New elephant study shows catastrophic decline in Africa - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/africa/great-elephant-census/ <comment><AUTHOR> You guys should consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights these poachers. The founder, Damien Mander[2], is an Australian ex spec-ops sniper who is using his military experience to train the park rangers since they, unlike the poachers, tend to be poorly equipped and trained as well as understaffed.

There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of them are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular orphan and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor this little fella [5][6]. It's a great gift.

You can also participate in an upcoming hackathon this October 7-9 in London, San Diego, Seattle, Sydney and DC that will aim to fight poaching. [7]

[0] [http://www.iapf.org/](http://www.iapf.org/)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti- Poaching_Fo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti- Poaching_Foundation)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander)

[3] [http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org](http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org)

[4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust)

[5] [http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp...](http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp?N=318)

[6] [http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb](http://instagram.com/p/sigT3IAUKb)

[7] [http://www.zoohackathon.com/](http://www.zoohackathon.com/)

P.S. You should subscribe to [http://reddit.com/r/babyelephantgifs](http://reddit.com/r/babyelephantgifs) and [http://reddit.com/r/babyrhinogifs](http://reddit.com/r/babyrhinogifs) for a daily dose of adorable pachyderm content.

<comment><USER2> Alternatively, attack the buyer mentality? Promote awareness of the issue to problem countries.

<comment><AUTHOR> A lot of organizations are trying to do that. Yao Ming is also trying to work on this [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ex-rocket-yao-ming- aims...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ex-rocket-yao-ming-aims-to-save- africas-elephants--with-china- campaign/2014/09/03/87ebbe2a-d3e1-4283-964e-8d87dea397d6_story.html)

His previous shark fin campaign was successful the demand dropped by like 80% IIRC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> >elephants are actually far more valuable alive than dead...Every elephant killed will earn a poacher just a few hundred dollars...a live elephant can earn more than a million dollars for communities involved in eco-tourism...

Poachers are driven by money, why not hire them as eco-tourism guides. For them they get a stable income and no threat of death by soldier. I guess when you hire one poacher, another 10 are waiting to begin poaching...?

<comment><USER4> People who are willing to brutally kill an animal for a few hundred dollars, may not make the best eco-tourism guides. They obviously don't actually care about the environment and animals to begin with.

<comment><USER3> Sorry for the bad source, I just did a quick search but Naples hired ex-cons, well versed in the trade of scamming tourists to help tourists avoid getting scammed.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly- news/33773898#33773898](http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly- news/33773898#33773898)

My thinking is they hire a bunch of poachers, basically become informants to learn the poaching trade. Lure them out with money, more than they could earn as a poacher and try to get ahead of these guys.

<comment><USER5> Thats the best strategy. An elder told me of his distant relative, who was producing counterfeit coins like 100 years ago. When he got caught, instead of sentencing him to prison, they hired him in the coin minting place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If Africa cannot establish a safe habitat for these creatures, we need to establish a breeding reserve for them in the US. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_rewilding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_rewilding)

<comment><AUTHOR> One issue with that is that elephants tend to roam over thousands of miles and this could be tricky in the US if an elephant herd came to town. Fun fact, they actually have a 'built-in gps', one elephant can tell another elephant about a location thousands of miles away and the other elephant is able to locate it, [https://www.thedodo.com/elephants-travel-humans- help-1353631...](https://www.thedodo.com/elephants-travel-humans- help-1353631970.html)

Also it's not just about saving the species but also about the fact that elephants are super important for the ecosystem. Like some of the ecosystems could collapse without elephants.

<comment><USER7> TIL I have a built-in GPS. Neat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Who buys ivory? Are the customers mainly in Asia, and for aphrodisiac purposes, or is this a stereotyp?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it's mainly in Asia but it's not uncommon in the US either (one of the biggest opponents of total ban is, surprise surprise, the NRA). China is number one, US is number two.

It's not bought as an aphrodisiac (you are thinking of rhino horn), ivory is mostly to make decorative trinkets.

<comment><USER9> just as a heads up, the aphrodisiac thing is a long-running myth.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros#Horn_trade_and_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros#Horn_trade_and_use)

<comment><USER10> Anything people believe strongly is an aphrodisiac is one via the placebo effect.

<comment><USER9> Except they don't believe that. It is said to cure illnesses and is in some cases a status symbol. Belief that it is used as an aphrodisiac was supposedly fabricated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As interesting trivia, the reason why elephants went extinct in northern Africa is largely because of the massive number that were brought to Rome and killed in gladiatorial games.

</comment><comment><USER12> Why not legalize the trade and sale of ivory and have states become the sole monopoly of their sale? where so you think the money is coming from?

Once it's legal you can start to squeeze the black market through legislation and regulation. If it's illegal then you're completely powerless.

There's so many parallels here of drug legalization.

<comment><AUTHOR> This will not work. What will happen is that

a.) the legal market will serve as a cover for the illegal market

b.) you have no way of determining origin of ivory

c.) where would this 'legal' ivory come from in the first place?

d.) enforcement of these rules is impossible or difficult at best. Currently, there are are 6 Fish and Wildlife service employees that are supposed to monitor all incoming cargo to NY and NJ ports for illegal wildlife products. That's very few people for the job.

> There's so many parallels here of drug legalization.

Upon closer inspection there actually aren't. The process of manufacturing drugs isn't actually all that bad (if you ignore the distribution and consumption).

<comment><USER12> This shifts the issue from elephants being killed indiscriminately for their tusks to an issue of state collected taxes and fees. In the long term it's much better to have the latter.

You determine the origin by creating a system that leaves paper trails everywhere, from those that collect to those that sell, to exporters. The beauty of a legal system is that everything is recorded and on the books.

Enforcement is easy when your project is self-funded through the internal and legal trade of ivory.

<comment><AUTHOR> You didn't answer the question where the legal ivory comes from.

<comment><USER12> Did you know that a Rhino's horn and an elephant's tusk can be safely removed by trained zoologist without harming the animal? In fact they do it to elephants in captivity that destroy fences[0].

[0] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614538](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614538)

<comment><AUTHOR> AFAIK, they can't remove the whole tusk. For one thing and for another, even if we ignore the morality of this, how do you ensure who removed the tusk?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> meantime, people are hunting mammoth tusk

recent report (Russian):

[http://www.currenttime.tv/a/tusk- hunters/27948066.html](http://www.currenttime.tv/a/tusk-hunters/27948066.html)

quote: ``Оборот слоновой кости тщательно контролируется, поэтому особым спросом сейчас пользуются бивни мамонта '' The ivory market is tightly controlled therefore mammoth tusk is in high demand right now

quote: ``Этот 65-килограммовый бивень только что извлекли из вечной мерзлоты. Впоследствии его продали за 34 тысячи долларов.'' \- This 65 kg tusk was sold later for 34 thousands dollars.

old report (2013 English): [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/125-mammoth- tusks/...](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/125-mammoth-tusks/larmer- text)

</comment><comment><USER14> let's not mince words. The catastrophic acceleration in decline of elephant populations is directly correlated to the rise in wealth of China and Asia in general. For countries with such advanced IQ and engineering skills, this is a massive stain on their reputation. They need to address this massively.

Now I'm fully aware that _most_ of the decline in the Elephant (and other) species in general in the past 200 years can be blamed squarely on the West. But this does not excuse snuffing out these absolutely priceless brethren of humanity for the most base of barbaric reasons, now that there are so few of them left.

Asia needs to sort this out, like, yesterday. The West has huge historic baggage on this and thankfully was able to turn itself around at the last minute. Now china and Asia seriously need to do the same, pronto. PRONTO.

</comment><comment><USER15> We should introduce them in Texas and Mexico as invasive species. I know it sounds silly but they'd probably really thrive.

<comment><USER16> At one time, during the late Pleistocene epoch, woolly mammoths roamed North America. They were close cousins of the Asian elephant, and so you could argue that elephants would not be invasive, any more than horses (current North American horses are from Eurasia, original North American horse species is extinct...).

<comment><AUTHOR> An angry elephant is a lot more dangerous than an angry horse.</comment></comment></comment>


13" and 15" MacBook Pros Have a Slower SATA Interface - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2009/06/14/13-and-15-macbook-pros-have-a-slower-sata-interface/ <comment><USER2> The 'slower chipset' is NVidia MCP79. I have a unibody MacBook with the exact same chipset and it's running at 3 Gigabit. This is probably just a driver or firmware issue.

New unibody: [http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/06/6-15-0...](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/06/6-15-09mbp1.5sm2.jpg)

Old unibody: <http://files.getdropbox.com/u/48012/unibody.png>

</comment><comment><USER3> This appears to be a configuration issue, as the relevant hardware is the same as the previous models. Performance only appears to be effected on high-end aftermarket SSDs, not on the drives Apple ships.

</comment><comment><USER4> The best way to "win" is to skimp on parts that reviewers won't notice, and to beef up the parts that they will notice.

(I bought a bike the other day that includes a very nice pump, which I will probably never use, but skimps on the freewheel and chainring, which I will have to replace at my own expense. Very silly.)

<comment><USER5> It's unlikely that Apple saved any money by underclocking the SATA interface; I would guess they did it to save power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since when did this become an Apple news site?

