Samsung's Chromebook Plus now supports Linux apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/6/5/17428806/samsung-chromebook-plus-linux-app-support-beta-launched <comment><USER2> I have the chromebook plus and just want to caution that this support is super early and there are significant shortcomings at the moment (lots of apps crash when trying to use the clipboard & java based apps seem to crash intermittently for unexplained reasons) but likely this will clear up in the coming weeks, given the fast pace of bug fixes in crostini so far.

In contrast, the Pixelbook (currently on sale for $750) has the exact same feature set but is very stable- This is the one I'd recommend any person to buy who wants to use a chromebook for development.

Also, I have a clojure project and it takes 24 seconds to build on the Pixelbook, but takes 64 seconds on the Chromebook Plus- Keep in mind the Chromebook Plus uses the same ARM processor as a typical phone, so this is still very impressive for a compiler running inside a VM.

<comment> forgot-my-pw How's the Pixelbook? Anything missing for software development? Can you run everything without needing crouton/ubuntu installed?

<comment><USER2> Works great, just enable linux support and you can apt-get whatever you want and run UI apps right next to chromeOS windows. Glitches are few and far between, though it's still only a beta feature.

EDIT: Yes, the lack of GPU support is still a major limitation.

<comment> forgot-my-pw What's your to go IDE / text editor to code in Chromebook?

<comment><USER2> debian version of UI emacs works great

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's still very early on, but I feel like this is a game changer for Chromebooks. Between web apps, Android apps and now Linux apps, they will become very developer friendly.

<comment><USER4> This is the thing that I have been waiting for to try one for development: A non hacky way to use linux tools on their lightweight machines.

<comment><USER5> A lot of people use termux on android/chrome-os for that purpose. I haven't done real work on it though I am absolutely in love with it, after trying tons of apps having the ability to just create a script with some rsync commands for syncing pictures etc. is a godsend.

<comment><USER6> I tried to use termux. It doesn't support openjdk which makes it useless to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is cool. I've got a couple Chromebooks where I re-flashed the firmware (SeaBIOS or, more recently, Tianocore UEFI) to get a full linux distro running, but it looks like this will get you full linux software with Chrome OS's security and containment features.[1]

Plus, it looks like Samsung's Chromebook Plus is ARM based - I've wanted an ARM-based laptop for a while, where I'm willing to trade some power for battery life. And using a non-Intel machine is also just fun for the novelty of it.

[1]: [https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/08/you-can-now-run-linux- apps...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/08/you-can-now-run-linux-apps-on- chrome-os/)

<comment><USER8> Make sure you get the Plus version which has the OP1 ARM processor according to the article below:

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/10/14570480/samsung- chromebo...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/10/14570480/samsung-chromebook- plus-laptop-review)

Processors:

Plus: OP1 ARM Pro: Intel Core m3-6y30

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a Chromebook Plus, and I have to say, it's not a device I'd recommend. I only use it as a tablet replacement (watching video and reading digital comics), and if manages to fail miserably at both of those.

As someone who uses Linux on all of his desktop and laptop devices, it kills me to say this, but if you're looking for a tablet-like laptop, I'd recommend getting a previous generation Surface, which is about the same price, and a vastly better device.

I'll just copy my previous comment[0] about the Chromebooks here.

I have a Samsung Chromebook Plus, and I absolutely despise it as a tablet. Compared to my Nexus 9 (which is still kicking), it's a far inferior device. My primary uses for my tablet are watching video and reading comics. It manages to fail at both of those two things.

1\. No system-wide support for red-tint (aka "night mode", Flux, Twilight, etc.)[1]

2\. Buggy rotation lock - this works very inconsistently across apps.

3\. Heavy (compared to keyboard-less tablets)

4\. Buggy soft keyboard (sometimes the soft keyboard just straight-up doesn't work in certain apps, so I have to unfold the device from tablet mode just to use the hardware keyboard to type).

