2 ppl as mentioned previously.

\- I guess he might sponsor my H1 through Company X.I am planning to take C- level position in Company Y. I do not want get into Immigration issues.

\- from the reply I see u suggesting to form a LLC rather than C Corp or S Corp based on the condition. \- once we have H1, in how many years I would get the Greencard(E2 one).

I would surely go through the blog.Any help would greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Aniket

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> \---Preface---

I have no experience (or advice) on the immigration piece.

I have no experience with LLCs or any other non-corporation entity. I have formed and have been using Corporations for many years with a lot of success.

\---Ownership Advice---

Do not try to get you ownership in your name. Get your ownership in the name of another company that you own.

Here's the structure:

1\. You own a Nevada or Florida Sub-Chapter S Corporation 100% (called Aniketm Corp).

2\. Aniketm Corp owns X% of Company Y (the startup).

The legal structure of Company Y is irrelevant, but I would recommend a Sub- Chapter S Corp (most legal protection for the owners, most favorable tax treatment, very low IRS audit rate).

It costs $100 to form a corporation (<http://www.amerilawyer.com>) and about $100 per year to maintain.

Anybody (including foreigners) can own a corporation.

This ownership structure gives you an extra layer of protection because you have an additional corporate veil between yourself personally and the startup company.

Don't let forming a corporation scare you. It's pretty simple and low-risk.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your advice. This means that I can form my own corporation whether I am on F1 or H1 doesn't matter. Is there any other way without me opening a corporation(Aniketm Corporation) to have ownership in Company Y. How does Shares and equity concept work. If I tell that I do not want ownsership but I want shares and equity in Company Y, would this simple or according to rules and regulations. If at all I want ownership then is that possible on a F1 or H1 Visa status

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think student visa is unable to do that. Visa law/system is really complex so you should ask to someone who know it well :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Talk to your international Student Advisor.

<comment><AUTHOR> They are of no help..:(

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If Cali-based, form an LLC in California. You derive no tax advantage from organizing an LLC out-of-state.

You cannot form an S-Corp if you have non-resident founders (anyone who is not a US citizen or _permanent_ resident), which sounds like the case here. This is a strict legal requirement which cannot be avoided. They can hold ownership/equity in the company as long as its not an S-Corp.

As for how to become a Corp or LLC: \- Go to the secretary of state website for the state you choose, then their Business Filings section \- Download the Articles of Incorporation (for a Corp) or the Articles of Organization (for an LLC). \- Fill the form out. \- If any of your founders live in the state of incorporation/organization, just mail it in or drop it off at the local office for your secretary of state. OTHERWISE, find a registered agent in that state and pay them to do it for you. \- Take care of the remaining corporate/LLC formalities: get an EIN from the IRS (free, takes about 5 minutes), and write up your Bylaws or Operating Agreement, have a company meeting.

Sorry about the late reply. For some reason, this showed up on my front page 12 days after your post.</comment>


Nanoshells surprise scientists by destroying cancer stem cells - <AUTHOR> http://www.fiercedrugdelivery.com/story/nanoshells-surprise-scientists-destroying-cancer-stem-cells/2010-11-02

<comment><USER2> Looks like an upgrade to current treatment, not a wholly new one: they're using it as a sidekick for radiation therapy.</comment>


Ask HN: How to choose the right business model for my web app? - <AUTHOR>

I have been working for a while a new web app that I believe will appeal many as a useful tool. I am almost finished working on a beta release and I am trying to come up with a business model. I know there are a number of options and I wanted to know what you think is a good option to start with. <comment><USER2> The right business model for your web app depends on what your competitors or the people you are replacing are already doing. Inertia will cause people to evaluate your web app versus how they are already solving the problem. So if what you are replacing does monthly saas billing, then you too should to monthly saas billing. Of course, going free or super reduced price can cause people to rush over to your web app though they will do so with a grain of salt because they will have already been used to another system.

</comment><comment><USER3> Can the web app be used on a smart phone? If so, port it over. You will be able to charge for it once you build an audience. Starting free and getting these 1st users to chat about it then later initiate a fee. Or set a decent price for it and go all out with targeted marketing.

</comment><comment><USER4> Free is a good option to start with. It will give your potential customers a reason to test your app - people rarely buy software nowadays without testing it. Also, it's a good way to get people to sign up for a newsletter.

<comment><USER5> Really? This is your advice? The guy probably spent months building the app and the best you can come up with is recommending the free option?

Yes, free can also be a business model, but there needs to be a lot of consideration put into it, because even free biz models need to make money at some point.

I'd say anything but free. If the app is really useful, like he says, people will pay for it (provided he has a proper landing page). I agree some free trial based period like 14 days or a month but definitely charge money for your app. It'll filter out freeloaders and let you focus on paying customers (providing great support, adding features faster...)

<comment><USER6> Doesn't it depend on what the app is? I know you need a business model other than just "make it free", but it seems pretty hard to give a meaningful answer without knowing anything specific about the app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would need a bit more detail about what your app is and what it does before I could make a recommendation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yo are right, I should have included it in the original post. The website is <http://www.PixieDo.com> Check it out. As of now it's all free supported with adsense.</comment></comment>


Paket: Package manager for .NET and Mono - <AUTHOR> http://fsprojects.github.io/Paket/ <comment><USER2> I hate to be a Negative Nancy, but wouldn't it be easier to Just Fix NuGet? I don't think that any of the problems being solved here are fundamentally incompatible with being fixed in NuGet (though I could be wrong).

</comment><comment><USER3>
        How to get Paket

        Paket is available on NuGet. To install the tool, run the following command in the Package Manager Console:
        PM> Install-Package Paket

Oh no, don't give us another Python _easyinstall_ mess; you need a package manager to get another package manager to get a third package manager. Well, at least it's not called "easy install" because that's exactly what it's not unless you already have everything installed. The whole purpose of a package manager is to avoid dependency mess and instead we get another 2 links in the chain that has to be installed manually.

</comment><comment><USER4> My answer to the main question in the faq, "Why do I need Paket instead of nuget?" (my paraphrase) is this: meh. NuGet's behavior simply doesn't cause me that many problems, and when it's a superbigdeal I can just get a git submodule and be on my merry way. The one killer feature I want is an easy way to convert a downloaded NuGet package into a folder of the latest sources.

And hey: NuGet is open-source.

</comment><comment><USER5> The front page doesn't answer THE question, why would I use Paket instead of NuGet. Realistically in the .NET ecosystem, once Microsoft introduces a passable product (such as NuGet) the chances of any alternative to gain adoption are veeery swim.

<comment><USER6> See the faq : [http://fsprojects.github.io/Paket/faq.html](http://fsprojects.github.io/Paket/faq.html)

<comment><USER5> Sure, in these long, cold winter nights what else is one to do...

If you have any analytics, compare the number of visitors to the main and to faq pages ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you want to add a killer feature to this, add better handling for non- referenced dependencies. By non-referenced I mean they don't exist as a project reference like a dll would. For example, if you're doing a web project and you depend on say angular. Angular isn't added as a project reference. Nuget/Visual Studio do all kinds of oddities to work around this. Unless there is already a solution to this that I don't know about (besides using two different package managers).

</comment><comment><USER8> How does this differ from asp.vnext's kpm?

</comment><comment><USER9> One thing I wish NuGet would do - let me download packages directly from Github, like Bower and Grunt do. I do use Bower and Grunt with ASP.NET but usually mixed with some NuGet packages. It would be nice to have one system for all.

<comment><USER10> Visual studio just added support for Bower and Grunt[1]. I'm thinking that might help us separate the ecosystem again -- nuget for server-side, bower/grunt for client-side.

[1] [http://www.hanselman.com/blog/IntroducingGulpGruntBowerAndNp...](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/IntroducingGulpGruntBowerAndNpmSupportForVisualStudio.aspx)</comment></comment>


Twitter may double character limit from 140 to 280 - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2017/09/twitter_may_double_its_character_limit_freak_out_or_nah.html <comment><USER2> Why don't they charge for the privilege? Same with the blue checkmark -- why not charge a monthly fee while keeping the same verification standards?

</comment><comment><USER3> So Donald can rant more</comment>


Intel promises Spectre- and Meltdown-proof chips this year - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/26/intel-spectre-meltdown-chips/ <comment><USER2> Seems like buying this first round of "clean" silicon would be a bad idea since it's guaranteed to be a rushed architecture. Just hard to believe that corners won't be cut at some level to get this release out.</comment>


The Hubris of Front-End Developers - <AUTHOR> http://allenc.com/2012/07/hubris-front-end-developers/ <comment><USER2> The negative comments about this post by others are interesting; perhaps it's because I'm also a FE Engineer, but I thought much of what you said was spot- on. I've managed to specialize in FE only because I can also do back-end work; I have a hard time hiring other FEs because so many only know jQuery, and a spot of html and css, and I simply don't have room on my small engineering team unless they can supplement more or are very fast learners.

To be an effective FE, you need to understand the whole stack - not just how to install a jQuery plugin, but also CSS, Javascript _the language_ , html, where these technologies are going (html5, ecmascript 6), what the back end stack looks like, how data gets from the database to the browser, how the browser rendering engine works, pragmatic optimizations, functional and OO concepts, version control, browser quirks, the TCP stack, and deployment. No, you don't have to specialize in these things, but you need to be familiar or willing to get familiar.