<comment><USER7> since macs became popular with hackers.</comment></comment>


The Healing Buzz of "Drunk History" - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/23/the-healing-buzz-of-drunk-history <comment><USER2> Is there a word for these types of articles that roughly describe why something works so well? I especially like the acknowledgement of how it could all go wrong and the limitations of the format. Is this considered "critcism" in the classic sense or is it something else? I want more of this compassionate/curious/generous/careful engagement, but don't know how to search for it.

<comment><USER3> I thought the end, where Nussbaum compared the British version to the American version, was especially insightful:

 _Effortlessness like this takes craft. Drunkenness is not enough, which we know for certain, since the experiment has been tried across the Atlantic. The British "Drunk History"—which you can catch in clips on YouTube—is terrible. It's depressing. It's not funny, but that's not really the problem... No one responds. It's hard to create chemistry with Big Brother._

I love Drunk History for all the reasons she articulated. I've never watched the British version. She has persuaded me not to waste my time.

Her appreciation of Drunk History reminds me of a line from Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles:

 _And it was the touch of the imperfect upon the would-be perfect that gave the sweetness, because it was that which gave the humanity._

It's a quality Nussbaum seems especially atuned to in her reviews. The show High Maintenance shares a similar tenderness for the human condition, "sweet, filthy, and forgiving". It was her review of the show, years ago when it was still a web series, which turned me on to it.

As humans, sometimes we need humanity. Even Steve Jobs recognized it:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJWWtV1w5fw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJWWtV1w5fw)

<comment><USER4> I'm going on a slightly controversial limb here, but this comes from a place of dear love so please bear with me: it is my experience that the U.K. (or perhaps just England) is woefully outclassed by Americans when it comes to podcasts, or even radio in general. I have been looking for an entertaining British podcast for the last two years, and I am coming up depressingly empty handed.

The only half-redeeming British radio show that I could find was My Dad Wrote A Porno, but after half a season, the novelty wore off and that too is now but a note in the history books. I have been asking around (for two years!) for any other good tips. Alas: nothing I can bear to listen to for more than 1 episode.

Meanwhile, in the Americas, we have Planet Money, Serial, This American Life, Hidden Brain, SYSK, Freakonomics, Hardcore History, Fresh Air (!), The Moth, etc etc forever etc. These are all absolute smash hits in their own right. Americans "get" it.

It kills me. Why?? I don't know if it is the dreary of the English accent, or just this dry demeanour which perhaps looks engaging with visual feedback, but just sounds completely vapid over sound only..? What is the secret to good podcasting?

Why is it that America has Planet Money, and the UK has Moneybox? They are probably roughly targeting the same audience, but one is a riveting listen whose only fault is they don't release more, and the other, well.. the other is Moneybox. I applaud their effort, but it's Just Not There.

Now, this will undoubtedly trigger bad feelings: I'm sorry. Just to be clear: I don't mean that Americans are better than Brits. I am neither, so I have no stake in this fight. This is just an outsider's view. I love radio, I love the format, and I love both Brits and Americans, and I wish everyone did well at everything. And of course, this is my personal opinion. On the other hand: this is a pretty stark pattern, and I am anything but surprised it showed up in Drunk History just the same. And I would love to hear others' opinions on this, because it's frustrating me to no end.

<comment><USER5> I'm a Brit and (possibly causally, possibly not) tend to find US radio/podcasts and TV programming too emotional and melodramatic and much prefer Brit ones.

I'm offering this only in the spirit of debate - each to their own of course.

Just in case you haven't tried them, my personal favourites have to be some of the many from the BBC. Pretty sure they're available internationally and being the BBC they're all ad-free:

\- More Or Less (a lighthearted but gentle Freakonimics-style critique of numbers and statistics in the news)

\- The Bottom Line (debates from the world of business) with the superb Evan Davis

\- The News Quiz (panel show style comedy - might need an appreciation of Brit humour). Great for the commute home after a tough day.

\- From Our Own Correspondent (super informative non-mainstream news from the corners of the Earth. Has a tendency to be almost suicidally depressing at times yet still somehow fascinating).

\- In Our Time (an in-depth discussion of an intellectual topic which can be anything from Shakespeare to the Mexican-American War to Neutron Stars. Huge back-catalogue of episodes.)

\- The Curious Cases of Rutherford and Fry (lighthearted science show about anything and everything - great presenting team).

There's a ton of others but they get more UK focussed and perhaps a little dry (Law in Action falls under this category perhaps but is still in my list).

It's quite possible these are all ones you've tried and found not to be to your taste. If not then I'd suggest they're worth trying.

<comment><USER6> Fully agree with your take. I find a lot of US podcasts and programming much too formulaic and predictable, with presenters far too likely to fill in with endless "OMG, wow this is totally awesome" and other worthless hype when talking of the deeply mundane and average. Makes it impossible to spot when something is rare or actually worthy of a little awe.

Occasionally I find them unlistenable thanks to their alternative to the "dreary of the English accent" turning into accent as an offensive weapon. Some manage to make a New York accent sound lyrical and poetic. Applies to some Audible narrators too sadly.

I do enjoy some, Mythbusters for instance.

There's a few more that are worth checking out. Many Radio 4 programmes are available to download and as podcasts.

\+ 50 Things (that made the Modern Economy). Excellent look at some surprising things that have made a disproportionate difference. Presented by Tim Harford (The Undercover Economist). He's also the presenter of More or Less.

\+ The Infinite Monkey Cage. Superb Science and Comedy with Robin Ince and Brian Cox who make a surprisingly good double act.

\+ Fry's English Delight. Stephen Fry exploring the English language. Deeply fascinating as most things from Fry are.

\+ I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue for weekly silliness.

\+ Reith Lectures. Often thought provoking, sometimes a bit too "heavy".

Not to forget no end of excellent comedies - Radio 4 being the original source of Hitchhiker's after all (the books came later).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Drunk history worked exactly twice for me: Fredrick Douglas, and the Night Before Christmas. Every other episode I watched after that was so so.

<comment><USER8> I'm a big fan of Frederick Douglass. Makes me wonder if there are any videos online of the episode in question.

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

<comment><USER7> Pretty sure its on YouTube

<comment><USER8> Thanks. I'll look around at some point, maybe later today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The episode mentioned at the start of the article is "Game Changers". It's season 5, episode 3.</comment>


Git hook plugin system built using python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/newky/hooked

<comment><USER2> Very cool stuff. You may want to add a license so others can make use of this appropriately :D

<comment><USER3> Hey, added a license, thanks for your comments.</comment></comment>


New awesome tricky feature on CSS position:sticky - <AUTHOR> http://codepen.io/html5web/pen/Brqjw

<comment><USER2> What browsers support this?

Chrome 23.0.1271.22 on OS X and it doesn't seem to be supported.

<comment><USER3> You should enter about:flags in addressbar, then Enable experimental WebKit features. Enable experimental WebKit features that are in development.</comment></comment>


An Uber and Lyft Shutdown in California Looks Inevitable - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/16/21370828/uber-lyft-california-shutdown-drivers-classify-ballot-prop-22 <comment><USER2> It's disappointing that Uber and Lyft are saying they need a 3rd classification (e.g., not employee, not contractor, but a third option), when Prop 22 is merely an exemption of ride share workers from AB5. The narrative they're attempting to paint isn't even cohesive.

Heck, here's the ballot measure title: "Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers" [0]

Here's Dara on Aug 10: "As a start, all gig economy companies need to pay for benefits... I'm proposing that gig economy companies be required to establish benefits funds which give workers cash that they can use for the benefits they want, like health insurance or paid time off." [1]

[0]: [https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App- Based...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App- Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_\(2020\))

[1]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara- kho...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-khosrowshahi- gig-workers-deserve-better.html)</comment>


Show HN: Free open-beta ServiceBot instances - <AUTHOR> Hi all, founder of ServiceBot here, we have just released our limited time free open-beta instances. Feel free to signup on our website https://servicebot.io and give us your feedback. Note: you need a Stripe account for ServiceBot to complete the setup process. <comment><AUTHOR> You can also learn more about our story and how our two week project project turned into a full-time open source startup on our recent blog: [http://blog.servicebot.io/my-two-week-project-turned- into-a-...](http://blog.servicebot.io/my-two-week-project-turned-into-a-full- time-open-source-startup/)

</comment><comment><USER2> intersting</comment>


Escape the color box - <AUTHOR> http://haralampi.com/2018-12/escape-the-color-box/ <comment><USER2> The site doesn't work well on mobile. It keeps randomly jumping up to the beginning.

<comment><USER3> That's alright, it's hideously difficult to read on my 27" retina display iMac so it's a bad experience all 'round.

<comment><USER4> Funny how that works. I could feel my eyes relaxing when I clicked the link, and I thought to myself that this is what a readable, content-first, website should look like. Using FF on a regular 24" full-HD screen.

<comment><USER3> For me, it's too low contrast. Extremely thin, monospaced, light-grey font on a black background just doesn't read nearly as well as well-proportioned proportional dark font on a light background — or, if it must be a dark background, yellow text on dark blue is the most legible. Regular Courier over Courier New could help, too, but ultimately a proportional font directs the eyes more easily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The real trick is how the shiny book and class were sold to the company.