I still use my Nexus 9 over the Chromebook Plus every time I can. When my Nexus 9 dies, I'll probably end up getting a Surface to replace it.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17213097](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17213097)

[1] There is finally support for it on a per-user basis, but it took years for them to introduce this. And even now, if you close your tablet and have to unlock it again, you'll be blinded by the unlock screen.

<comment><USER10> >I only use it as a tablet replacement (watching video and reading digital comics), and if manages to fail miserably at both of those.

As another Chromebook Plus owner I find this really surprising. I see your list there but I'm not sure how the video and digital comics fail. I've found it a pretty versatile device.

<comment><USER9> > As another Chromebook Plus owner I find this really surprising. I see your > list there but I'm not sure how the video and digital comics fail.

Lack of red tinting (system-wide) is a non-starter. If I'm reading late at night, I don't want to blind myself.

The rotation lock is really buggy and app-dependent. On Android tablets, it just works.

<comment><USER11> Night Light works system-wide for me, including the lock screen. Samsung Chromebook Plus, single user, stable channel. If yours is bugged, perhaps setting a dark wallpaper background might help mitigate the issue?

The rotation lock, I can't say I've had any issues with it, but I don't think I use the Chromebook Plus in tablet mode nearly as much as it sounds like you do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm somewhat torn about feature creep on Chromebooks.

On the one hand, I like Chromebooks a lot and frequently travel with a small one.

On the other hand, as price tags creep up for the fancier models and laptop capabilities start getting added, at some point, I wonder why not just use a Linux laptop (or other laptop of choice). There are some tradeoffs like battery life but it almost feels that we're recreating this sort of odd web browser/laptop hybrid.

On still the other hand though, I suppose if an Android or Linux app gives you that one capability you feel you can't live without on a Chromebook, what's the harm?

<comment><USER13> You can't fuck up a Chromebook.

I've been using Linux distros on and off on personal and work computers for something like 15 years, I don't really want to deal with administration for a Linux machine unless I have to. Especially on a laptop, which like you said has power management challenges.

I'm typing this on a corp-managed Linux laptop and I get intermittent screen flickering that I would consider completely unacceptable from anything else. We have corp-managed Linux desktops and those sometimes just have the entire UI lock up if you use too much RAM. I did some Deep Learning work at home on a Ubuntu partition and that would also have the UI freeze up sometimes until I rebooted the computer.

<comment><USER14> I try to avoid using a graphical display while doing deep learning (or any gpu intensive work). It reserves some, albeit not much, vram and while it shouldn't cause issues like the one you're stating, it definitely can.

<comment><USER15> A bunch of chrome tabs can quickly use enough vram that a model which trained fine yesterday fails today.

Sshing to the machine from another makes it far more consistent in that regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's stuff like this that is necessary to at the very least give "Linux on the desktop" a fighting chance.

It's very welcome to me. I love where Linux has quietly got on the desktop over the last five years, sort of below the radar during all the Windows 10 ruckus and mobile OS happenings. Something like Linux Mint or Ubuntu strangely now feels _friendlier_ and more _fun_ than Windows (what happened there!) and with a higher average quality "app store" too, i.e. the good old repositories with friendly UI's. Microsoft Store is still a cesspool in many respects and so sad to watch at times.

I think this new wave of Chromebooks will be very useful at least to me, especially as complements to my stationary PC and smartphone, instead of a tablet. They seem to get what it takes to be so versatile and fun to use, as a home user and developer catching a breath after the work hours.

</comment><comment><USER17> My concern with this is how well such apps will integrate into the native Chromebook environment. I don't think just being able to run arbitrary Xwindows apps will be all that interesting outside the geek/developer community. To be truly useful the apps need to work well with each other, with ChromeOS services like notifications, etc. How will application storage and file sharing, and backups be managed? How will integration with Google Drive work?