And you're right, most companies don't understand what FE engineers need or what they should be.

<comment><USER3> _To be an effective FE, you need to understand the whole stack_

I completely disagree. There are a lot of organizations that completely abstract the front end from the rest of the stack and have only UI developers work on a very focused piece.

It doesn't help a UI developer to know the DB schema or the middle tier components. They need to know where they can get the data they need and where to send updates. That's about it. It can be helpful if they know business flow (not necessarily logic).

<comment><USER2> They don't need to have the schema memorized, but they do need to know the path the data takes from the database to the front-end to appropriately optimize how the front end receives and displays the data; for example, to properly implement Backbone, you want a RESTful API. Is this available (or achievable if not)? You have to know your capabilities in order to appropriately choose a pattern or framework.

You're involved- or should be involved- in coordinating with back-end developers on the interface from the front-end and the back end. The implementation of that interface depends on the structure of the underlying system; different databases, such as document-based vs relational, can have subtle differences in how your interfaces are implemented and effect the flexibility of said interfaces.

<comment><USER3> You only need to coordinate inputs and outputs. If you need to coordinate more than that you've probably got a very coupled system. Especially with web services - REST, SOAP, etc. - who cares if the front end is connecting to a Java application or a .Net application? Who cares if what the FE dev is building is IOS, Android, JSF, Spring, Flex, etc.?

If it's done right, all the details can be (and should be) abstracted away from the FE.

<comment><USER2> My entire point is - who defines this REST / SOAP / "who cares" layer? If it's strictly back-end engineers, front-end interoperability is not represented. A FE engineer involved in the development and maintenance of this API layer ensures that concerns are effectively recognized - which requires an FE engineer who knows the whole stack. Yes, these details should be abstracted away from the strict implementation of the actual FE code, but that API has to be created in concert.

<comment><USER3> _who defines this REST / SOAP / "who cares" layer_

Definition of an API isn't about knowing the 'entire stack'.

A front end dev will need to understand the structure of the API and present needs to whoever is maintaining it but it doesn't matter what the API is coded in since that is most likely abstracted away via the different service interfaces.

Frankly, other than what they are developing the front end in, the only aspect a dedicated front end developer needs access to is the document describing the API so they can make changes there and get their needs to the API owner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wish this post had a _little bit_ less dramatic headline. It makes this post sound much more inflammatory than it actually is.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, my fault; I had written something more inflammatory, but after a bunch of edits I had moderated my tone once I realized I was just ranting against bad FE candidates I had interviewed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> HTML/CSS is a small piece of a stack that is fairly easy to pick up. There are hardly ever reasons to hire someone who is FE only (at small companies) and I often find that people who are FE only don't have the kind foundation that would allow them to venture into complicated JS code.

The author seems to be implying that SEs given front end responsibilities will struggle with them but that's only true in the way that they struggle with anything else new (the struggle is short lived because we're talking about markup with quirks).

Also, OP, if you read this, your footnotes link to the original text but it's covered by your huge fixed header.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, thanks - I guess I should just get rid of the fixed header...

But to your first point, I don't think it's just learning HTML and CSS syntax. For example, I've never seen a SE break out XScope and measure the exact pixels between two elements, obsess about the opacity of a drop shadow, or spend a few hours to tweak the bezier curve of an animation. It's like saying that SEs will just struggle with design initially.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I could not continue reading after the author started apologizing for the _computer-science-heavy interview_. Simply put, if computer science heavy questions bother you, you are not an A player.

<comment><USER3> _Simply put, if computer science heavy questions bother you, you are not an A player._

And herein lies the problem - the hubris of a SW Dev. So often the more artistic-leaning FE Dev is interviewed by the more pragmatic-leaning SW Dev. The software dev starts asking questions about recursion and collections and then labels the FE as a terrible developer.

What you have to understand is that FE Devs don't care about that stuff. They aren't trained in it, they aren't interested in it. They have a completely different domain knowledge than the SW Dev and that's fine. It's not worse, it's just different.

It doesn't make them a non-'A player'. They could very well be an A player in their particular domain. Watching a good FE Dev sling HTML/CSS/JS is a thing of beauty. It's not as easy as a lot of SW Devs think it is.

<comment><USER6> _It's not worse, it's just different._

Many SW Devs are great at creative front end work. Many FE Devs used to be amazing back end Devs. Many Devs don't care what end or language they work in. Those are A players.

If you've just never worked with a single particular technology, that's fine. If on the other hand you have never touched a lot of technologies.... probably not an A player. If you don't know anything about recursion, you are definitely not an A player.

Frankly, I find saying that FE Devs shouldn't care about recursion insulting to FE Devs.

 _Watching a good FE Dev sling HTML/CSS/JS is a thing of beauty. It's not as easy as a lot of SW Devs think it is._

If they mess up fundamental computer science concepts while slinging JS around, it's gong to be painful rather than beautiful to watch. And I make no claim it is easy. JS in particular is lovely programing language liked by many SW Devs.

<comment><USER3> You're saying that just because someone doesn't have a specific set of domain knowledge they can't be an 'A player' in the domain they do have knowledge in. This simply isn't true.

Using an analogy, even though Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan play golf, Michael Jordan can't be an 'A player' in basketball even though that's his domain, not golf.

Are backend developers that have only a cursory domain knowledge of the front end not 'A players'?

<comment><USER6> _Are backend developers that have only a cursory domain knowledge of the front end not 'A players'?_

I would say that if have no interest in what is literally half of the internet, it does not matter how good you are at the back end, you are not an A player.

And computer science isn't just another domain. We're not talking php vs python here. This is about the fundamental nature of the work you do. Yes, even as a JS slinger, you still have the exact same computing fundamentals to deal with.

It's not like basketball and golf, it's like basic athleticism. No you can't be an A basketball player if you don't have a minimum of athleticism. And the same is true for almost all sports.

The fundamentals of computer science are to developers like cardio is to athletes.

<comment><USER3> _I would say that if have no interest in what is literally half of the internet, it does not matter how good you are at the back end, you are not an A player._

There are very few people who could have enough knowledge of all the domains of CS to be an 'A player' in your definition.

 _This is about the fundamental nature of the work you do. Yes, even as a JS slinger, you still have the exact same computing fundamentals to deal with._

Not sure if you are literally targeting me, but I am a backend developer who does a fair share of UI. I frankly despise JS but live with it nonetheless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In the "irony is ironic" department, we have a site with a low-contrast text/background combination. Readability Redux FTFW.

Which is more about Web design than FE, but still.

</comment><comment><USER8> what was the point of this article? Where's the hubris? Bunch of incoherent sentences strung together meandering around a non existent point that is never made.</comment>


SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dead-23-injured-car-plows-crowd-sxsw-texas-article-1.1720095 <comment><USER2> Long-time Austinite here. This is indeed a sad day, and our thoughts are of course with those who were affected. At the very least, I hope that this situation will cause us to make real strides toward improving the currently deplorable state of public transportation in this city, as it's now proving to be a real danger to human life.

I've lived here 12 years, and the only improvements to public transportation infrastructure in that time have been the addition of a single train line and a few of those long buses that bend in the middle. As the fastest growing city in the country, a city that relies so heavily on the tax revenues generated by the ~2 weeks of debauchery that is SXSW, we'll need to seriously improve the ability to move folks around without automobiles or the maddening traffic and inability to safely be on the roads (or, indeed, standing near the roads) between 1:30AM-3:30AM will continue to plague us.

<comment><USER3> As someone who has lived in Los Angeles (which has actually horrible public transit in that it doesn't exist really and is expensive), and now Austin - while our public transit here is sub-optimal, it's far from the worst in the country, and you actually can get most places with it (I lived here for 18 months with no car, so I am intimately familiar with it).

<comment><USER2> True, but "far from worst in the country" and "capable of dealing with the city's growth" are two different things. I'm originally from Arlington, Texas, which actually held the distinction until very recently of being the largest city in North America with absolutely no form of public transport whatsoever. I've seen both ends of the spectrum, and Austin still falls far short of where we need to be.

There's also the problem of finding a ride home after the bars close, which is far less doable given our current system. We also need to rapidly expand the light rail system, but efforts to do so seem to be floundering at City Hall.

<comment><USER3> >>There's also the problem of finding a ride home after the bars close

Completely agree here, but this has a really easy solution: let in Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I think of all the money spent in the name of improving and enriching the lives of human beings, it troubles me that we don't have a reliable solution for ending DUI. I know many companies fund research to end cancer or improve the quality of life for those with various diseases. While this research may help save or improve lives, it's motivated in part by a potential return on investment. Why can't we do something to prevent self-inflicted suffering? Those people did not need to die. While I don't consume alcohol I don't see why a person that has consumed alcohol should be transformed into a homicidal idiot after getting into the driver's seat. Since we can't seem to limit DUI, perhaps we can we make a car that won't operate when the driver is incapacitated? Although, I would oppose any legislation that forces such technology on everyone. To be sure, this remains a tough problem to solve (1). Rather than working around the problem (removing drivers or reducing the need to drive, limiting/controlling alcohol, etc) how should we address the issue? If we could stop alcohol-impaired driving the United States could save USD$51 billion per year and prevent over 10,000 deaths annually.