You can get good ideas from a book, or a box, or a class, but you don't get results from them.

</comment><comment><USER6> Just a heads up, my corporate laptop is reporting this site as a malware distributor.

<comment><AUTHOR> Strange. There is nothing there but Google Fonts and a script for the background lines and the one image. No other external resources. It is hosted on GitHub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Every organization strives to improve and empower its employees." lol

<comment><USER8> If you consider employees as taking money as input, and producing more money (in profit) as output, I guess that statement holds.

It does take a lot of cynicism, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Would 25 multiple choice questions be enough to detect random answering with certainty? Surely many combinations come up way more often than others when answered truthfully.

<comment><USER10> A perfect test would, first, try to prevent correlation between questions. It would be a waste to ask 4 questions when 3 suffice to predict the last answer with good accuracy.

After that, some questions supposed to be perfectly correlated with previous are added. These should, however, use different words or concepts altogether, to avoid detection. These questions are meant to establish consistency, and would pick up on randomness

25 strikes me as too few to get into that kind of verification. I seem to remember serious personality tests to usually contain in the range of 100 to 200 questions.

<comment><USER11> You're on to something. I recently took several, and they contained a lot of questions (100+). I noticed that many of the questions were testing suspiciously similar things, only worded differently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And thus we see that cold-reading can be automated.

See, e.g.: astrology, enneagram, MBTI, Big Five...</comment>


Update on extension support in the new Firefox for Android - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/02/update-on-extension-support-in-the-new-firefox-for-android/ <comment><USER2> My BS senses are tingling slightly. Enabling most popular extensions seems like a calculated move to silence the majority. Is it Mozilla's role to hand- pick, test and optimize third-party extensions? They still don't clarify if 'unblessed' extensions will ever be allowed.

The internet is more and more consumed via mobile devices. User extensions are the only practical way for user to control the experience. For example, Video Speed Controller is amazing way to reign control over various video controls all using same shortcuts. Old Reddit Redirect makes reddit useable again. Such extensions won't be most popular but are essential to my browsing experience.

I'm not sure why Mozilla wouldn't allow any extension to run on mobile Firefox, and just let third-party developers port/adapt extensions as needed?

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone notice that it's impossible to browse to a private DNS name in the new Firefox for Android?

It's because of DoH, but there seems to be no way to disable it on Android. The entire 'Network Settings' tab seems to be missing from the settings page.

Even worse, it then submits the entire URL to the default search engine, even if you manually input it starting with scheme:// and everything.

I worked around the first part by blocking 22.214.171.124 at my router, but there are still some major annoyances. First, one has to enter the scheme:// portion to even attempt DNS lookup (as opposed to search engine). In previous versions, adding a trailing slash to the hostname was sufficient. And again, even with the full URL it will send the whole thing to the search engine if the hostname lookup fails.

While debugging this I un-disabled the Chrome app for the first time in 3 years and it doesn't seem to have any of these braindead issues. Maybe it's time I consider if I'd rather just deal with the ads.

<comment><USER4> [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over- https](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https)

about:config works on the mobile variants, too. Granted, it is not the best UX, but it works for now.

It still seems strange to me that browsers overrule the OS' and thus the user's global preferences.

<comment><USER3> about:config is gone from the Android version.

edit: However, your link was still indirectly quite helpful. A couple of hops away, I found [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/canary-domain-use- appli...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/canary-domain-use-application- dnsnet) which explains a better way to handle this at the network level, than blocking 22.214.171.124.

<comment><USER5> I just went to about:config on Firefox Nightly for Android, so no, you're incorrect and it's still there.

<comment><USER3> No, you're incorrect. It might be in Nightly but it's not in the normal stable version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anyone aware of an easy way to tell if a specific extension is available or not? I really don't want to upgrade just to find out I'm missing one I rely upon.

<comment><USER7> If it's not on the list below, it's not available.

        uBlock Origin
        Dark Reader
        HTTPS Everywhere
        Privacy Badger
        NoScript Security Suite
        Decentraleyes
        Search by Image
        YouTube High Definition
        Privacy Possum

<comment><USER8> gone missing:

Umatrix</comment></comment></comment>


For Cinephiles, Netflix Is Less and Less an Option - <AUTHOR> http://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2014/09/12/netflix_streaming_dvds/ <comment><USER2> It's almost like the executives at the studios and distributors who own the rights to these films don't realize that, if I can't easily, quickly and conveniently buy access to their film legally, I will just bittorrent the damn thing. And personally I don't even feel guilty about it. It's 2014, join the 21st century or suffer the consequences.

I don't mind paying for content, and - in fact - I largely prefer to do so, so there will be more new content coming. But I am not going to bend over backwards to accommodate these laggards and dinosaurs refusal to pay attention to the world we live in.

<comment><USER3> It's almost like film consumers don't realize there are transaction and frictional costs to the licensing and distribution of a film, even for streaming, and many films are not popular enough to earn back those costs in the foreseeable future.

I don't think people realize how expensive it is to _manufacture_ a film. I don't mean in terms of hiring big-name actors _or_ in terms of striking prints and pressing DVDs, although those can be very expensive indeed. But even if you stay digital all the way it can be very expensive. Look at this distribution contract, in particular the list of deliverables on pps 19-20: [http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_bui...](http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/entertainment_sports/distribution_agreement_form.authcheckdam.pdf)

Every time you have a rights transfer (eg to a new licensee) there's a agreement and a bunch of deliverables along those lines, which have to be negotiated and QCed. It's not a matter of just taking what people have an uploading it to (say) Netflix's servers; if there's something wrong with the digital copy or it isn't conformant to (ever changing) standards, then dissatisfied viewers are going to blame Netflix. The absolute bare minimum to get a piece of content through a distribution pipeline is about $5000.

People will put up with bad torrents of something because, well, it's free. But if they've paid for something (even though a subscription service) and it doesn't play back properly, that becomes a PR problem.

<comment><USER4> _It 's almost like film consumers don't realize there are transaction and frictional costs to the licensing and distribution of a film, even for streaming, and many films are not popular enough to earn back those costs in the foreseeable future._

Gee, that sounds a lot like somebody else's problem.

<comment><USER5> > _Gee, that sounds a lot like somebody else 's problem._

I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something, but that sounds an awful lot like some sort of weird consumer entitlement (that is shared by many). I mean, how is it _not_ the consumer's problem?

I am far from a big industry apologist, but why do many consumers of digital content believe that the content should be delivered on their own terms at a price they set, else stealing it is justifiable?

I mean it's not like air or water where you have to consume it or else die. If the industry produces a product that is woefully expensive and delivered extraordinarily inefficiently for most consumers, then isn't the correct consumer response to do without? I am trying to see the difference between this and believing that it's OK to steal a car because the manufacturer hasn't made it "affordable enough" for you.

What am I missing?

<comment><USER6> When have consumers ever cared if a firm makes such a costly product that it can't be profitable? Consumers will never care about that. Appeals to make them care about "manufacturing costs" are pointless.

I think it's a little disingenuous to keep calling it "stealing." It's copyright infringement, and in my experience people have never felt as badly about doing it as compared to stealing. For instance, think back before digital books became popular: if you had a truly epic book of poems and you had several friends who wanted to read it and copies of the actual book were unusually difficult to procure, I think it used to be that many people would just run a large chunk of the book through a xerox machine without thinking twice. Similarly, I know people who used to get very into making custom mixed CDs as gifts for people. Copying an artwork has never been considered a crime on the level of stealing someone else's possession.

<comment><USER5> Well, I find myself in a funny position, as I'm not much of a corporate/big industry apologist, so I don't really have a motive to be disingenuous. These questions are earnest head-scratchers for me.

To answer your first question, consumers care about manufacturing costs every time they agree to pay the producer of a good the producer's asking price. But, this is not so much about caring about manufacturing costs as it is about respecting ownership rights.

In any case, it's really splitting hairs to say that it's copyright infringement vs. stealing. In fact, I believe that making that distinction is what is disingenuous. To the extent that a copyright has value, it's because people respect that it represents ownership of a thing and, thus, the right to capture any value that the thing produces. When we don't respect that, then we have effectively taken any value from the creator for his/her creation. Meanwhile, we enjoy value from the creation, whether we use it for ourselves, re-sell it, or otherwise. How is that not stealing?

I do get that people have always made a distinction between copyright infringement and stealing, but my question is why is that so? Actually, my original question extends further than that to ask, why is it that people additionally feel entitled to do so?

<comment><USER6> Sorry I'm like a week late here, I don't check HN very frequently.

It's not just "people" that distinguish between copyright infringement and stealing; the law does as well. I find it extremely odd that you're asking why people feel "entitled" to make a perfectly lawful distinction.

It's my personal opinion that traditional ownership of property and the intellectual property afforded by copyright are such different concepts that all debate tends to collapse into incoherence once the concepts are taken to be the same.

For things that I personally own, there is no idea of a "public domain," and my belongings are not temporarily granted exclusively to me for the good of the public. My macbook is my macbook, full-stop. Copyright, on the other hand, is a temporary monopoly on the distribution of a creation because, at some point in time, the state deemed it beneficial to the public to incentivize artists/creators/inventors with this kind of financial benefit.