On all these points, the details of how the user experience works really matter. I hope Google has seriously thought all this through for once, and isn't just throwing this in as a feature because they think it's easy. I would actually much rather this was a custom native app framework specifically for the Chromebook environment, than just putting in a Wayland server and calling it done.

<comment><USER18> ChromeOS supports Wayland and the gnu/Linux applications integrate well as they go in the app drawer.

It will be better for people new to gnu/Linux as more familiar. This will open up use of gnu/Linux in a big way. Especially for schools in the US as the defacto standard is Chromebooks and Google ecosystem.

Now with also Android ChromeOS becomes a great option and perfect for my needs. Have not turned on my Mac since getting a PB.

Big thing is ChromeOS is the most secure desktop OS you can buy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'd be interested but ...

4gig ram.

Nice screens, reasonable processing power but they throttle the ram to make you want to spend the $500-750 for the "power" of.... 8 gigs of ram. But with the bloat of a useless(to me) windows license included.

How long is the chromebook spec going to stay like this? It's awful and holding them back.

It's nonsensical in 2018 to have this little ram on a laptop,chromebooks included but there it is still.

<comment><USER20> there are models with 8gb. with the expanded scope (android, linux), there will be pressure to increase RAM.

Just like Android already increased the storage availability (3 years ago people would have laughed about a chromebook with 256gb storage - what's the point? And now there's Pixelbook)

<comment><USER19> Yes and the 8g models of chromebook (there are 2 right?) are $750+

<comment><USER21> HP Chromebook G1 goes up to 16GB with the M7 model. I have the M3 one with 4GB RAM and it works well for me with either ChromeOS + crouton or plain Ubuntu 18.04. It should get Linux app support too, it's a fairly recent device.

EDIT: looks like you can get the M7 for <600$ [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M29N9BR/ref=as_li_qf_sp...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M29N9BR/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=chrome09d-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=B01M29N9BR&linkId=919eb11b3ed4a7c8f27369582806e5a2)

<comment><USER19> You know I'd rather see some of these chrome books with 8g and still in the $300 range.

But thanks, that's actually a nice little machine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just got a chromebook plus 12 hours ago. Nifty.

</comment><comment><USER23> Maybe I gave up too soon, but I could not get either Android Studio or VS Code Studio running, because of ARM. I figure those issue get solved by people who know better than me soon.

Anyone able to point to simpler instructions on how stand up containers on CB+?

</comment><comment><USER24> I've been using Termux to run linux software on a chromebook for about a year now.

</comment><comment><USER25> Very nice.Been using the bsd/Linux support to run all my favorite Android apps. X11 throguh xiwi is seamless and already provides the gnu/Linux apps I need.

</comment><comment><USER26> The problem is that it is Samsung so I'm assuming they put a bunch of their custom shit software on it.

<comment><USER27> I had one of these machines for a few days and I can assure you that Google handles the OS side, and there is no pre-installed crapware from Samsung.

<comment> forgot-my-pw Same goes with other Chromebooks I've used (ASUS and Acer).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is this particular Chromebook US only?

<comment><USER29> Amazon US ships it internationally, at least to my country.

<comment><USER28> True, but then you're stuck with a US keyboard. At least USB-C means you can easily use your native power plug.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it VM or native support? Also, what kind of display server does it use in such case?

<comment><USER18> Google hardened the KVM and what is used. So native instruction execution but sandboxed.

Then the gnu/Linux applications run in containers.

So do not lose the secure aspect of Chromebooks but get native gnu/Linux.

<comment><USER30> Do you mean it runs a whole OS in the container, or it binds application to the host OS?

<comment><USER18> Google has created a hardened KVM that it is using. So the GNU/Linux instruction run native on the processor but just sandboxed from the Linux kernel used by ChromeOS.

Then they use containers between the GNU/Linux applications.

This is different than how they did Android. Android is done using the same kernel as ChromeOS and using containers. But it is locked so can be secure.

Google implementation of GNU/Linux is going to be far more secure.