1\. [http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impai...](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired- drv_factsheet.html)

<comment><USER5> Preventing DUI is a difficult problem. A much easier problem would be to prevent speeding. Put a GPS in every car that prevents the car from driving faster than the speed limit. All the technology exists, and this would doubtlessly save lives, but somehow I doubt anybody would pass the required laws.

<comment><USER6> I always wonder why we make cars that can go so fast. Even my car with a 1.4L engine making 100 HP can easily do 100mph, even though there's almost no place in the US where that's legal, and no place in my state where it's legal. The fastest speed limit in my state is 70mph. Why not speed-limit cars to 70mph by default, with an option to disable this limiter in a controlled fashion if the person wants to go out on a racetrack where these speeds are legal?

There are obviously arguments in favor of personal liberty that would make some people uncomfortable with this, but they shouldn't be. No one should be. If the speed limit on the road is 70mph, there is no reason for your car to be doing more than 70mph on the road, period. I don't care that you want to pass a vehicle that is only doing 69mph, you'll either lower your speed or pass them at 1mph (which, at least in my state, is also illegal. To pass someone, they must be doing at least 5mph under the speed limit, and you can't break the speed limit in order to pass someone).

Now, it wouldn't help in this situation, but it's something that's always bothered me. As we make better and better performing entry-level cars, we can't change the laws of physics. 90mph isn't unheard of as a common cruising speed on a road where the minimum speed limit is 45mph. That's just stupid and dangerous.

<comment><USER7> Speeding is not involved in the majority of fatal accidents.

<comment><USER5> That is a pretty bold statement. Pretty much all fatal accidents I've heard about involved speeding in some way. Now, anecdotes aren't reliable, so do you have some numbers to back up your claim?

<comment><USER8> "Q. Aren't most traffic accidents caused by speeding? A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent."

from [http://www.motorists.org/speed- limits/faq](http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/faq)

Q: Is the National Motorists Association a reliable source for this data?

A: I did the 30 seconds of work to go and Google this, go find your own stats if you don't like mine.

<comment><USER5> > 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related"

Almost all accidents are "speed related". Very few accidents happen with cars standing still.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's a good map of the incident: [http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2014/03/13/5f/...](http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2014/03/13/5f/e0/sxsw- mohawk-auto-fatal.JPG)

Seems like the drunk made a run for it but mistakenly went down a street that was closed for pedestrians, which is why there were so many injuries.

</comment><comment><USER10> >At a mid-morning press conference Thursday, officials said eight people were still in the hospital. Five were in critical condition, and three were listed as serious.

I just... I just... WTF. Just WTF. We've had injuries and incidents at SXSW before, but nothing like this. Normally it's just busy nights for paramedics filled with minor injuries. A diabetic might get too drunk to remember to take insulin, or someone might just dehydrate and pass out. The worst I remember is bicyclists hitting pedestrians. I'd like to think the driver was just completely and totally blacked out, but his behaviour certainly seems to indicate at least a modicum of awareness of what he was doing, what with stopping at the gas station as though he were complying with the stop before deciding to tear down the Red River district.

>He was facing two counts of capital murder and 23 counts of aggravated assault with a vehicle, Acevedo said.

We'll be hearing about this case for the next year at least.

<comment><USER11> I don't want to take away from how awful this was, but in 2010 there were 10,228 people killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes[1] - that's 28 each day.

So no, I don't think we'll be hearing about this case for the next year - it's actually depressingly typical. It just happens to have occurred at a large event that Hacker News has a strong connection to.

[1] [http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impai...](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired- drv_factsheet.html)

<comment><USER10> The incidents definitely are depressingly typical on a long enough time scale and with a large enough area. Maybe self-driving cars _will_ eventually solve this problem, assuming they don't come with their own problems too. Granted, we felt the same way about airplanes, but it certainly seems that far more airplane crashes are a matter of human error than something the pilot couldn't have controlled. I would _love_ to be able to just nap while my car chauffeured me between San Marcos and Austin every day though...

Seeing as I live in Austin though, I suspect we'll all hear about this on the news occasionally, if only for summaries of the proceedings as they unfold over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was two blocks away at Stubb's when this was going on, and I walked through that area many times already during SXSW. I very rarely realize how fragile my life is, but events like this make it real.

</comment><comment><USER13> My wife was at the Mohawk, an hour and a half before this happened. :( Pretty scary.

</comment><comment><USER14> Terrible. I hope this wasn't exarcerbated by a high-speed pursuit.

<comment><USER9> Nope. From another article:

"The suspect was asked to pull over at a sobriety check point and instead sped away from a police car. He smashed through a police barricade and then plowed down people, some of them lined up outside a nightclub, over a span of two blocks."

<comment><USER7> This should still raise the question: do sobriety checkpoints save lives? Even though this was the fault of the driver, and obviously an extremely rare event, would those people still be alive if the driver had just gone home?

I'm not anti-checkpoint or anything.

<comment><USER15> These specific people would, yes. But how many more people would risk driving drunk if they knew there were no sobriety checkpoints?

<comment><USER7> It's clear that sobriety checkpoints aren't killing people left and right (that's preposterous). But it's not clear (edit: to me) if they actually save any lives for the effort.

<comment><USER16> yes, it's clear that they do save lives. maybe you should say "i'm not certain" instead of "it's not clear". and also maybe grow up some common sense.

<comment><USER17> What makes you say that it is clear? Could you link the study that you have in mind?

<comment><USER18> > _Could you link the study that you have in mind?_

Why do you feel a study is needed in order to form an opinion on this? What logical arguments would you make against sobriety checkpoints?

In any case, turns out that at least one study has been performed. This was just the first google search hit. There's probably more out there.

[1] [http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/check...](http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/checkpoint.html)

[2] [http://www.wrap.org/pdfs/2010TIPElderCDCPaper.pdf](http://www.wrap.org/pdfs/2010TIPElderCDCPaper.pdf)

<comment><USER7> At least in CA, an increased checkpoint effort saw a stall followed by an increase in drunk driving fatalities. But this data obviously doesn't account for a lot of variables.

[http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/01/06/41411/california- drunk-d...](http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/01/06/41411/california-drunk- driving-fatalities-inch-up-after/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So sad :(

These incidences always force me to think something is wrong -- _seriously wrong_ \-- with this world. But keeping the faith.

<comment><USER20> Well, "impaired meta-consciousness" is the problem. It's a fact of human life that when drinking, a person reaches a point where they are no longer able to make rational judgments. Not only about their actions but also about the level of impairment they are experiencing.

This is why drunks are dangerous - after X drinks they look at their car and think "I've got this" when in fact they are so drunk they don't know what they have anymore.

<comment><USER17> I've been drunk enough to loose consciousness my fair share of times, but I have never been drunk enough to do something like get behind the wheel of a car. If that point of drunkenness exists for me, it exists beyond the "alcohol poisoning, facedown on the floor" point.

Alcohol is often used as an excuse for poor behavior, but in practice with most people it does not have the power to induce most of the behavior that has ever been attributed to it. For example, I might run my mouth and be inconsiderate of other peoples feelings when too drunk, but when _I_ am drunk, I don't start fist fights. The difference? Being inconsiderate of the feelings of others is something that I sometimes want to do but hold back on while sober; starting fistfights is never something that crosses my mind while sober.

For _most_ people, alcohol does not turn them into a different person. It distorts aspects of who they are, blowing some out of proportion, but it doesn't completely replace their set of priorities and desires with ones alien to them.

This is almost certainly not this persons first time driving while drunk. Almost certainly, this person has driven drunk before, sobered up afterwards and realized what the did, and then did little to nothing to prevent it from happening again. A person who drives while drunk is a person with a carefree attitude towards drunk driving even when they sober.

<comment><USER21> My experience has been similar to yours, but I am not confident that there isn't enough variation in human cognition and physiology that wouldn't still wind up with a lot of drunk drivers if every instance of driving drunk was as described above. This is not inconsistent with the notion that the predominance of effects of drinking on personality/behavior have more of a social basis than a chemical one (as studies have suggested, IIRC).

<comment><USER17> Oh, I definitely think that there are people for who might tend to drive drunk after drinking. I'm just saying that _" but I made the decision to drive drunk while drunk"_ doesn't get any sympathy from me.

Even if that sort of behavior while drunk caught them _completely_ off guard the first time it happened (which I think is very unlikely, though not impossible), they later made the decision _while sober_ to drink again. The made that decision while sober and with the knowledge that when drunk, they do things like drive drunk.

Edit:

Brief responses, since my commenting appears to be limited at the moment:

justin66: I am _not_ like the person that did this. I do not steal cars. I don't drive while drunk. I don't flee the police when pulled over. I would never flee on foot after crashing into other cars and people. People who drive while drunk typically do it frequently. I never have.

Codhisattva: _" meta-consciousness impairment occurs well before losing consciousness from alcohol poisoning."_ I am not saying that I have never been impaired. I am saying that despite being impaired many times, I have never been impaired in such a way that I had any desire to drive while drunk, or any delusions about my ability to do so.

unclebucknasty: _" Yet, you are questioning the judgment of someone who, instead of repeatedly drinking himself into a potential coma, stops somewhere short of that and decides he can operate a vehicle."_ You bet your ass I am. I may have endangered my life while having a little to much fun in college, but I never drove while drunk, and I never killed anybody.