Why do we have any concept of a public domain if copyright and traditional ownership are perfectly interchangeable as ideas? Why is there no concept of "fair use" for my macbook or my car, but there is such a thing as "fair use" for any novel I might write?

My personal take: there isn't really any analogous concept of "ownership" for most things that could be considered artworks or intellectual creations. I can be credited as the original creator, and I can attempt to control the distribution of physical manifestations of my artifact, but in what sense do I actually "own," say, the dirty limerick that I wrote? The only way I can _truly_ own it is to simply never show it to a soul. But that's not very satisfying, is it? And yet it's perfectly satisfying to keep my macbook solely to myself ...

<comment><USER5> > _It 's not just "people" that distinguish between copyright infringement and > stealing; the law does as well. I find it extremely odd that you're asking > why people feel "entitled" to make a perfectly lawful distinction..._

I don't mean technically or literally. I mean in spirit. The legal distinctions you're making are obvious statements of fact. There's no need to debate them. It's your conclusion that the distinction should rightly lead to people making a _moral_ distinction when violating one law vs. the other that's odd here.

For instance, you make a distinction between owning your macbook and copyright ownership, as if the latter is only conferred by the state, whereas the former is some sort of natural right. Maybe your failure to acknowledge the sameness of the two is the problem here. That is, the protections you enjoy around ownership of anything is a societal contract that is upheld by the state. Of course, this explains why, in some cultures, there is no notion of private property ownership at all.

I just find these discussions to be intellectually dishonest and loaded with rationalizations that skirt the moral issue. All of this talk of ownership really hangs on economic questions. And, if you want to be able to own your macbook without someone making some abstract argument that, say, the origins of the source material are free products of the planet and thus your macbook belongs to everyone, then it seems you also have to acknowledge the economic value of copyrights.

<comment><USER6> I think you've latched onto the wrong thing here. Clearly both things are conferred by the state. I was not arguing that one was more worthy because it somehow _wasn 't_ granted by the state, but rather that they are granted for clearly different reasons, because the two types of "ownership" are so vastly different that they required different laws.

The fact that both of these concepts are enforced by the state doesn't change the fact that there is still no real possibility of my macbook entering the public domain after an arbitrary numbers of years. That one form of property _does_ do this, and another doesn't, would suggest that we're talking about two extremely different things, no?

If there were a fundamental "sameness of the two", then making an exact replica of my macbook would be the same thing as stealing it from me. Clearly that's not the case though. Copyright deals with who has the permission to make legal copies of a thing. Generally it's a much stickier question than the question of who owns a physical item. _Sometimes_ I can legally copy a thing without being the copyright holder, though rarely, I'd say, can I legally steal something.

I don't think I'm arguing that people _should_ make a moral distinction. I've argued that largely they already do. People have never cared about copyright infringement like they do theft.

Here's something I wonder about: have people ever gone significantly out of their way to respect copyright? or have they only do so when respecting copyright was also the most convenient way?

I'm not sure the answer means too much either way ...

\---

FWIW, I either get my media legally or I don't bother getting it at all(1). I'm watching Game of Thrones currently through physical video store rentals. I'm not sure this is necessary but sometimes I feel like it's worth putting out there.

1 - The only exception was some long out-of-print books I wanted to read, which I downloaded illegal pdfs of since they were not available new, or in the libraries I searched, or in the used book markets I searched. So, that's the one notable time I violated copyright.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice perspective, but perhaps a bit misguided. Netflix would LOVE to have every single movie ever made by man on the service, but there is more at play than just "get the file, now stream it".

The entire mainstream film industry is doing everything they can to make sure generic streaming services like Netflix and Amazon _don 't_ become as large as they could, and our current legal framework involving distribution of content is quite hostile to these services.

This is also following the concept that storage gets cheaper as time goes on. More movies = more storage fees, but I don't think this overhead is nearly as large as some would assume.

<comment><USER8> The issue is that they no longer have classic movies available through their DVD services. There are no legal or licensing restrictions there due to the First Sale Doctrine.

<comment><USER9> It's true that first sale prevents the studios from restricting Netflix's usage but it doesn't require them to make new copies for Netflix. If they aren't selling the DVD commercially, as is the case for many classic films, there's no way to legally create a new copy to replace a damaged disc.

<comment><USER10> wouldn't that qualify as legitimate use of a backup copy? if the original is destroyed?

<comment><USER11> > wouldn't that qualify as legitimate use of a backup copy?

The archival copy privilege as an exception to the usual rules that copyright excludes anyone from making copies without specific permission from the copyright holder [1] applies only to works classified as "computer programs" under the law. While DVDs do include computer programs, the main element of a DVD is an audiovisual work and likely wouldn't be included in the exception, so even if it would be a legitimate use of a backup copy, the kind of work isn't one in which there is any right under copyright law to create such a backup.

[1] 17 USC Sec. 117(a)

<comment><USER12> While I presume your quote is correct, I don't think you are applying it correctly. That is one exception, but there are others. Although I don't think there is clear case law, ripping audio CD's for archival backup is almost universally presumed (even by the MPAA and RIAA) to be legal in the US: [https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/united- state...](https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/united-states- copyright-office-ripping-illega)

And it's frequently presumed that creating backups of legally owned video DVD's would constitute fair use under US copyright, but is instead illegal because it requires breaking DRM to do so, and the DMCA offers no such exception: [http://lifehacker.com/5978326/is-it-legal-to-rip-a-dvd- that-...](http://lifehacker.com/5978326/is-it-legal-to-rip-a-dvd-that-i-own)

But if you happen to come across an unprotected commercial DVD that you legally own (I have only ever come across one, "Cane Toads: An unnatural history") I think you probably would prevail in asserting that it is fair use to create a personal backup copy for use in case the original is destroyed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Essentially, Netflix cannot afford to buy the rights to all the movies you > want to watch.

This isn't a Netflix problem, it's a licensing problem. If the rights-holders aren't willing to sell the rights to their films at a price that the market will pay, then those people who want to see those films will find a way, legal or not, to obtain them through other channels.

I will happily pay to stream a movie online, whether as part of a subscription service or directly to the producers. However, when the producers don't provide any means to do so, I've never had a hard time finding a DVD-quality copy that I can download and watch in my home theater in less than the time it would take to drive to Blockbuster and rent it.

<comment><USER14> Netflix needs to be able to have a "consignment" model:

Content owner adds content to Netflix via API.

NO costs between eachother. (Netflix eats upload/hosting costs)

Agree to fee based on viewership counts for each piece of content.

Pay view-royalties to content owners based on this fee.

This is how netflix should force the market.

<comment><USER3> That's called YouTube :-/

It's not that simple. QC for a film is complex, and it has to be done because when someone watches something on Netflix they expect a minimum amount of technical quality even if the creativity is entirely absent.

I mean stuff like no messed up video frames, audio glitches, consistent volume levels and so on - it can be the worst film in the world but people still expect it play back properly and will blame Netflix if it does not, just as they would blame Netflix for an improperly encoded DVD that failed to play back.

Everything that gets uploaded by Netflix has to be passed by a broadcast engineer first, and while they are not paid massive amounts of money they are still paid and films have to be watched, QCed and cataloged in real time. No matter how crap it is, any film that's available for streaming on Netflix/Amazon has taken at least half a day of skilled labor.

It would be nice to think that if something gets as far as being pressed onto DVD it would meet minimum standards of technical quality but the reality is sadly different. You would not _believe_ the appalling quality of the stuff that people try to sell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Seattle's awesome local movie repository, Scarecrow Video, is reinventing itself as a non-profit to survive in the new environment. A recent Kickstarter [1] has offset operating costs for the near future.

They have four copies (2 DVD, 2 Laserdisc) of Sweet Sweetback:

[https://www.scarecrow.com/45/search.html?keywords=sweet+swee...](https://www.scarecrow.com/45/search.html?keywords=sweet+sweetback)

[1] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the- scarecrow...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow- project)

<comment><USER16> I jumped on the Kickstarter as well, but I'm nervous as to whether it will work. Reclassifying as a non-profit doesn't change the fact that employees have to eat, and movies need to be purchased. I'd personally be willing to pay a membership fee or recurring donation in order to keep them in business, but I don't know how well that scales.

Their cache is in obscure movies, but their bread and butter is the new releases, just like any other video store, and the latter is being supplanted by online streaming, which fails to address the former.

Worse, the entire business model is dependent on the availability of shareable physical media, and the legal permission to rent them to customers. In the shift to digital formats, video stores will end up cut out of the equation entirely. What happens when the video store can no longer offer new movies? Will they be able to cover their expenses with just legacy content? I'm somewhat doubtful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "...and Netflix sells off its vast supply of DVDs for drink coasters..."

Can we get off this, at long last? CDs and DVDs are terrible coasters. They're too thin and not at all spongy or porous, so the condensation will creep all the way around to the table side. I once ruined a desk by leaving a cold drink on a CD overnight. Admittedly it was a cheap, second-hand desk, but still.

<comment><USER18> been using CDs and DVD's as coasters for years. I still have a stack of Win95 OSR2 discs I bring out for special occasions, and haven't experienced a ruined desk or coffee table yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> While we can lament the lack of legal streaming options, it's probably worth remembering that there are other perfectly legal subscription by mail DVD services in the US besides Netflix. Below are two that I know of. Are there others?