But all of this is hidden from the user. From the UI standpoint the user has no idea what is happening under the covers. You install a GNU/Linux application and it is added to the app drawer like an Android app or anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Stupid question: how is this better than crouton?

</comment><comment><USER18> Been using the new gnu/Linux support on my PB and has been really stable and just love it. My wife does have a CB+ I got her to replace her iPad but she uses to play animal crossing with a stylus more than anything and not into software development.

Finally having a big company like Google supporting gnu/Linux with a commercial offering is a big plus. But then also get Android.

Love how they implemented as secure and separate. So containers between gnu/Linux applications and then gnu/Linux sandboxed from ChromeOS and Android.

</comment><comment><USER32> I have heard Chrome OS is going to support Android apps and Linux apps yet these rollouts are always so delayed and limited that it's not even worth discussing.

Wow, 2% of the Chrome OS ecosystem now has access to something that will barely get used and may or may not actually end up in future releases. The Google ecosystem could not be any more fragmented.</comment>


PubSubHubbub Demo - Real-Time CrunchUp - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQBgbysSOQ

<comment><USER2> Impressive demo. Very cool to see real-time updates coming to Google Reader.</comment>


Tell HN: Google removing Gmail access from IFTTT - <AUTHOR> Hello,
Although you don't need to take any action, we wanted to let you know that the following third-party apps will no longer be able to access some data in your Google Account, including your Gmail content. This change will go into effect starting March 31, 2019.
IFTTT
We are making this change as part of ongoing efforts to make sure your data is protected and private. These apps haven't yet complied with our updated data privacy requirements announced on October 8, 2018
You can always view, manage and remove apps you've given access to your account by visiting your Google Account.
Thanks, The Google Accounts team <comment><USER3> Context:

In ~July 2018 there was some outcry because Google was "letting third parties read your emails" (e.g. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-reportedly- allows-third-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-reportedly-allows-third- party-apps-to-scan-gmail-emails/)). Of course, these were all explicitly installed by users who gave these apps access. But somehow people were mad anyway - maybe users shouldn't be given the option to make choices they don't understand?

Anyway, as the message mentions, Google announced new requirements for these apps on October 8: [https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/elevating- use...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/elevating-user-trust- in-our-api-ecosystems)

Apparently, IFTTT (which does personal automation, integrating with many third parties), does not comply with the new policy.

<comment><USER4> > Of course, these were all explicitly installed by users who gave these apps > access. But somehow people were mad anyway - maybe users shouldn't be given > the option to make choices they don't understand?

It's interesting to see the difference in attitude on HN towards Google and Facebook. Many readers on HN shared the media's outcry when it was "revealed" that Netflix and Spotify were given read/write access to users' messages if they had authorized those Messenger plugins/platforms. I'm not attacking your position--I wholeheartedly agree with it--it just seems like there's a double standard on HN when it comes to certain tech companies.

<comment><USER5> If I connect IFTTT to my Gmail to automate some aspect thereof I can reasonably expect it to have access to my emails.

If I connect my Facebook to my Spotify so that I can log in with one account and maybe share music with friends, I don't expect Spotify to have access to my private messages.

Obviously context is important, but I'm not seeing the double standard.

<comment><USER6> The Facebook integration with Spotify allowed you to send messages and receive from within Spotify. Could you think of a way to implement this without giving the Spotify _client_ access to those messages?

What's more, users explicitly opted in, giving Spotify permission to do so. [1] No reasonable person would use Spotify to send and receive messages after explicitly granting the client permissions and then claim "but I don't expect Spotify to have access to my private messages"

[1] - [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17561784/django- social-a...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17561784/django-social-auth- extended-facebook-permissions-like-spotify)

<comment><USER7> At various stages of Spotify's life, Facebook login was _required_ to use the service. I'm a long-time user, and I've learned about the messages feature from HN. It wasn't really even advertised in the UI, and not the reason I - <USER2> many other people - connected Facebook to it.