 _" Well, that's the thing: the grandparent is judging people who drive drunk repeatedly, while he himself repeatedly drinks to the point of losing consciousness. I just don't see the difference."_

I'm going to go with the most obvious difference being body-count. That is obvious right?

Furthermore, don't worry for my health. As I have mentioned on HN in the recent past, my current drinking is down to 4-6 nights a month. I am drawing on my experience drinking, not currently struggling with drinking.

I take exception to your implication that drunk driving is some sort of inevitable phenomenon that people who drink to the point of drunkenness are powerless to avoid through anything but luck. Drunk driving only happens _if you allow it to happen_. If you drive drunk, it isn't because of alcohol, it is because of _you_. There is nobody and no _thing_ to blame but yourself.

<comment><USER22> I don't know, but there seems to be an awful lot of rationalization taking place in this and your previous comment.

As a person who drinks socially and is well-aware of my limits, I've rarely moved past a slight buzz. So, when I see a person state that they've repeatedly been drunk to the point of losing consciousness, I think, "now, why would a person do that?" I would have to think that there is at least some impairment when an already extremely inebriated person decides to continue drinking to the point where the only thing that stops him is that he physically cannot continue because he is unconscious.

Yet, you are questioning the judgment of someone who, instead of repeatedly drinking himself into a potential coma, stops somewhere short of that and decides he can operate a vehicle.

I just don't see the difference except that, of course, you can claim moral superiority in that you are _presumably_ only endangering yourself vs. others. But, therein lies the rationalization. And, of course, if you repeatedly drink to the point wherein you literally lose control of your body, then perhaps it's only a matter of time before you endanger someone else somewhere along the continuum of inebriation.

<comment><USER21> It's quite a bit easier to drink to that point with some drinks (higher proof) and in some contexts than others (shots vs sipping, peer pressure, distractions). I've never passed out drinking, but I've certainly wound up drunker than I expected on occasion. For someone substantially lighter than I, it could probably sneak up even easier. That said, if someone does so _regularly_ there is probably something else going on.

<comment><USER22> > _It 's quite a bit easier to drink to that point..._

Well, that's the thing: the grandparent is judging people who drive drunk repeatedly, while he himself repeatedly drinks to the point of losing consciousness. I just don't see the difference. Why is one "sneaking up on you" any better than the other? Why does one demonstrate better judgment when inebriated than the other?

> _That said, if someone does so regularly there is probably something else > going on._

Well, that would be my take. Or at least that perhaps that person isn't in the position they think to cast judgment on others who make poor choices when inebriated.

I don't know if there's anyone alive who drinks even occasionally and hasn't gone further than they expected. But, it's generally a good distance between "drunker than I thought" and "I almost went into a coma". And, if it happens once or twice, then OK, but repeatedly? Seems like you'd be aware of the dangers you mentioned at some point, which ironically was the grandparent's judgment about repeat drunk drivers.

And that's the irony that was just a bit too much. It's weird, because there doesn't seem to be contrition or anything. Just, "yeah, I'm known to repeatedly drink myself unconscious, but look at the choices _those guys_ make when drunk".

<comment><USER21> Mostly fair.

 _" Why does one demonstrate better judgment when inebriated than the other?"_

Well, I do think putting yourself at risk should be judged less harshly than putting others at risk.

<comment><USER22> > _Well, I do think putting yourself at risk should be judged less harshly > than putting others at risk._

Perhaps when judged externally by others. But, when the person is judging himself less harshly in a way that justifies his own questionable behavior, then it comes off as rationalization.

And, again, to say he is only harming himself is part of the fallacy that he is somehow exercising better judgment. That is, I believe that someone who exercises the poor judgement to repeatedly drink himself into unconsciousness is very much susceptible to exercising equally poor judgment, while in that inebriated state, that could result in harm to others. It just hasn't happened yet.

<comment><USER21> Possibly, but I don't think this is clear at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Good thing APD is protecting the public by keeping Uber out. The driver was definitely at fault, but we need to seriously look at how we design cities and laws. If the only way to get around in a city is to drive, people are going to drive drunk. Make it easier for people to get around without driving, and there will be less drunk driving.

People will seek out jurisdictions where driving is less necessary because they are safer there.

<comment><USER24> I am just going to venture a guess that the kind of person who steals a car and flees cops -- first in a car and then on foot -- is not in Uber's target demographic.

<comment><USER21> Uber getaway drivers is an amusing thought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> To be fare, he didn't have anyone in his car at the time, so Uber isn't liable.

EDIT:

So, was this a stupid local, a dumb kid from UT, or one of the startup brats from the coast?

EDIT2:

"Acevedo said officers initially tried to pull Owens over at a gas station on the Interstate 35 service road around 12:30 a.m. Thursday. _Fort Hood officials tell KVUE that the Toyota he was driving was reported stolen in Killeen._ "

Huh, interesting.

<comment><USER26> 1) Fair, not fare.

2) Uber's not involved, unless that was intended as sarcasm of some sort.

3) Per the article, the identity of the driver hasn't been revealed. EDIT: Seems the article was edited?

<comment><USER10> Yes. Driver identified as "Rashad Charjuan Owens, 21."</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What resource is the best for learning modern CSS and design techniques? - <AUTHOR>

I've done CSS, HTML, ASP, and PHP in the past, but I've definitely fallen behind the times. When I go to design websites, I constantly find myself checking w3c to see what I can/can't do, and even when I finish websites, they have a decidedly 2000s look to them.
So, my questions are...
1. What's a good book (not just a reference) to learn modern CSS design, techniques, and good style?
2. What else should I be looking into besides CSS, if anything, to bring myself up to date?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> I will go this way

Learn about Object-Oriented CSS.

\- A short intro: <http://www.slideshare.net/stubbornella/object-oriented-css>

\- Reference: <http://oocss.org/>

\- Nettuts tutorial [1]

Learn About Grid Systems.

\- 960.gs

\- blueprint

\- Ordering Disorder: Grid Principles for Web Design [2]

Learn about new CSS languages

\- Sass & Scss

\- Less css

Learn Css 3

\- New Css selectors

\- New Css new attributes

\- Media Queries

\- Modernizr and how to degrade in old browsers

\- Book: Stunning CSS3: A project-based guide to the latest in CSS

\- Book: Hardboiled Web Design

[1] [http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/html-css- techniques/object...](http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/html-css- techniques/object-oriented-css-what-how-and-why/)

[2] [http://www.amazon.com/Ordering-Disorder-Principles-Design- Vo...](http://www.amazon.com/Ordering-Disorder-Principles-Design- Voices/dp/0321703537/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296643883&sr=1-1)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you kindly, sir!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Check out:

\- <http://diveintohtml5.org/>

\- SASS and HAML

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

Do you know any good resources for SASS and HAML? I've never even heard of them before...</comment></comment>


Things To Stop Doing In Your 20s - <AUTHOR> http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/19-things-you-should-stop-doing-in-your-20s/

<comment><USER2> _"Stop treating errands as burdens. Instead, use them as time to focus on doing one thing, and doing it right. Errands and chores are essentially rote tasks that allow you time to think. They function to get you away from your phone, the internet, and other distractions. Focus and attention span are difficult things to maintain when you're focused and attentive on X amount of things at any given moment."_

This is a great point. It's exactly why I've never liked suggestions to "automate" chores, and I've never felt a huge need to use services like TaskRabbit. Too much of life is already dedicated to the pursuit of productivity. Going to the grocery store is one of those little tasks that gives you room to breathe. There's a relevant quote by Thich Nhat Hanh that I like a lot:

 _"While washing the dishes one should only be washing the dishes, which means that while washing the dishes one should be completely aware of the fact that one is washing the dishes. At first glance, that might seem a little silly: why put so much stress on a simple thing? But that's precisely the point. The fact that I am standing there and washing these bowls is a following my breath, conscious of my presence, and conscious of my thoughts and actions. There's no way I can be tossed around mindlessly like a bottle slapped here and there on the waves."_

[http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/Fro...](http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/From%20The%20Miracle%20of%20Mindfulness/Teaching.htm)

<comment><USER3> Except if your mind worked like that, you'd never be creative. To think you can focus on one thing is to ignore all the times you came up with a solution to a problem after ignoring it for a while and doing something else.

<comment><USER2> Who says creativity can't happen while you're washing dishes? Just because you're doing the dishes doesn't mean that ideas won't form in your head. Part of what mindfulness is about is letting thoughts drift through your mind: you're trying to be _conscious_ of your thoughts and actions, not eliminate them.

And in any case, nobody says you have to focus _all the time_. But if you make no room for serendipity, serendipity will not occur.

<comment><USER4> derleth just did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is actually the first time I've come across a list (X things to do ...) that was not pure BS.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, this was an astonishingly valuable list of "shit not to do, if you're trying to grow up."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How about stop "stop doing things" and start "start doing things". More seriously, while identifying the problem can be good, you should focus on the solution. Which hopefully also is more concrete.

<comment><USER8> Because you start figuring out what's right for you only when you stop indulging in what's wrong for you.