Greencine are good people. As you can tell from their about page, they are significantly less 'glitzy' than Netflix. They also pride themselves on having DVD's that Netflix doesn't, including this one.

[http://www.greencine.com/static/about.jsp](http://www.greencine.com/static/about.jsp)

[http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=24395](http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=24395)

Facets Multimedia is a nonprofit based in Chicago that offers DVD by mail memberships, and lots of people seem to love them. The also have this movie:

[http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/aboutHistory.php](http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/aboutHistory.php)

[http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=8...](http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=884578)

</comment><comment><USER19> Cinephiles, just like audiophiles before them and bibliophiles a bit later, simply started their own torrent trackers.

<comment><USER20> It's hard for me to believe any Cinephile would use Netflix at all, the bitrates on their streams are painfully low and it's absolutely noticeable even on medium sized screens. And that's not even mentioning the audio quality.

<comment><USER21> A Cinephile is someone who is into movies and discussing the themes, theories, plots, philosophy of movies. They are not really concerned with bitrates as long as its watchable.

<comment><USER9> … and bitrates are more of an issue for things like HD action movies. That old French movie from the 70s which hasn't been professionally retouched is probably going to be fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> He should have also considered greencine which focuses more on independent and cult classic films:

[http://www.greencine.com/main](http://www.greencine.com/main)

 _Sweet Sweetback 's Baadasssss Song (1971)_ : [http://www.greencine.com/webCatalogMore?prodid=21298](http://www.greencine.com/webCatalogMore?prodid=21298)

</comment><comment><USER23> Outside of world cinema, Netflix is good only for the kids stuff. I find myself watching more and more stuff on Vudu recently. A good, but kinda neglected service is GoWatchIt ([http://gowatchit.com/](http://gowatchit.com/)), which helps me follow upcoming titles. Another complaint: the 500 movie limit is a joke and having a single queue vs multiple queues is something that should already have been implemented over the years. At least, add the ability to filter within "My List" by genre, etc. I'm really disappointed by the dead-slow pace of development at Netflix. The lack of tools to see more movie info is also displeasing.

<comment><USER24> Netflix isn't even a good option for children's programming either, they just failed to renew their license for Sesame Street and they don't have any Viacom content licensed, so that leaves everything on Nick Jr. out.

If it weren't for the few Netflix originals (Trailer Park Boys, Orange is the New Black, House of Cards) I'd just drop Netflix and only use my Prime Instant Video because my daughter watches a LOT of Sesame Street and Blue's Clues.

<comment><USER25> House of Cards is what got me (reluctantly) to eventually re-up for streaming after Netflix carved it off. But like way too many monthly payments of mine, it's something I marginally get my money's worth from given that I am an avid Amazon Prime customer in any case and there's a lot of overlap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I remember being in college when Netflix streaming first came out. At that time, almost everyone I knew had a mail-order Netflix subscription. It was revolutionary at the time. I remember when they suddenly started throwing in streaming as a bonus to all the DVD subscribers. I had no idea that this was where they were going to eventually pivot. Netflix lured everyone in and changed the video rental industry with it's amazing mail-order service. Any video you wanted to your door in a couple of days.

Fast forward to a decade later when there are very few physical stores that rent movies, and Netflix turned into a service of convenience. No longer is it a service where you can get any movie you want in the next few days. Rather, it's a service where you can get something you'll enjoy in the next few seconds. I've noticed that a lot of the enjoyment now comes from TV series as opposed to movies.

At the end of the day I'm glad there are other alternatives to Netflix such as Amazon Instant Video. Getting any movie has never been easier than before. I just hit my Roku and I can watch almost anything within a minute. Thing is, we are coming off having too much of a good thing. When Netflix first started, it was easy to consume what you wanted for a low price.

Now, if you want to consume exactly what you want -- it might cost you more. I've found many movies that aren't available for rent on Netflix, Itunes, or Amazon. I have to buy these titles online to watch them! The other side of the coin is that it's never been cheaper to consume such a variety of media using Netflix. It just might not be exactly what you want. As long as it's good enough for you, though, it's good for Netflix's bottom line.

<comment><USER27> > I just hit my Roku and I can watch almost anything within a minute.

Do you mean 'anything you want' or that selection seems almost comprehensive?

The article claimed that the streaming selection is poor, and substantially smaller than the Netflix DVD selection. My impression of Roku's services is that there is much I cannot find.

<comment><USER26> I mean anything I want. Usually I'm covered between Amazon Instant Video and Netflix.

I'm really only into mainstream movies though, so I do understand my opinion might not be the best one.

<comment><USER28> Ive both and it doesnt have anything close to anything I want. the selection is limited, you can get whatever you could see currently in a plane basically. Old stuff? yes if its cheap or very popular, but 90% of the old stuff you cant access. new stuff? nope.

a large part of both catalogs are also exactly the same movies/shows.

<comment><USER26> How do you get about watching the things you want to see?

<comment><USER25> In my case, I have the bottom Netflix DVD option (up to 2 discs per month--1 at a time) plus I buy the occasional movie. And the occasional RedBox although that usually involves an extra trip to the store.

Generally speaking, I don't pay a la carte for streaming outside of my Netflix and Amazon Prime subscriptions. I could probably rent movies streaming instead of getting DVDs in a lot of cases but sometimes I like the extras and I have more flexibility not to finish immediately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The best cinephile setup I've found is Roku + Plex + torrents. Just make sure to have a wired connection to your Plex server and to set up the Plex app on your Roku to 'Direct Stream' the video (so there's no reencoding).

<comment><USER30> What do you think about Chromecast instead of Roku?

<comment><USER29> I prefer Roku over Chromecast because Roku has a remote with a headphone jack. If Chromecast had an option to play the audio through the headphone jack of the device you're casting from, I would say it's just as good. In fact, I often cast from the YouTube app on my phone to my Roku, because it's easier than searching for a video using the Roku interface.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _Netflix didn't want to talk to me about their movie catalogue, leaving me to rely on the speculation of a couple of video store folks that the company's DVD selection is shrinking most likely because it is not replacing damaged disks._

People often keep them, from a mix of greed and guilt (still haven't watched that classic film...but I really must...I'l do it next week...). Meantime, piracy has killed the market for new production runs of obscure films, so niche titles go out of print and stay out of print because no distributor wants to spend $10,000 on something that may only have a few hundred buyers.

I personally think the streaming service is great, notwithstanding the spotty coverage. It also makes a great deal more sense as a long-term revenue model than discs. I don't see a way of guaranteeing availability without compulsory licensing, though.

<comment><USER31> > piracy has killed the market for new production runs of obscure films

Source?

<comment><USER3> Distributors I know. BTW I'm not trying to make a big thing about piracy here, hence my off-the-cuff remark. But it's just basic economics - there's a fairly small but non-zero cost of doing a DVD issue even if its a rerun and some films just aren't going to earn it back.

Bear in mind that many, _many_ films would not be profitable on their own, but are cross-subsidized by more popular films in package distribution deals, especially international ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I understand why Netflix can't license new material, but why don't they have a comprehensive back catalogue? I'm sure they could easily license those b&w movies that play all day on TCM without commercials.

Their movie selection is actually pretty dire, there's no new movies, very few classic movies, so you are left mostly with regrettable B-movies from the 90s.

<comment><USER9> > I'm sure they could easily license those b&w movies that play all day on TCM > without commercials.

Why are you sure that the movie studios aren't demanding excessive amounts or strategically avoiding any one service getting all of the movies to ensure nobody gets a dominant position? They're determined to avoid Netflix being able to do what Apple did to the music cartel and I'm sure that's a factor in every negotiation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've realized and accepted this for some time now.

Netflix and similar are really good for satisfying "I just want to watch some movie and be entertained" needs, but really not great (and likely getting worse), sadly, for "I have a very specific movie in mind and I want to see it" needs.

It's a sacrifice I've learned to be okay with, but it is a little sad. I have a few movies on physical media that I had to give up due to them taking up space, and I knew that while they're currently available on Netflix, that may no longer be the case in the future. :(

<comment><USER34> So much for the promise of "The Long Tail": that, vast storage being cheap as air, _everything_ would be available on line.

<comment><USER6> Wow, it really is sad when you think of it that way.

I don't torrent stuff, but this kind of sentiment makes me wish I did ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I can't speak to the DVD side of the equation, I suspect that is merely due to the fact that not enough people want to see relatively obscure old movies (on classic DVDs) enough to waste inventory space on them, especially as more and more people move over to Bluray (if only because their console supports it so why not) and online VOD/streaming more and more. But on the streaming side, it is the studios blocking Netflix out, not Netflix being oblivious to how bad their movie selection is.

I temporarily worked for a company in the VOD/Streaming space that was run by Hollywood-insider types when they sort-of-aquihired most of the employees of Chumby. Based on my limited time of seeing it from the 'inside', my impression is that Hollywood studio executives have a seething, furious hatred of Netflix and their business model, which they see as devaluing their content. (And I'm not saying they are wrong to think this -- at the very least the Netflix model certainly upsets all the applecarts of the way Hollywood has done business for nearly a century).