<comment><USER8> Oh wow you are totally right. It had never occurred to me that Spotify requiring Facebook to use the service was a means for them to gain access to your Facebook account.

<comment><USER9> i can't tell if this is snark, but as an app developer, i have considered facebook login as a means for a relatively frictionless user experience, not as a way for me to gain access to a users facebook account.

<comment><USER10> But security-wise, it is the same.

<comment><USER9> Not at all. FUD. If you're going to make a statement like that at least come with some facts. There is a massive difference between me getting login permission TO MY OWN APP, and accessing a users facebook account, or masquerading as them on other apps.

<comment><USER10> ...until Facebook mishandles their end, for example, the API.

Which they have been shown to about a dozen times over this month.

<comment><USER9> I think you have either misunderstood the reports, misunderstand the API, or misunderstand how to integrate it. There is literally no way for me to accidentally steal a users data. You may not like facebook, but accusing me of putting my users data in jeopardy is just fucking cheeky.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's funny is many of these IFTTT integrations appear to have been written by the Google Gmail team themselves.

Like this one, for example: [https://ifttt.com/applets/jMfVncBv-press-a- button-to-quickly...](https://ifttt.com/applets/jMfVncBv-press-a-button-to- quickly-email-people-you-re-running-late)

<comment><USER12> That's not an integration, just a task/applet.

<comment><USER11> It's hard to look at it in a way that doesn't seem like Google/Gmail is highly involved: [https://ifttt.com/gmail](https://ifttt.com/gmail)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here's IFTTT's statement:

[https://help.ifttt.com/hc/en- us/articles/360020249393-Import...](https://help.ifttt.com/hc/en- us/articles/360020249393-Important-update-about-Gmail-on-IFTTT)

<comment><USER14> A little odd statement. I am in no doubt that it would require "massive back- end & infrastructure changes" as they point out, but this is the business model for IFTTT. They integrate these services as doing it yourself is a pain in the ass.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, it read as "we've managed to outsource the work and just reap the profits, and now Google wants us to work again? Nope!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When you register an account in Facebook it tells you to connect your Google account to check for the confirmation email. There's no button that says 'no thanks', it kind of makes you think it's the only way to go forward. I don't want to know what kind of information they scoop out, but I guess, all that they can. It's incredible. But here, IFTTT is the problem... I'm pretty sure they don't care about your emails.

</comment><comment><USER17> More info on the reddit threads:

\- Main one: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ifttt/comments/b3umeo/gmail_is_bein...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ifttt/comments/b3umeo/gmail_is_being_removed_from_ifttt/)

\- Alternatives: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ifttt/comments/b3zv1z/alternative_t...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ifttt/comments/b3zv1z/alternative_to_gmail_applet_using_sheetsapp/)

</comment><comment><USER18> I got the exact same email but substitute IFTTT for Gmvault, which I use to make backups of my emails.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, there's an issue with a few comments already: [https://github.com/gaubert/gmvault/issues/335](https://github.com/gaubert/gmvault/issues/335)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Will IFTTT update to comply?

Also, does this prevent _sending_ emails to my Gmail, as opposed to reading? That was what I used the most.

<comment><USER21> No, IFTTT doesn't intend to update to comply. See: [https://help.ifttt.com/hc/en- us/articles/360020249393-Import...](https://help.ifttt.com/hc/en- us/articles/360020249393-Important-update-about-Gmail-on-IFTTT)

<comment><USER22> They'll comply if their users demand it. Time will tell

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not sure how much user security will come out of the new Gmail policies. A lot of companies will just start asking for username/password for IMAP access. Now the user is more vulnerable than if the developer was allowed OAuth access. Unless they plan to break that somehow as well.

<comment><USER24> So IMAP is the next on the kill list. RIP email.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Data privacy offers a good reason for both Google and Facebook to close the few gates that still offered access for 3rd party apps to their walled garden.

And I don't think I can blame them. This kind of access provided very little benefits for them, but it has turned out to be a big PR problem.