<comment><USER9> Not in my experience. I'm still indulging somewhat in things that are wrong for me, but at the same time I've started doing things that are good for me.

<comment><USER8> You really want to eat chowmein but it'll be 2 hours before they are ready. But you're hungry now and so you fill up with chips, cola, donuts, and pizza.

Two hours pass and the chowmein is finally ready. But now, you're not. Your hunger is gone but you have yet to full-fill your desire for chowmein.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I generally avoid list posts like the plague. This was actually a good one.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> After asking several of my co-workers (some well above 40) to read this, they said that this not only holds true for people in their 20s but serve as a great reminder to everyone.

</comment><comment><USER11> Great list. However, these are things you should work on before your twenties. You need to get an early start!

</comment><comment><USER12> I am 44, #16 takes a lot of effort sometimes, still working in #17...

</comment><comment><USER13> Enjoyed this list greatly, #17 certainly holds true for me.

</comment><comment><USER14> Number 8 holds true.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting to think about how broadly to apply some of these. For example, 'investing in things you value' seems to focus most on _money_ , which limits its applicability in two ways: First, there are a number of things, like software, where monetary cost doesn't correlate strongly with actual value. Second, investing _time_ is often better than thinking money can solve the problems you have, especially in terms of gaining self-sufficiency.</comment>


Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files - <AUTHOR> https://paramaggarwal.substack.com/p/how-websites-evolved-back-to-static-html-css-js-files-57ce549f81db <comment><USER3> There's nothing wrong with static HTML/CSS/JS. There's also nothing wrong with a rich SPA. And again, there's nothing wrong with using some kind of dynamic server-side HTML/CSS/JS presentation (like WordPress).

Where there is a problem is the culture of software engineering, and the tendency to select the newest technology stack of the day for inappropriate applications. I think any seasoned software engineer has acquired the skill of successfully selecting the correct architecture for the project goals (even if it is _boring_ to actually work on).

Whereas, take the junior to mid developer streams. Every time there's an opportunity to learn something new and break the grind from doing [X] for the past [Y] months, there tends to be unwarranted justifcation on why "we should use this new thing" despite there already being a well-known and battle-tested solution sitting right there.

For example: We need to build a basic company website. Someone from reception needs to be able to update the contact form and trading hours around five times per year. Someone from marketing needs to update product brochures once a month.

Seasoned engineer: Let's use any well-tested CMS such as WordPress and install a caching front-end.

Junior - mid engineers: EW WordPress! Doesn't that use PHP? Hahaha. Hahaha. Why on earth would we want to be known for using _PHP_!?!? We'd be _far_ better to just create a front-end on react and then write a microservice that will allow our staff members to update content. If marketing says SEO is necessary, we can _simply_ add a server-side rendering layer for the react front-end and deploy it onto a second microservice. And to make sure it all works, we can subscribe to some monitoring services, write a full test suite and CI pipeline. Everyone can install monitoring on their phones so if it ever goes offline, someone can immediately sign in remotely and debug which micro service is broken.

<comment><USER4> We're back to "The boring solution has a long list of inconveniences and uglinesses that everyone knows about. If we chose the new solution, nobody would know where the bugs are and we can have exciting new ones."

Really the problem is that the standard solution hasn't improved. Backends are _still_ a hassle in the 2020s. People keep reinventing CGI.

Every now and again I think "why doesn't someone just produce a simple standardised solution that would be cheap to host and easy to write", and have to lie down until the madness goes away.

<comment><USER5> > "The boring solution has a long list of inconveniences and uglinesses that > everyone knows about. If we chose the new solution, nobody would know where > the bugs are and we can have exciting new ones."

Is this C vs Rust again? (it's a joke, but go ahead, downvote).

<comment><USER4> Oh, it's practically general purpose life advice. You could even apply it to some people's second marriages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is something that I see espoused by "web traditionalists" for lack of a better term. Sure, there are a lot of web developers who are not optimising for performance but I think the difference is that it has simply shifted to the frontend where it's more noticeable.

The kinds of people who care about performance in the backend are exactly like the kinds of people who care about performance in the frontend. There's a variety of techniques that make sense in both areas to create a snappy, seamless experience. You need experienced engineers to create performance no matter what your domain is.

We've gone down the route of creating SPAs to largely replace experiences that would require desktop applications (it was only 5 years ago that I had to download an executable to do my tax return, now I do it with an SPA). Rather than create an SPA for a blog or a simple marketing site, we've largely replaced traditional "heavy"[0] infrastructure (PHP, Apache, MySQL just to display static content) with static JavaScript-generated sites. Many of these can simply be hosted on a CDN because they have no database and often no need for complex routing.

Pretending that SPAs were part of some dark ages is just silly. Horses for courses. If your application requires what I've dubbed "heavy" architecture (above) then by all means! Such infrastructure allows a high traffic service to be highly available, but is not required to serve a single .html file.

[0] When I say "heavy" I'm mainly talking about the attack surface and maintenance required. WordPress is great for serving a blog but has been the target of many hackers due to the amount of security vulnerabilities it has had over time.

<comment><USER7> SPAs being the darks _ages_ is over-the-top, but being an SPA when other web architectures could better serve the user is a dark _pattern_. That tax app doesn't need to be an SPA. JavaScript powered interactions make the experience nicer for the user, but that doesn't mean it needs or is improved by being a single page.

<comment><USER8> If it's a web-based user interface as this tax app sounds to be, it is arguably improved purely by being an SPA. Requiring full page reloads just to submit or change some tiny bit of data in a page is objectively bad UX.

<comment><USER9> Besides doing my taxes on paper, I can't think of anything more tedious than filling out tax forms via a vanilla HTML form.

At least my SPA tax software makes the form filling a little more exciting, and doesn't s#!t the bed when I hit enter by accident

<comment><USER10> Simple form validation would prevent that, not exactly SPA worthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wouldn't do it any other way.

I dipped out of web dev in 2015 to run an ecommerce project. I stopped tracking all the latest js framework news. I settled on a barebones CSS rule set. I stopped choosing SPAs as the starting point for mvp ideas. I shelved Wordpress and moved some content sites over to Netlify and just recently started using a nifty desktop ssr cms instead of Hugo, Gatsby, etc.

I was regressing to the environment I understood in the early 2000s-2010s. I did all of this because I knew there would be a steep learning curve going into modern ecommerce and it seemed reasonable to put everything into _hibernation_ while I attempted to go _all-in_.

I pretty much missed the entire React, Angular, Vue ramp up in the industry.

I've since shut down that ecommerce project and find myself peeking back to the js-verse every now and then.

I doubt I'll ever voluntarily use one of those frameworks for web dev.

I do, however, like this thing called, Svelte.

<comment><USER12> _> I doubt I'll ever voluntarily use one of those frameworks for web dev._

 _> I do, however, like this thing called, Svelte._

Svelte is just another one of "those frameworks", except with a vastly smaller community: [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=svelte%20i...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=svelte%20is,react%20js,angular%20js,vue%20js)

<comment><USER13> Svelte components compile to vanilla javascript plus a small runtime (a dozen or so functions that track state for context and the developer tools). It's much lighter weight than React or Vue's runtime and a side effect is that integrating Svelte components into other frameworks is a breeze (especially if you compile to web components). The author refers to it more as a separate language.

I've had a great experience with it recently developing a smart tv app - <USER2> are dog slow even with a quad core ARM CPU due to the resolution so I decided to learn Svelte for the project. The big downside is another templating language to learn and as you said, the community is tiny, but the surface area is small enough that it hasn't been a problem regarding tooling or debugging. Pulling in other frameworks into a svelte app is also relatively easy so it can be part of a slow incremental rewrite, although as always it devolves into a webpack/rollup config mess.

<comment><USER8> > Svelte components compile to vanilla javascript plus a small runtime

Same could be said of React though. React components are literally just plain JavaScript functions which return VDOM nodes that get diffed and applied to the DOM by the runtime library.

The only objective advantage I see to Svelte is it's tiny footprint, which if you really need you can already get by using Preact (3kb vs Svelte's 3.5kb) without having to learn yet-another-completely-arbitrary-templating-language to no benefit.

<comment><USER14> Svelte is actually quite a bit different. Quoting a random section from their docs

"[Svelte is a] compiler that knows at build time how things could change in your app, rather than waiting to do the work at run time"

My point being there is a large amount of compile time code transformation at build time. The run time is not so much a framework as a library like libc. In Svelte when you update state there is no virtual dom, dom diffing, fibers, or anything. It would have been compiled into a direct dom update of anything depending on it. It's no longer a Svelte app just vanillajs. There are some details or course but it's a different paradigm than to react or other modern UI frameworks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good. I could do without the JS, to be honest (I'm a little tired of pages that refuse to show me _anything_ unless I whitelist some stupid third-party jQuery script in uMatrix), but, baby steps.

When sites finally ditched their trendy Flash rewrites and went back to HTML, I thought, _thank God_.

<comment><USER16> Be interesting to see if we could start charging website owners fees for them using our processing power to render their site.

Something needs to be done to encourage some efficiencies given the fact it takes more resources to surf the internet and read about running a k8s cluster than it does to actually run the cluster

<comment><USER17> You're free not to use any website...

<comment><USER16> Arguably if you are publishing content on the net you are giving it away.