These people would basically instinctively scowl animated-villain-style when Netflix was brought up, even if it was in other contexts.

eg. Software architect explaining to business guys why default sharing on social media was not a good idea (at the time): "We shouldn't automatically share what movies a customer has watched because Netflix (studio-business-guys scowl, hiss, unhinge their jaws) recently got into legal trouble for that".

Originally the studios were OK with making some dough from Netflix on old long-tailed-out movie catalogs that would otherwise not be earning anything (because they sure do love money) but a few years ago they hit the brakes on that because they would rather earn less on the old catalog stuff than do anything to further validate the Netflix model, which they see as an existential threat to their business.

</comment><comment><USER36> In my experience, Facets specializes in "cinephile" movies and is the place to go for the long tail.

And they do in fact have Sweet Sweetback's Baadass Song available for rental: [http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=8...](http://www.facetsmovies.com/user/movieDisplay.php?movie_id=884578)

</comment><comment><USER25> This is bothersome although I'd note that at least some of the Woody Allen movies listed are available streaming on Amazon (for a fee) and for purchase. But it's reasonable to ask whether we hit a point where at least DVD reissues (once initial inventory is used up) don't make financial sense any longer.

For the past decade or so, we've been living in a world where we could obtain the vast majority of movies as DVDs through some channel pretty inexpensively and painlessly. At the moment, it looks as if that process will become much more fractured and less reliable.

</comment><comment><USER37> Netflix made the argument some years ago that the world and their user base was switching to streaming. To the point of proposing to split disk and streaming into separate businesses (not just separate subscriptions).

I was dubious given the comparatively poor quality and degree of choice on their streaming service at that time.

Since then, instead of improving, I've seen that choice -- on balance -- get worse. A few TV shows I'm interested in have shown up -- and a whole bunch I'm not at all interested in; while many I might be interested in remain absent. At the same time, the movie selection has grown notably worse, with many titles I dug out of the mess and queued up disappearing before I got to them.

Now I read that the DVD service is indeed in decline, as well.

The most telling bit of the OP story for me seems to be this quote:

 _Check out this 2013 Netflix PR video communicating that the company should no longer be looked upon as a massive movie library. What it really is, it says, is the "Internet's largest television network."_

Well, I'm not interested in remaining a customer of what is increasingly some sort of Netflix "television channel".

As with all the other "streaming", "rental" online services I've tried. I'm coming to the conclusion that they are not worth the investment nor the fees, for me. I'm being driving back to maintaining a personal library. And perhaps to reinforcement my support for my public library, where the membership's interests are still primary.

</comment><comment><USER38> People have talked about the zero marginal cost issue with trivially copiable goods, and I simply don't think this is a surmountable obstacle for the film business _as a business_. Already, when people say "I prefer to pay for a film to support filmmakers, actors etc" the implied subclause is that "I could choose otherwise."

And that's where I see it going, really. Look at classical music, the visual arts, theatre (outside of big Broadway/West End musicals) - these continue to exist overwhelmingly on the basis of patronage from the state and philanthropists.

This is not exactly an apples-for-apples comparison (a symphonic or theatrical performance is not copiable in the same way as digital video; still less are prints of paintings substitutable for the real thing); but the underlying issue is similar: it costs more to put these things on than can be made back in gate receipts.

And so, when people choose to pay for films in a situation where it is just as easy to pirate (it often isn't actually), they are being philanthropic and paying a non-market price for the film.

I don't see how a $10 monthly subscription model is going to sustain the entire film industry, although maybe someone can do better maths than me on the back of their napkin.

</comment><comment><USER39> netflix has clearly said they are not an archival service / library (in so many words) that they are a 'whats popular now'.

This is the real opportunity for a disrupt-er. sure its hard / expensive to get the content, but that's also opportunity, and clearly netflix is out of touch with what their customers actually want from their press releases.

And even though they say they buy only the content 'people want to see currently', it seems like they do a poor job. netflix defenders will spout 'if you cant find something to watch on netflix well ...' thats completely misguided, you shouldnt have to search netflix for something to watch, you should find what you are looking for.

as the running joke goes, people spend more time searching netflix for something to watch than actually watching

<comment><USER40> I wonder if there's a sufficient market for peer-to-peer lending of movies and games, backed by a floating deposit. Uber for discs-by-mail, as it were.

<comment><USER41> I remember that this idea was tried for music in 2007 and it took a few years for courts to wind up with a fairly nuanced legal landscape for doing this in the U.S. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tun...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._MP3Tunes,_LLC)]

<comment><USER42> (S)he's talking about people physically mailing DVDs, not the digital locker thing. I can't imagine that would be illegal, but never underestimate the entertainment industries ability to buy judges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> If they won't sell the product can we just download it?

[http://thepiratebay.se/search/Sweet%20Sweetback%E2%80%99s%20...](http://thepiratebay.se/search/Sweet%20Sweetback%E2%80%99s%20Baadasssss%20Song/0/99/0)

<comment><USER44> It's for sale on DVD all over the place, just not available for rental.

[http://www.amazon.com/Sweetbacks-Baadasssss-Anniversary- Spec...](http://www.amazon.com/Sweetbacks-Baadasssss-Anniversary-Special- Edition/dp/B004LY8QCK)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Architect on multiple Hollywood/digital projects for major device manufacturers here, also have interviewed to head SmartTV department for the world's largest TV manufacturer (TCL, in China).

I finished working in this area in 2010 (left it for the digital currency space) but have seen no suggestion of change. In any case, you heard it here last: _the problem is definitely the studios and their insistance on completely outmoded, unfair, obstructive regional licensing_.

Digital licensing operates as follows. First, digital releases are not a first-class citizen in the Hollywood world. The 'DVD street relase date' for the consumer country in question is the date that everything is calculated from for billing purposes. Multiple periods are then calculated using blocks of days thereafter, during which the wholesale rate offered for a particular item is progressively discounted. Finally, after some period (eg. 90 or 180 days subsequent to DVD street release in that market) the wholesale drops to a base rate 'back catalog' price unique to that item. Netflix and other services basically prefer these titles as they are cheaper to offer.

In my experience, significant ingestion overhead is present for digital service agencies on every single title. This is because they are more often than not supplied in weird formats, under strange licensing restrictions, with restrictive rules on reformatting (eg. crop requirements) and re-encoding though they're not able to be played on most devices up front, and certainly not in the higher-resolution digital formats studio supplied. Very frequently, audio tracks for non-original languages are supplied as non time-synched files separate to the original, as are subtitles.

So to offer an item, not only do you need to front up to the studio, effectively downpay some cash, figure out a revenue share deal, convince them your DRM is adequate, go through this whole process on a per-market basis, figure out the logistics of moving huge files, put up with delays and their frequent insistence to use weird file transfer mechanisms, but you also need to get any edits accredited, manage your own database of client device capabilities (this is more complex than it sounds, resolution is only a minor components versus various codec support (audio/video/subtitles), non-subtitle support (ie. need to rewrite entire video stream with burnt in subtitles in each language), etc. but also get the results approved, uploaded to an adequately wide range of data centers in a DRM-capable distribution network (what? build my own? yeah...), your studio-approved frequently expensive DRM integration sorted, and manage the changing prices on an ongoing basis as delimited in USD but against a revenue share model with constantly fluctuating exchange rates.

Sound like fun? No, it isn't. And you are competing with higher quality torrents people download for free, _on or before_ DVD street release date, in the _very first_ market to ever have the title. That's why nobody does it.

The industry could reap immense additional profits if they'd only drop the control-freak old-school management, normalize and prioritize their digital output, and allow all media consumption to become a low price flat-rate experience at some reasonable post-cinema release date, like +30-45 days. Oh, and drop the DRM and the military police style back-channel raids on New Zealand residents who choose to make a point of their untenable and laughably outmoded outlook.

<comment><USER46> The model is working for them, so why would they change?...

<comment><USER45> Yes, that's exactly what they probably think. It's a very conservative way of doing business, the classic approach of the established interest. As they twiddle their collective thumbs, the world demonstrably changes around them.

<comment><USER46> Yes, I agree with you. But here is the bigger point: unless your job is working with technology (and sometimes even in this case), you don't disrupt a business that is working for you. While this seems strange for people who are trying to disrupt existing business models, this is exactly the right thing to do if you are in a traditional company...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Zip.ca, a Canadian DVD-rentals-by-mail service, shut down in August 2014. I think it was the biggest such service in Canada.

[http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/zip-ca- vide...](http://ottawacitizen.com/business/local-business/zip-ca-video-rental- service-shuts-down)

<comment><USER48> Ah that's a shame. Canflix, the other big one a few years back, did a midnight move when they went under.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> " would have run down to my local video store, but I don't have a local video store. I struck out at the San Francisco Public Library..."

So why didn't he go to Le Video? He even mentions it later in the article. Sounds like the author was intentionally constraining himself to make a point.

<comment><AUTHOR> Or Lost Weekend, which is still a going concern, and I can guarantee has a copy of _Sweet Sweetback_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Isn't a large part of this problem with the content producers and the contracts Netflix has to sign with them? I would think that if Netflix could have any movie or TV show in their streaming library they would but there are other interested parties that prevent that.