</comment><comment><USER26> IMAP still works though right?

It's strange that IFTTT would use some non-standard interface and that's why I'm asking.

I don't think I can keep using gmail if IMAP breaks.

<comment><USER27> Disclaimer: Worked someplace that does something similar to IFTTT, but not IFTTT.

You _do not_ want to use IMAP for integrations at scale. You run into all sorts of weird issues retrieving and deduplicating messages. It's a terrible black box to troubleshoot. The Gmail REST interface was a huge improvement over IMAP. If you can get access to the REST interface, you want to use it.

While IMAP is a legacy compatibility mode, I would not call it a "standard" interface for this purpose.

<comment><USER28> Please define 'at scale' \- I use IMAP + SMTP to download all of my personal emails, I avoid REST because it's Google-led. Are you saying my ~5K/mo emails or my employers ~100K/mo emails are "scale"?

<comment><USER27> Your personal use case is fine. I'm referring to when 100k+ customers are using it on your platform.

FastMail has been championing a new standard (JMAP) for mail messaging; hopefully it gets traction.

<comment><USER29> What is at scale mean? every account has its own connection There is nothing inherently scalable in the imap vs rest layer

<comment><USER27> It's not about performance scaling (although you do have to contend with those issues, as you're network and not CPU bound), but about data integrity workload management. Each time a customer submits a ticket because you couldn't catch an edge case when IMAP polling, that's someone digging through logs to understand why, and determine if a patch provides ongoing resolution (or if nothing can be done other than an apology). That's not scalable past a certain point.

Hence, (hopefully well supported and documented) REST interfaces.

<comment><USER30> I think this is mostly a grass is greener scenario : you'll end up debugging that REST interface, and no two email providers supports the same REST interface. At least IMAP is reasonably well supported.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Apple's Shortcuts, too.

Claiming that IFTTT and Apple Shortcuts have not complied with Google's privacy policy. That's rich.

</comment><comment><USER32> Seems to be the same issue for Gmail backup tools, eg:

[https://github.com/jay0lee/got-your- back/issues/195](https://github.com/jay0lee/got-your-back/issues/195)

Frustrating, given Google's own takeout tool doesn't work on larger inboxes! This is basically going to destroy the tools that were papering over gmails cracks.

</comment><comment><USER33> Although it doesn't necessarily cater for the home market, Zapier is suitable replacement for many use cases IMO.

<comment><USER34> What's different between the way that Zapier connects to Gmail versus how IFTTT does it? Both appear to use the same mechanism, so I guess that Zapier will get blocked soon too?

<comment><USER35> Not if Zapier paid for the audit and passed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I use Zapier to do some basic email parsing / echoing important and interesting things into slack and SMS. Instead of giving API access to Gmail content I filter + forward the emails to an address they provide.

</comment><comment><USER37> Going to really miss IFTTT... auto-responding using Gmail Filters and Canned Responses only works for a few hours before it stops auto-responding.

</comment><comment><USER38> You mean that the app I explicitly want to be able to manipulate the data I have given it access to will no longer be able to do so? Hm.

<comment><USER39> Yep, users made it clear that they can't be trusted to make such decisions, so now the apps have to comply with new requirements, including security audits by 3rd parties.

<comment><USER40> Which is totally sensible. Nobody believes end-users are qualified to assess the security risks of the applications they're opting into. It's a little like being angry at how expensive it is to inspect and qualify an airliner before allowing people to book flights on it.

<comment><USER41> What _are_ end-users qualified to assess? Should we be able to choose what we want to eat if we aren't qualified nutritionists? People that aren't experts will certainly make poor decisions sometimes, or think they are choosing healthy food when it really isn't. Where do you draw the line?

<comment><USER42> There should be a requirement to publish an easily-understandable description of what the app does with its Gmail access. Pay $x per year to an auditor who verifies the description.