There are mechanisms to charge for it.

<comment><USER18> > There are mechanisms to charge for it.

Only above a certain price point. Our financial system nor our consumer culture support micropayments yet. This effectively limits the web properties that can charge users to a small fraction, so unfortunately "just charge money" isn't the widely-available solution I wish it was yet.

Hell, it's more viable to charge users for your mobile client than the backing service. It's kind of the closest we have to micropayments in a way.

<comment><USER16> Then you dont have a sustainable business model.

Why should I subsidize your failed model ?

<comment><USER19> Yet you somehow think charging content providers for using your computer when they give you free content isn't a failed business model?

<comment><USER16> If someone gave you a set of unassembled Ikea stuff and you didn't know if you could use it until you assembled it.

Who should pay for the assembly of the stuff ?

Would you put it together for free just to decide ?

Who pays for the used resources ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hell, I still write the HTML and push it to Github where Github Pages and Cloudflare put it up on the Web for me. I've never seen any reason to use Markup when I can just Mark my text Up in HTML pretty simply. If you write a site correctly (a site, not a webapp) it'll render in anything from the original Netscape to the Wii Browser (tested working with my site), Internet Explorer 8 (working), Links2 (working), and the latest Chrome.

A site like YouTube doesn't need to work with old stuff like Netscape or IE but if your site primarily focuses on text there's next to no reason there should be Javascript on your site. Sites like danluu's[0] and Michael Norman Williams'[1] may not look the best but they _just work_.

My website: [https://www.instantfloppy.net/](https://www.instantfloppy.net/) (though admittedly I don't spend as much time on it as I should)

[0]: [https://danluu.com/](https://danluu.com/)

[1]: [http://michaelnormanwilliams.com/](http://michaelnormanwilliams.com/)

<comment><USER21> I have no idea what your site is about. Its just random links with no explanation about what they are or for.

<comment><USER20> > (though admittedly I don't spend as much time on it as I should)

It's pretty much just a howto and link repository for myself and my friends right now. Still mostly a work in progress. Consider it as an example for look rather than for function.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > The Dark Age - Somewhere on this path to render pages on the fly (SSR) and > render pages on the client (SPA) we forgot about the performance of our > webpages. We were trying to build apps. But the web is about presenting > content first and foremost!

Pfff - That's completely wrong. SPAs are all about performance. If you want to built a highly-interactive site, it makes sense to do the computing where it's consumed -- in the browser. And hey, if you use a lot of the same logic and data models in the browser as you do on the back-end server, it's only natural to want to try to centralize the code. DRY. The problem is basically what @s_y_n_t_a_x said: developers got carried away with it and starting using SPAs for everything, including sites with low interactivity like blogs, which turned out to be less performant.

> But the web is about presenting content first and foremost!

Says who? I understand that the underlying structures of the web are all about transferring documents and other resources. But Gmail showed us that web 'apps' are useful. Why shouldn't we pursue that? Just because the original web architecture didn't account for it?

In the end, the article makes the right point: Use the right technology for what you're trying to build.

<comment><USER23> > Use the right technology for what you're trying to build.

Yep .. so if you want a rich responsive user experience, DON'T use any web technologies. GMail (AND Gsuite) is a perfect example of how a relatively simple concept like email can be turned into a slow, unresponsive piece of garbage.

<comment><USER24> I'm about 99% sure the store on the PS3 was webtech. That beast of a machine could barely run its own store. They lost a _lot_ of money from me as a result of the store being super-slow, input laggy, and crashy (OOM I assume), and I can't be the only one.

PS4 feels like they've taken webtech all over the OS interface. Its store's snappier than the 3 but the rest of the interface performs way worse. Usable, but far less pleasant.

[EDIT] store _should_ be snappier than the 3, mind, since it's way more powerful hardware—it's still kinda slow, considering.

<comment><USER25> All sorts of devices with some kind of UI are using a browser in some kind of kiosk/headless mode.

STBs, Smart TVs, IFE systems are or were web based.

<comment><USER26> To be honest as time goes on the Smart piece of your device starts to get slower and slower.

One of the main drivers for getting a amazon fire stick is that it is much more responsive than the Smart TV itself.

<comment><USER27> I thought that but the Youtube app on both my smart tv and Apple TV are broken in exactly the same way and unusable without a regular reboot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > I find it fascinating that we are back to generating separate HTML/CSS and > JS files and then putting them on a static file server — the CDN. It has > been a decade long effort and as we come back to where we started, I feel > like we are at a whole another level (a spiral?).

"The wheel of reincarnation" from client to server and back: [http://www.cap- lore.com/Hardware/Wheel.html](http://www.cap-lore.com/Hardware/Wheel.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> No, the SPA hype has warn off and people realize that although these new technologies exist, they are not always needed.

If you are building a web app, use React or similar.

If you are building a web site, use plain HTML+CSS w/ supplemental JS.

Sometimes your project can be split in half. Do the landing page, signup, login, privacy policy, etc. in plain HTML.

Maybe don't embed all that stuff in your app and you wouldn't struggle with forms and routing, something that browsers can do very well with no programming.

<comment><USER30> > If you are building a web app, use React or similar.

I disagree with this, there's no reason to use React/Vue/Angular for a web app by default. And I would urge people to try and avoid it for as long as possible and see how far you get. From personal experience I can tell you that most of the time, you don't need a frontend framework to build a web app.

<comment><USER29> From my professional experience throughout the last decade, you're wrong.

I urge people to practice and use the best tool for the job, don't avoid something because some hipster thinks it's too popular.

Feel free to go back to jQuery spaghetti code, it's nice until you build something too big.

React isn't a framework btw, it's just the view. You can stack anything or nothing with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's a nice title but webapps have evolved from documents to application bundles.

It's super cool that we built wildly complicated apps out of what was in spirit an FTP client with a PDF reader but it makes since that we have to hack the document retrieval system less now that the client can run code.

Maybe one day we'll stop hacking on the document store's limited RPC-ish protocol too.

</comment><comment><USER32> "All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again."

I was recently considering that we went through this cultural shift with computing: we started out by having a system to run code onvdistributed to terminals, then to actual desktop computers, then back to remote with the cloud, and now pushing out to "edge" computing. I'm sure it's more nuanced than that, but we seem to do these cycles, refining our processes.

</comment><comment><USER33> It seems the trend points to slower and slower websites with more JS bloat. I also notice a increase in JS-errors causing entire sites to malfunction, recently this happened to large apps like Teams and Float

<comment><USER34> New reddit is painfully slow to login. So much javascript for a simple dialog to load it's absurd.

<comment><USER35> As long as old and compact reddit are still there, I'm fine with it. Twitter on other hand has no lightweight version, unfortunately.

<comment><USER36> Twitter's redesign is one of the most performant SPA's I've seen in a while. It's really smooth and nicely designed too. A lot better than their previous webapp.

<comment><USER37> When I open a Tweet I look at spinner animations for 10 seconds. Scrolling is also the opposite of smooth.

<comment><USER36> Scrolling is silky smooth for me and spinners go away quickly.

What hardware are you running?

<comment><USER37> For their infinite scrolling, they clean the DOM above and below the viewport and only keep a certain amount of tweets rendered. So once you start scrolling a little faster, the JavaScript can't keep pace and starts sputtering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > But the web is about presenting content first and foremost

This is where the article started going wrong. I don't care about the web -- it's a tool for me to do my job. I use the web because it's a much better alternative to shipping a Swing app. I don't care what the web is "about" and neither do my clients.

Also I do think it's funny the JAM stack he's referencing is just the jQuery stack of 5-10 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER39> > _And so was born PHP, it feels like a natural extension to HTML itself._

My ageing memory may be failing me, but wasn't Perl the first widespread language to be used for CGI ?

<comment><USER40> Well, C was there first in that sense, but yes, you're broadly correct. But that misses the point. PHP was developed and released as a templating language - something anybody with a bit of basic HTML knowledge (and, frankly, _all_ HTML knowledge was basic HTML knowledge back then) could use to build an interactive site by using HTML-like tags to employ code written by somebody else as widgets in an HTML page. Perl meant writing the whole thing, including emitting HTML from the code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The leap from static HTML to PHP misses a big chunk of dynamic web site growth that started to produce a lot of the bad patterns that lived on.

As simple and nice as static HTML is, it's inefficient. The reason we care about this now is mostly:

A) A lot of people just hate Javascript. And a lot of that hate is understandable. B) People still worry about the crawlability of their SPAs

JS has a lot of problems but it's also fixing some of these by growing really fast (paradoxically, also one of its problems).

Bots will get more comprehensively better at rendering client-side only apps.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm by no stretch of the imagination a modern web developer. I know plain JS well, HTML and enough CSS/Bootstrap to throw together an internal website.

Even then most of my experience is with server side rendering.

However, for any large project, I would much rather be forced into using a modern framework than not. Any web app that is large enough is going to have some type of bespoke framework that was created by the "architect" who has been there forever.

It's just like dealing with a bespoke ORM, logging, or authentication/authorization framework.

<comment><USER43> Plus shifting processing from backend servers to end user browsers can be a huge plus of you have a decent amount of visitors. Also, just simply pushing my code S3 is so much easier for me than building a Docker image and putting it into a container orchestrator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> We are not going back full circle. We are facing new challenges and realizing how complex web development is.