</comment><comment><USER51> This problem is even worse when you're outside of the US, and the Netflix selection is even smaller. On the upside, I don't think we ever had the Netflix DVD service, so we don't miss it.

</comment><comment><USER52> Maybe this is an opportunity for a startup -- steal Netflix's DVD rent by mail business and offer a very extensive catalog. Seems like Netflix would be happy to cede that market.

<comment><USER25> Or more likely it isn't or Netflix wouldn't be backing away from it even though they already have the infrastructure. I suspect that there's a real squeeze between the current hits (which Red Box covers pretty well and others purchase off Amazon/Walmart/etc.) and the default behavior of watching whatever is on streaming that just doesn't leave a lot of business on the table for the balance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I was going to throw away my DVD collection. Guess I'll keep it, because when Netflix kills the DVD service, I can sell my DVDs for actual money again.

</comment><comment><USER54> The author said he struck out with sfpl, but a quick search showed that there are 10 copies, with 3 available. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> Just making something up for clicks, target audience is happy to believe it's an Evil Plot. Most film critics are horrible people.

<comment><USER55> that's a really cheap ad hominem. Your argumentation is horrible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Wanting to watch one particular film doesn't define or capture cinephiles. The title is an exaggeration to say the least, especially if the movie isn't even available for rent at the many paid movie streaming service options available.

That being said, someone should make an aggregate search engine of legally available content through Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime, Max Go, etc. Although I'm not sure the interface exists for all of them.

<comment><USER57> > That being said, someone should make an aggregate search engine of legally > available content through Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Go, Showtime > Anytime, Max Go, etc

[http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/gravity](http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/gravity)

<comment><USER56> nice! much needed. [http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sweetback](http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sweetback)

0 results. So his problem still holds but it still doesn't demonstrate that Netflix is less and less an option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Pirate it! The more we pirate the sooner we'll get the Spotify of movies. So for the grater good, pirate it!

</comment><comment><USER59> Sooner or later studios are going to realize if its not on something like netflix... it doesn't exist.

</comment><comment><USER60> The SF Public Library has two copies currently available via Link+. Was the author using the card catalog?

</comment><comment><USER61> this site [http://www.fandor.com/](http://www.fandor.com/) is designed to serve exactly the audience that Netflix ignores, cinephiles if you like. worth checking out. full disclosure, i'm related to the CEO.

<comment> TD-Linux Does it have a HTML5 player?

<comment><USER61> absolutely, works well in the browser, HTML5 not flash, and they have Roku and Chromecast integration and mobile apps as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> _> it seemed like a great idea with no downside_

Netflix has one huge downside - proliferation of DRM.

<comment><USER63> I am not pro DRM, but it is tolerable and warranted here. You are renting the product so you are barred from making copies of it. That's not unreasonable. I am largely against DRM when it is on a video game (or any digital asset) that has been purchased outright. Would I prefer it not be present? Sure. Is it reasonable for a rental company? Probably.

<comment><USER62> My opinion is that no DRM is ever warranted or tolerable.

Renting aspect is irrelevant here. If you think it's renting that causes the usage of DRM then you are wrong. Look at any services which sell video. They all use DRM too except GOG which just started selling it and has a very small selection of documentaries and Headweb which is available only in Scandinavia.

Anyway, I find the concept of renting for digital goods to be illogical altogether, but it's a separate subject.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> This is terrible. One of the important benefits of the long tail is ensuring works are always available, never lost. Maybe when Netflix finally shutters their collection the Internet Archive should absorb it somehow.

<comment><USER65> How would the internet archive possibly get rights that netflix couldn't afford?

I'm not sure the 'benefits of the long tail' are working out as predicted in the market, it is true.

<comment><USER66> Presumably he wants the Archive to archive it and not necessarily make it available. I'm sure there's a country where you can backup DVDs to a hard drive without violating the law.</comment></comment></comment>


X-rays reveal 1,300-year-old writings inside later bookbindings - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/04/x-rays-reveal-medieval-manuscripts <comment><USER2> The only thing more important to the study of human history than our propensity to create mounds of garbage, is our endless quest to scavenge and recycle.

Remember this? [http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/rare-example-of- lost-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/rare-example-of-lost- language-found-on-stone-hidden-2500-years-ago/)

It also relates to the recent submission here at HN of the "This is not a place of honor" article, about the hypothetical 10,000 year warning marker for the WIPP.

</comment><comment><USER3> I bet this research used a particle accelerator, but the article doesn't mention it.

Only these machines seem to be able to generate x-rays with enough brilliance and collimation for this kind of research.

Unfortunately, most of the press does not cite this fact, and people simple don't get to know about the existence and importance of these facilities, which are always publicly funded. That's not only sad, but bad for science.

<comment><USER4> Actually, you're right and wrong. All x-rays are produced by particle accelerators. (For that matter, so are pictures on a CRT.) The article says they used "macro x-ray fluorescence spectrometry (MA-XRF)", which is a commercially available technology.

<comment><USER3> Most commercially available technology have particle accelerator-powered versions that are much more powerful.

This is the case for MA-XRF, used for the same purpose with painting at the synchrotron light source at Brookhaven: [http://phys.org/news/2011-12-x-ray- techniques-art-historians...](http://phys.org/news/2011-12-x-ray-techniques- art-historians-rembrandt.html)</comment></comment></comment>


W3schools: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good - <AUTHOR> http://www.impressivewebs.com/w3schools-ugly-bad-good/ <comment><USER4> People keep telling me to use MDN but I find their sites bloated when I just want to quickly look something up (which is most often the case).

Random examples:

[http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/sel_before.asp](http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/sel_before.asp) vs [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/::before](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/::before)

[http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_background- repeat.asp](http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_background-repeat.asp) vs [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/background-...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/background-repeat)

<comment><USER5> Slightly offtopic, but when would you want to use a :before ?

It looks something out of CSS:the bad parts,ie looks very hacky but apparently is standard.

<comment><USER6> If for some design reason you wanted to add curly quotes around all links "" or perhaps display an attribute of the link as a hover-able tooltip, it would be better to use pseudo elements rather than adding content for the sake of the design.

Things that are subject to change and attributed to design choices rather than content choices are much easier to add and remove via `:before` or `:after` vs. going through the code and adding or removing elements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> »Even after a redesign a few years ago, their pages still use ".asp", which is basically an extinct platform that almost nobody uses anymore.«

Someone might tell them that URLs don't need to point to files and don't necessarily give a clue about the technology underneath. Their server says

      Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5
      X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

so they might just use ASP.NET and just have rewriting or routes set up to mimic their old URLs.

<comment><USER8> I friend of mine worked many years ago on a php site where all the php files ended in .asp due to a bunch of legacy and policy reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> We're talking about this through a non-responsive website laid out with tables, designed with inline styles, with ugly embedded code samples, and "bad"
 tags. Maybe these aren't the most important things to think about when talking about the usefulness of a website.

<comment><USER10> To be fair, it was designed many years ago. The code samples are written ages ago. But regardless, sometimes, they are almost like an instant test bed for trying out some quick things.

Not as useful as MDN, but w3school had served its purpose.

Side note: has w3school ever been hacked given it being a high-profile website?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm getting pretty tired of these mindless defamations of W3schools. I get it - sometimes their resources are incorrect and they almost always use bad practices. But seriously, while you're busy being an elitist asshole slamming their website, the people at W3schools are busy teaching people the basics of web development.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. It just seems to be fashionable to write a blog post bashing W3Schools, PHP etc. Yes, some of their content might have technical inaccuracies. Yes, the design is dreadful. But, when you're quickly looking to find out what are the different properties that text-decoration supports, W3Schools is pretty damn useful. It's very good both as a quick reference or for quickly learning the basics before diving into actual development.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe there are partly so popular because they are not trying to be perfect? When documenting things it is not just what you include, it is also what you leave out. Sometimes you want to full syntax for some specific SQL statement, sometimes you just want a few quick examples of the alter table and then figure out the rest yourself.

For example two approaches for documenting the HTML table tag:

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ta...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/table)

[http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_tables.asp](http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_tables.asp)

<comment><USER14> It's not such much what they left out, it's what they put focus on: quick and fast examples, which is what people mostly want (the "Try it Yourself" is also a huge plus here). If i want more detailed docs, i'm more than willing to scroll down the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just really sick of all the online drama, about any site. Just another typical post on HN criticizing another. You know what, You go build a site that is better and perfect. I am sick of people getting articles posted that just criticize. Go build something better, I dare you.

<comment><AUTHOR> A lot of people have built "something better". But w3schools still ranks the highest. That's the point. There are many better alternatives but the Google rank kills the others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Content is king? I'm reminded of Dan Cederholm's favourite website [1].

[1] [http://simplebits.com/notebook/2013/02/16/food-for- thought/](http://simplebits.com/notebook/2013/02/16/food-for-thought/)

<comment><USER17> The problem is that W3schools contents sucks as well. E.g., MDN is much better in comparison. [http://www.w3fools.com/](http://www.w3fools.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The good: they put examples right at the top.

When I search for a css selector or an html5 tag, 99% of the time I'm looking for a quick, easy-to-read example that demonstrates the syntax.

I have no way of measuring my average-time-on-page for w3schools, but I'd estimate it at under 2 seconds. And for that, it works really, really well.