As long as the [I agree] section says "We send all your email to market researchers for money", then it's fair game to publish.

<comment><USER41> I could definitely get on board with that. My only concern is that the expense if paying a professional auditor might make startups and individuals and open source projects unable to compete, but there could be solutions to those problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> So what is the policy update and can IFTTT comply without breaking functionality?

<comment><USER43> an independent 3rd-party auditor:

> The assessment fee is paid by the developer and may range from $15,000 to > $75,000 (or more) depending on the size and complexity of the application. > This fee is due whether or not your app passes the assessment

(snipped from above)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Maybe the goal is to remove IFTTT and build the features into GMAIL

<comment><USER45> The goal is to not let a Cambridge Analytica scandal happen to Google.

If users all choose to share their emails with a third party service, and that third party service leaks/abuses the mail, Google will get blamed.

Google doesn't want that, so now stops you choosing to share mail with all except the biggest companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Just wait til they shut down GAM

</comment><comment><USER47> What is IFTTT? Never heard of it.

<comment><USER48> If This Then That: [https://ifttt.com](https://ifttt.com). It's a popular personal automation service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Google reports straight to NSA cia anyways all messages. Do people listening at all what Snowden revealed ?

</comment><comment><USER28> So IFTTT, a good service, and if memory serves an HN poster, is being banned from Google. This should be a sign to move away from Google, yes?

<comment><USER50> No. GMail gave people the option of giving full access to their Gmail's mails with the user's consent. This was discovered and made up to be a scandal (people who shouldn't be able to can read your Gmail) which it wasn't. GMail then decided that the API is too dangerous to allow any 3rd party to use it, because once you grant access to someone, your GMail's security is bound to the 3rd party's security.

The sensible thing to do was to make the scope of access more clear while granting access to the 3rd party as well as making sure the 3rd party is following security best practices.

I don't see how this is Google's fault.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'll ask the question, why? You have a vague "they don't comply with our requirements", but you don't actually explain. That could be a happy to glad issue, or it could be a much bigger issue.

But this announcement just sounds like the phrase from Empire " I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

<comment><USER52> Presumably the poster is just copy/pasting an email and isn't Google.

<comment><AUTHOR> Correct. My apologies as I should have prefaced it with a description indicating it was an email from Google.</comment></comment></comment>


Why aren't there more women in tech? - <AUTHOR> https://www.techinasia.com/talk/women-tech-infographic/ <comment><USER2> Every week someone talks about the same thing. I get it but at this point this topic is passing the point of caring into annoyance and soon apathy. It honestly has crossed my mind to just make a quick script to filter anything that has to do with women/minorities/politics even though it's the equivalent of covering my ears and closing my eyes. Articles based on these things have nothing to do scientific progress and quirky/interesting technical concepts which are the main draw for coming here.

Maybe I'll be enlightened? I don't know. Being completely honest I'm having a hard time getting past fact that the article was written by a woman who could instead get a tech job. My wife is a kernel programmer for goodness' sake. Perhaps I'm failing to see something obvious so it would be nice if someone could show me what's wrong with my line of thinking.

<comment><USER3> nope. I completely agree

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As usual, when one looks at the sources, it's disappointing: [http://www.nextgeneration.ie/sources-women-in-tech- project](http://www.nextgeneration.ie/sources-women-in-tech-project)

Very few empirical sources, and lots of political soap-boxing.

Why are there few women in tech? The intellectually honest will begin by pointing out that nobody really knows. From there, we can talk about what we think _might_ be responsible, but if we're going to continue in the spirit of intellectual honesty, we must acknowledge that the gender gap in technology is part of a large and _very_ robust phenomenon by which women prefer to work with people, and men prefer to work with things [1].

Granted, the people vs things dichotomy may well be the result of social conditioning, but it might also be indicative of an intrinsic difference. (At this point, intellectually-honest feminists who oppose essentialism must also admit that the latter is a political and sociological theory, and therefore has no bearing on whether or not there actually are fundamental differences between the sexes from a cognitive and biological standpoint.) Indeed, just as _de facto_ gender differences can be fueled by social conditioning, so too can social asymmetries be fueled by biological factors.