1- There is no simple CSS start point; unless you don't want to be responsive, support mobile/tablets, add a print stylesheet. Then you have thousands of line. Time to add a pre-processor like Sass because CSS was not designed for such complex use cases.

2- There is no simple HTML either. Are you going to memorize how you coded _that_ widget. Maybe use a framework (like bootstrap) to standardize things.

3- JS is not simple too; and the struggle is real. I remember coffeescript and then how EcmaScript 2015 tried to implement some of that nice stuff. Then you have TypeScript, because if your JavaScript is complex enough you might need stronger types.

4- Then you have JS/HTML/CSS; all of the three, interacting with your DOM.

5- Then you have JS interacting with your server; because who wants to reload the page multiple times. And there are different ways to do that too: Ajax, REST, WebSocket, GraphQl.

6- Now that things are getting too complicated, maybe add a build tool in the process (like Grunt) and a package manager too (npm). They might not be that good, so time to build new ones (gulp/webpack/yarn).

tl;dr: Developing for the Web is complicated. Any attempt to make it simple is going to add to the already complex ecosystem which brought us here in the first place.

<comment><USER45> Well, I completely disagree. Compared to developing sites 15-20 years ago, I think it's a walk in the park now. I feel like I can achieve far more with less code, the tools are more powerful, the code is easier to read, and there is much more consistency across browsers.

Did you want to make a box with rounded corners?

We can do that now... <div style="border-radius: 5px; border: 2px solid black;"></div>

It's intuitive and easy to understand. Try that 20 years ago. You're designing that in Photoshop, slicing up images for each corner, placing them into countless HTML table cells, messing around with all the table and cell heights, widths, paddings, margins, and borders, and struggling to get IE to render it correctly. That could have easily been an hour of work, and it would have resulted in a mess of images and inflexible code. Now, it's one line of code and 10 seconds of work. Did you want to fade the color of the border to red when the user hovers over the box? We can do that with two lines of CSS now. Good luck trying to achieve that in the past.

What do you mean thousands of lines for a responsive/mobile CSS layout, and no simple HTML?

[https://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_re...](https://www.w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_responsive_media_query3)

There, it's a site with a header, footer, navigation, three columns, and it's responsive. 36 lines of CSS and 36 lines of HTML. Add 5-10 lines of CSS to reset spacing at the beginning, and that could literally be an entire responsive website.

<comment><USER46> The basics are easier yes, but the projects have become more complex. So yes, we can easily round corners instead of silly image slices, but like anything, making things easier just bumps up the expectations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Off: Also there is the HTML Hell Page, which is older than many of the current web-developers but still contains the most relevant informations about web- design.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is a strange way to define static. To me, a static site is one which doesn't make dynamic requests. Sure, it might load in static images (even static JavaSceipt!), but it would run fine if all resources were burned to a CD and loaded without networking.

A static site may be archived. It may be used with any browser at all. It will probably be useful even _without_ a browser.

</comment><comment><USER49> I think we just all have to agree that plugging a complex, dynamic component into a web site should be done with care and attention to the details.

If you need to offer some dynamic element to your website, such as a form that does validation, then just add a form that does validation with the most minimal of code, bloat and everything else.

Why is this hard?

</comment><comment><USER50> We've been building Levels.fyi as a static website for the past 3 years! To create a new page, we simply hit new file on our text editor and start to fill the page. We have a simple build system + templating with Gulp and Nunjucks, but its really all we need.

Scaling a static site is incredibly nice & cheap too :P

<comment><USER49> > Scaling a static site is incredibly nice & cheap too :P

And secure. The only back end systems to attack are load balancers and web servers -- if you're self hosting those then just make the file systems read- only and now you're talking seriously tough security barriers between you and an attacker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a repo of static HTML pages with my personal documentation (I develop firmware). When started it some years ago, I almost chose WordPress, since I know it from running a small store.

I didn't wanted the hassle of a DB, theming, etc. Why can't I edit webpages with Dreamweaver like 25 years ago?

Then I've found Hugo ([https://gohugo.io/](https://gohugo.io/)), set a template in like 5 minutes and now I edit my docs directly in VSCode and see them change in realtime. Also, the docs can be easily versioned (git in my case).

For a dumb like me (in the web-developing sense), static pages are a blessing. I am glad we are "evolving back".

</comment><comment><USER51> The best part is that this is from an email newsletter and has broken HTML at the end.

</comment><comment><USER52> Hello!

Article author here - I wrote this after realising that buzz words have entered our industry again in the form of the JAM stack terminology. Hence I took an approach of actually what is going on under the hood.

</comment><comment><USER53> I am trying to bootstrap a SaaS business by myself and chose to split between SPA+rest for the product itself and static html + CSS + vanilla js for the landing page and documentation. I chose this because I've got limited resources and am not a designer, but with react I can get a nice polished interface quite quickly using things like material UI. I really tried hard to keep the tech as simple as possible while providing the quality I want and this was the best option.

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm sure that [https://svelte.dev/](https://svelte.dev/) is not the end goal of web development, but it is the next step.

What I want to see is more support for serving svelte and integration between front end components and backends. (I.e., the backend has a list of root components generated by the front end and a route can return one of those components in a statically typed way)

</comment><comment><USER55> Everyone looks at tooling like Gatsby+netlify to support their dreams of a JAM stack, but vanilla html/JS/CSS can do a lot written by hand too. I recently replaced a whole WordPress blog by saving it from the browser and cleaning it to the point where non-devs have an easier time updating it on GitHub than struggling with the mass of config pages and plugin shortcodes they needed before.

</comment><comment><USER56> As stated in the article, these 'static' files are being programmatically generated by backend services on remote servers rather than client side, but I don't see how this could be construed as a paradigm shift back towards static site design. How can you call dynamic, per-request content generation as static design?

<comment><USER57> You serve the same HTML/JavaScript/CSS bundle to anyone who visits your site, and the JavaScript renders the request specific details on the client (by making more calls to the backend)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> > Playing football is very simple, but playing simple football is the hardest > thing there is

This quote is from Johan Cruyff - A football legendary. I feel it also true with programming.

Nothing wrong with the technical stacks, in my opinion: Do the right work, at the right time, with the right tool.

</comment><comment><USER59> ..and Rails, billed as the anti-enterprise framework in its early days, just added sharding support.