</comment><comment><USER19> > Even after a redesign a few years ago, their pages still use ".asp", which > is basically an extinct platform that almost nobody uses anymore.

And? For all we care, it could be built in FORTRAN and still be a valuable resource. What in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster an argument is that???

<comment><USER20> Agreed, as developers we know that when someone goes "hey, we should rebuild the entire (reasonably stable) project using another language!" that we should get the torch and pitchfork out.

If it's not broken, and there's still developers capable of working on it, do not rewrite it. Especially not to impress a bunch of nerds who're sat going "ASP?!".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There's nothing wrong with using table for layout. Before calling me old school, let it be known that table _can_ do responsive before even css2 was drafted. Also the rendering compatibility of table still looks pixel perfect now as how it was written in 1999.

<comment><USER22> Tables are anything but responsive. Responsiveness is not about fluidly changing the width of elements. You can't for example change 3 column layout to 1 column with tables.

The only viable use of tables for layout is when you need to center something vertically. Even then it's better to skip using the tag and apply display: table; and display: table-cell; to respective elements.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The 'Duplicate Content' point in the article just plain wrong. It's not duplicate content - it's a load balancing and mirroring technique that's _very_ common. For example, [http://us2.php.net/echo](http://us2.php.net/echo) and [http://uk1.php.net/echo](http://uk1.php.net/echo)

Also, as ygra has already pointed out, the .asp extension doesn't necessarily mean they're using ASP. They've possibly just kept the extension and they're routing to something more modern with URL rewriting.

If you're going to critique other people's work, make sure you know precisely what you're talking about first.

<comment><USER24> Load balancing should be transparent to the user. Pages with duplicate content should use <link rel="canonical">.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The general argument that you are making here seems to be something along the lines of: this site teaches web development, so it should practice what it preaches. You are saying nothing about the content of the site, its offering to users.

However, their own focus seems to be on offering a useful learning resource, not replying to the critics. I find their content fairly good for absolute beginners. Even if they grossly oversimplify their subject, they offer the best way to get up to speed on the basics of many new technologies. That's why they are high in the search rankings - no mystery there.

I think their users are aware that they are only learning the basics, and will have to move on to more sophisticated resources to continue with their learning. So what? An absolute newbie can learn to write html, css or javascript, and see the results of his work displaying in a browser, in less than half an hour. That first step is often the most difficult for the total beginner

So give these guys credit - they are offering a pretty good learning resource for the basics. I'm not ashamed to admit I used it a lot at the beginning of my career as a self-taught web developer. And then I moved on.

<comment><AUTHOR> > You are saying nothing about the content of the site, its offering to users.

Here is a quote from the article:

> For the record, I don't hate w3schools. Apparently, a lot of people find > their website useful. And from a human perspective, I'm happy for their > success.

Certainly that qualifies as saying "something" about the content of the site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've noticed that particularly in web development there's a lot of dogmatism and feel that a lot of the "best practices" (I personally hate that phrase...) being thrown around are just a way to make web developers feel like they're qualified and superior just because they can say "I follow the _rules_ , you don't!" It's about making websites, not some sort of pseudo-religion. Do what _you_ think is the best way to present your content, don't be a mindless follower.

After all, who goes around viewing the source of webpages they visit (unless something is terribly broken and you want to find out why)? If I can see the content I couldn't care less.

This is from the perspective of someone who has done a lot of "web development" with nothing more than a text editor and a browser (or several)... I've used w3schools as well as the official HTML specs; I don't care what the latest fads are and don't even want to expend the effort to, I just do what works to show the content I want to show to my visitors and that's it.

</comment><comment><USER27> To the people defending W3Schools, please understand that some of us do our best to ensure that as much of the information that we consume originates from the most accurate, detailed, and authoritative sources that exist, regardless of usability, cost, etc. It bothers people like us that W3Schools is a top result at Google for so many search terms, in the same way that it bothers us that sites like CNN and Forbes are top results when searching for "health".

We realize that people such as yourselves have no problem consuming information from low-quality sources such as W3Schools, CNN, and Forbes, and most of us don't care where you get your information from. We would just prefer that our search results not be polluted by the low-quality sources that people such as yourselves link to and, thus, push to the top of the search results.

</comment><comment><USER28> It's still free. It works. It has a lot more than html and css. It has java, php, sql, even google api's and they seem to add more stuff every year. When it comes to teaching computer programming; I have not see one dude who I would pay. Maybe I haven't found the right dude? I take that back--I might pay David Maaaaan?(Harvard cs 75). I didn't realize just how good of an instructor he was until I saw the people who were going to teach the following courses. Following dude at Harvard,"I want to teach you the beauty of beautifully written code!" Let us see the beauty--please. A tip to anyone struggling along with these courses and languages--vlc has a "faster slider". It takes the verbosity out of some instructors.

</comment><comment><USER29> Ever since I found MDN I add it to all my searches to get better results.

But before I found MDN, I used w3schools all the time. My coworkers still use w3schools.

I don't see a problem with it. Sure, their site is not using best practices, but their information is good enough in a pinch.

</comment><comment><USER30> w3schools : ugly design using outdated technologies relying on fugly markup. So what? Still handy and easy to use when I want a quick reference to a tag I've forgotten about.

<comment><USER17> Try to use the MDN instead. It has much better and accurate information. YMMV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nothing wrong with inline styles. I just love having everything in front of me without needing to look for selectors in a separate file.

<comment><USER31> While I agree with you it becomes a mess to manage duplicate and overlapping styles later. I usually start off with inline style and when I am happy it, I transition them to a css class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > They Use Classic ASP

Maybe not:

      wget -S http://www.w3schools.com/

Shows a header of

      X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

</comment><comment><USER33> For the most part, I don't mind w3schools ranking high in my search results when I just need to look something up really quick. I still believe they're basically a content farm, but on the other hand _someone_ has to be the reference dictionary for HTML stuff. When I started out many, many years ago, I used a reference called SelfHTML which died out some time ago - <USER3> W3Schools mostly reminds me of that. However, my lookup workflow has changed, and I'm sure most other people are going in exclusively through Google as well.

I think most of these issues the article points out are somewhat short-sighted and superficial.

 _> They Use Classic ASP_

I'm not sure they actually do, but even if that's true it's probably a choice they made in ancient times and they're sticking to it. And honestly, why not? It's not like we're dealing with a highly complex site that needs to be agile and extremely dynamic. They're probably just doing some light templating stuff and that's it.

 _> Script Tag Madness_

That's a good point and it seems like an easy fix. _However_ , most of these script tags seem to point to external vendors - most prominently Google - <USER3> that's probably why they're not messing with them.

 _> They Use Inline Styles_

I agree it looks bad and it's also pretty easy to fix. On the other hand, those few extra bytes don't actually harm anyone. It's not pretty, but the argument that it makes the site hard to maintain is probably incorrect. I would think that no matter how many pages there are the number of actual templates used is quite small.

 _> They Use Ancient Float-Clearing Methods_

Again, this is probably a hack from the dawn of time, and it seems to work. Would they do it the same way today? Probably not. But is it worth the hassle of taking it out for no reason other than pleasing nitpickers? Nah.

 _> They Use Tables for Layout / They Use
 Tags Badly_

Historically, for a while there that was an absolutely valid choice. Though I wouldn't write table-based layout code without cringing today, I have to take a stand here and assert that tables are not _that_ bad of a tool. The standard argument that div/CSS-based table-like features are always better is somewhat hollow given the reality of actually dealing with the code. In practice, even CSS gurus do layout with HTML element structure all the time, they're just not open about it.

 _> They Have Duplicate Content_

I'm not sure why Google doesn't filter these out. Not fixing that is somewhat of an atrocious move on W3Schools' part, but you can't really blame them for wanting the ad revenue.

 _> Their Embedded Code Examples are Ugly_

That's true, they could do with an update. Syntax highlighting would be great.

 _> They Use Reflections / They Think "CSS3" is Part of "HTML5" / They Use the "keywords" Meta Tag_

I don't care.

 _> Their Website is Not Responsive or Mobile-Friendly_

Personally, I think that's a huge plus. I'm almost always annoyed when I get the mobile version of a site.

<comment><USER34> If you are looking for a 'HTML dictionary reference' site, try MDN.

<comment><USER33> I'm not, I thought I made that clear. I basically take the first reasonable- looking result on a Google search, as I believe do most people.

<comment><USER35> If it isn't StackOverflow or MDN then I will not click it. I've had bad experiences with garbage linkbaiting.

<comment><USER36> For me, it breaks down like this. For anything I've been away from for a while, the simpler sites work better. If I've been back involved (so I'm not asking simple questions), SO is the way to go. I'm ok with this.

I really dislike the fact that I can't distinguish in my search results between good SO results and bad SO results. So many times I'll click their result only to go to a page that has been 'closed because ...'

Sometimes I can still see the answer there (someone will have answered before it was closed), but often SO is a huge time-waster for simple things.

I find W3Schools to be the fastest solution for figuring out why my 'font- decoration' css style isn't working (like I had to do yesterday).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Make a Tuning Capacitor Out of a Roll of Toilet Paper (2014) [video]  - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBEhtzGcYW4

<comment><USER2> Looks like it's tuning coil, not capacitor.</comment>