</comment><comment><USER60> I don't even mean for this to be a plug but it's really easy to start up a VueJS site. I have done it multiple times.

``` npm i -g vue-cli; vue-cli create my-app; cd my-app; npm run build; aws s3 cp --recursive dist/ s3://my-site/; ```

</comment><comment><USER61> > But the web is about presenting content first and foremost

Surely this just translates to user first ..? Devs moving from "it's about me" to "it's about you", perhaps with a bit of a shove from google, et al.

</comment><comment><USER62> Static site generators work so well for a lot of sites. Why anyone ever thought they needed ASP.NET MVC or PHP or whatever else and a database all for the sake of a simple blog/article site is beyond me.

</comment><comment><USER63> My personal site is still a bunch of files served up by a cache in front of Wordpress. It'll be cool again in a couple years, I guess.

<comment><USER64> The really cool kids are just using something like Jekyll that does all the templating at publish time and you just have static files you dump onto a server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Ironically for those of us on SSR frameworks, it was fun to just watch the pendulum go back and forth, while we just kept delivering.

</comment><comment><USER66> question... i keep hearing people say that when you use something like react, you need to have some sort of ssr in order to do any sort of seo. is that really necessary since google and other search engine can parse out js nowadays?

</comment><comment><USER67> All of which makes the idea of some sort of JSON-driven API very, very attractive.

</comment><comment><USER68> Would have been apt to use 'devolved'. 'Are We Not Men?'

</comment><comment><USER69> If SPAs are the dark ages then what do you call the IE6/7 jQuery days?

<comment><USER70> The Wild Wild West!!? I remember doing jquery/ajax calling an API and while it was easy to churn out spaghetti or long js file code, it was still easier to read and pick up a few years later.

<comment><USER69> > it was still easier to read and pick up a few years later.

Compared to what?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Does that mean a new version of Microsoft Frontpage is imminent?

</comment><comment><USER72> Honestly, static CMS like wordpress is overkill. A simple client side templating language and a JSON representation of your dynamic content is both sufficient and highly productive</comment>


Neil Armstrong: Obama NASA plan 'devastating' - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36470363/ns/nightly_news/

<comment><USER3> This seems like another skirmish in a fight that's been simmering for ~20 years within NASA over its various missions. One side, which most of the astronauts (incl. Armstrong) are on, thinks that manned exploration ought to be paramount, and therefore supports things like a return to the moon, a manned mission to Mars, etc. Another side, made up mostly of scientists, thinks collecting interesting data ought to be paramount, and tends to believe the most cost-effective way of doing that is via probes, satellites, and robotic rovers.

Bush mostly sided with the first group, making a manned return to the moon as a stepping-stone to a manned trip to Mars the centerpiece of his NASA policy. Obama's mostly siding with the second group.

<comment><USER4> As cool as manned exploration is, it's hard to see what real benefit it brings besides that a lucky few get to experience space firsthand. Not worth the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs.

<comment><USER5> I believe there's a direct correlation between the number of new objects NASA has filmed astronauts landing on, and the number of people wishing to go into the astronomical sciences and the aerospace industry.

<comment><USER6> I think you're on the right track, but replace "astronomical sciences" with "science", and I think it's more accurate. Of every 100 third graders who wanted to become a scientist because of something cool NASA did, I'd guess you get 10 who become scientists, maybe another 15 engineers, but maybe only one of those 25 will have something to do with space. The rest are doing cool things that have nothing to do with space, but they got started on that path because of it.

<comment><USER7> I agree that NASA is a huge engine for interest in science, but I don't think that's exclusive to the manned program. Spirit and Opportunity, for instance, are probes to which the public have made an emotional connection.

Certainly the manned space program gets people excited, but pictures of Jupiter and Saturn do too, and the manned program could never have given us those.

I think that the enthusiasm lost by ending the manned program could be more than compensated for by connecting the public with the exciting things that are discovered by the robotic program.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article gives more context and seem an more interesting read: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_scien...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_science- space/)

While Armstrong is on one side, Aldrin is on the other:

On the other side of the debate, the most outspoken Apollo-era advocate of NASA's new policy is the man who was Armstrong's co-pilot for the first moon landing: Buzz Aldrin.

"Many said the president's decision was misguided, short-sighted and disappointing," Aldrin wrote in an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal. "Having the experience of walking on the moon's surface on the Apollo 11 mission, I think he made the right call. If we follow the president's plan, our next destination in space, Mars, will be within our reach."

What is the Constallation program?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program>

An excerpt from the wikipedia page:

President Obama's argument[32][2] is that the lifetime for the International Space Station would be extended by an additional 5 years and an additional US$6 billion would be paid to private companies for shuttling astronauts to and from it after the Space Shuttle program ends while NASA develops new technology for future space exploration missions. According to Obama, his vision embodies a "bold new approach to human space flight that embraces commercial industry, forges international partnerships, and invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration."

<comment><USER9> The first time one of those private companies blows up a rocket and kills a crew of astronauts, the resulting public outcry will put NASA back in the astronaut-launching business instantly.

And if that doesn't turn out to happen, so much the better.

It's possible Obama is calculating enough to see this.

<comment><USER10> 3 people were killed in the Mojave desert after an explosion at a Virgin Galactic facility.

<comment><USER9> They weren't astronauts wearing US flag patches, though. And it didn't rain hardware all over Texas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Going commercial for land-to-orbit ferrying makes sense: it's a proven concept that's been done plenty of times and just needs to become more efficient.

Building land-to-deep space vessels makes little sense. It unnecessarily reinvents the land-to-orbit step. The launch rockets are one more thing to invent and maintain. Every space mission needs to get into orbit: don't "roll your own", factor it out and let industry tackle it.

NASA should go commercial for ferrying and focus on robots and proof of concept projects. Manned deep space missions should be launched starting in orbit from starports, and are unnecessary before then. They can be assembled modularly in space.

As far as pragmatic and profitable reasons to go into space, mining is probably the biggest. Asteroids often contain rare metals in abundance and are worth trillions. Space mining will only develop if we first invest in: 1) Making orbital ferrying as cheap as possible 2) Orbital facilities to serve as launch platforms for research and ventures. 3) Advanced Robotics

I think NASA's new plan is doing everything right and heading in this direction.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is what worries me the most:

<http://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/12041303534>

Until we get out of our comfort zone, we won't make much progress.

<comment><USER13> On the bright side, we have launched probes out of the solar system. New Horizons will reach Pluto in 5 years.

The problem with human spaceflight is that humans are hard to keep alive in space. We need air, food, water, constant exercise (or artificial gravity), and protection from cosmic rays. All of this support equipment has mass. More mass means bigger rockets full of more fuel. The Saturn V only launched three guys to the Moon and it was 110 meters tall. It was practically a skyscraper built to explode in just the right way so that the top floor ended up on the Moon.

On the other hand, probes just need a radioisotope thermal generator or solar panels. Not to mention that probes don't mind one-way tickets. And family members don't cry when a probe is lost in an accident.

Barring new propulsion technologies (NERVA? Unlikely in this political climate.), humans won't be going anywhere.

A pie-in-the-sky solution would be to put a brain in a vat and shoot that into space. (A simulation of a brain would be even better, but's probably farther off.) A brain doesn't have bones that weaken in microgravity. 3lbs of brain needs fewer resources than 170lbs of meat. Also, I'd bet on brain-machine interfaces advancing before space propulsion.

<comment><USER14> Or make manned missions one-way only? Send out humans, bring back the data they collected?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It all boils down to whether you believe that activities in space should consist of a series of big grandstanding stunts, or whether you think that space should become just another place where people live and work - <USER2> human horizons. It seems clear that the sorts of missions upon which Armstrong embarked, though pioneering at the time, were not sustainable. The main reason for this lack of sustainability was that the hardware was bespoke and too expensive, and required too large a ground crew to operate. What we should probably be working towards are sustainable and increasing levels of human activity in space. This means working towards lowering costs and standardising hardware, and greater commercial involvement.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's tough to question Neil Armstrong but to me $50M/seat for launch seems like a bargain compared to the alternative. Just based on the $10B we've spent on Constellation so far that's 200 seats. I don't know how much Constellation is supposed to cost in the end but let's say it's another $20B for the sake of argument. Do we have a pressing need to send 400 people into LEO over the next 5-10 years? Over the next 20 years? Maybe we should just consider dusting off the Apollo.

</comment><comment><USER17> Some context: <http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/is-a-human-spac.html> (definitely worth reading the comments on that too)

</comment><comment><USER18> He pretty much lost me with his "the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity" and the "to be without carriage to low Earth orbit ... destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature" lines.

In an environment of extreme political and economic turbulence, the status of the space program is about the last thing I'm concerned about. The space program was a useful ideological tool when it was fresh. Now any state with enough cash can launch.

<comment><USER19> How many nations have put a man into space? I think we're up to three.

I can't say I'm all for a race to Mars, but I think need to make constant progress, and we can't let the program fall apart. It will cost even more money and years to restart it.

As it currently stands, we have a space station and for the next few years America won't own a ship to get there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Shouldn't we continue to invest in long-term infrastructure development (education, research) before shedding cash for hyperexpensive space trips? I'm just about efficiency

<comment><USER20> Would love a polite answer to my question.

<comment><USER17> Why choose to cut space exploration? Surely there are a myriad of more "worthy" targets to cut in favour of social programs?

<comment><USER20> For example: I don't see the point of a manned mission to mars at this point in time. We clearly wouldn't be able to settle a colony there. Until it becomes so cheap/easy/efficient, we're better of diverting resources elsewhere.

I am by no means categorically opposed to space exploration or research.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cx: A bash function for comfortable extraction of *.tar/*.tar.gz/*.tar.bz2 - <AUTHOR> http://scratchingmyownitch.com/post/1326126873/cx-bash-function-comfortable-extraction-tar-tgz-tbz

<comment><USER2> I use dtrx for this purpose (<http://brettcsmith.org/2007/dtrx/>).

<comment><USER3> It's worth mentioning that this is in the ubuntu (and debian?) repos. 'sudo apt-get install dtrx'

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Like many others, I've scratched this itch too: <http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/imurray2/code/hacks/untar> a simple bash script. The comments in the source list debian/ubuntu packages to install to support all formats.

It detects and extracts .7z .a .ace .arj .cab .cpio .deb .lha .pmd .rar .rpm .tar{,.gz,.Z,.bz2,.xz} .tnef .zip (including .jar, .xpi etc) .zoo and MIME/uuencoded mail attachments without ever splattering multiple files over the current directory. Haven't compared to dtrx.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a petty cool idea.

Although you're _supposed_ to already package things like this, I think everyone's been through the "oh damn, now there is 20 new files and directories, which is what" before.

</comment><comment><USER6> GNU tar already automatically detects compression types.

tar -xf file

Will happily extract tar, tgz, tbz and more.

<comment><USER7> That's not the feature cx advertises.

<comment><USER6> You're right. I read the vague headline and assumed the obvious. This is a tar bomb prevention tool and looks useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> cx is a common alias for chmod +x, so another name might be better.

<comment><USER9> I've never heard of that - how do you know it's common?

<comment><USER8> It's in UNIX Programming Environment by Kernighan and Pike, chapter 3.

<comment><USER10> Also in Unix Power Tools by Powers, Peek, O'Reilly and Loukides, article 50.8 (3rd edition).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This looks fantastic. I just need to add support for some more archive formats (.rar primarily) and this will fill a need thats been bugging me for a while.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've scratched that itch as well a few years ago: <http://porkrind.org/uz/uz>

</comment><comment><USER13> Egads, this is a problem that is still being solved?

I think the only reason for this is no one expected us to still be using FUCKING UNIX at this point in history.

(Seriously... Open does not mean Good, will the OSS community ever 'start fresh'?)</comment>


Visual.ly - Telling Stories With Data - <AUTHOR> http://visual.ly/

<comment><USER2> Serious question. Is there anything new or timely about the visual.ly homepage?

<comment><USER3> The visual.ly marketplace for infographic designer is new <https://marketplace.visual.ly/></comment></comment>