While there certainly is evidence suggesting that the gender gap in technology is the result of systematic bias (or even discrimination), we must take care not to lose sight of effect sizes. I have not looked into this myself, but I would be extremely surprised if, say, the use of gendered pronouns had an effect size that even remotely resembled the people-vs-things effect. Social conditioning effects tend to be small compared to their biological counterparts (with notable exceptions).

So why are there fewer women in tech? Those claiming to have the answer are at worst intellectually dishonest, at best ill-informed, and in all probability pushing a very narrow interpretation of feminism.

My fellow feminists (in name only, sadly): disguising political ideology as science and abusing the connotations of the term "source" ultimately hurts your cause.

[1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140)

<comment><USER3> so many tech companies desperately try to hire women...those percentages of women at tech companies are higher than the percentage of women earning/pursuing technical degrees. They want that percentage to be higher. Subjectively saying that the industry is biased and tries to keep out females is very deliberately ignoring facts.

<comment><USER4> That's my opinion as well, but I was trying to stay neutral.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why aren't there more women plumbers? Is that also because of the "bro- plumber" culture?

There aren't more women in tech because women didn't want to be in tech back in the 80's and early 90's when it was not a sexy field. Someone else started the party. Now they want in because it's cool.

<comment><USER6> actually the chart shows the opposite. there were a lot of women in tech in the 80s and 90s. now there are fewer

<comment><USER3> but the number of women in tech is growing slower than the number of men in tech.

To be fair, its not that "its cool now, so they want in the party", its actually that so many women just dont want in. I dont understand acting like the whole world needs to change because their are trends in peoples personal choices.

<comment><USER4> >I dont understand acting like the whole world needs to change because their are trends in peoples personal choices.

This is because feminism has become dominated by a very specific branch that renounces essentialism vehemently. Their _a priori_ position is that there are no differences between men and women, other than those which are socially- constructed.

Of course, this is a sociological and political theory, whose followers often mistake for a scientific one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The are only so many women in tech because 95% of jobs in tech suck balls.

1\. entry level with zero career progression

2\. agile-scrum micro management

3\. task oriented, big picture is for business (grown ups)

4\. pay is good, starts above other jobs but hits ceiling after 5y

5\. introverts only (95% time is spent sitting inside your head)

6\. working with code (inanimate matter) is less interesting than working with people,

7\. most often you're surrounded by nerds who don't have a life

Surely the above isn't the case if you're in a successful company, but 90% people maintain legacy internal app in a big corpo.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can honestly say I have never heard the word "brogrammer"

Anyway, I like how this article has a lot of facts. I dislike many other things.

Diversity is great, it is an awesome thing to have, promote and embrace. But you can only do so much to force it. At some point, if females choose to stay out of tech, thats their choice. If they choose to get into tech thats great too. The fundamental idea of forcing society to change to have a higher proportion of women employed in "STEM" jobs is absurd.

Personally, I know quite a few women (a much higher proportion than men) who went through STEM programs in highschool only to go into bio or environmental Engineering. Guess what? There aren't all that many jobs in those fields compared to more traditional tech/generic engineering roles. Some of them left their respective fields within a year for that reason alone

<comment><USER4> >I like how this article has a lot of facts.

I humbly encourage you to look at the sources they provide: [http://www.nextgeneration.ie/sources-women-in-tech- project](http://www.nextgeneration.ie/sources-women-in-tech-project)

I find an overwhelming proportion of secondary & tertiary sources, very few empirical sources whatsoever, and a large majority of political opinion pieces and mainstream media coverage of feminist politics.

I don't think this infographic is the fruit of intellectually-honest research.

<comment><USER3> Without looking at sources, I assumed that the percentages were accurate..and there are quite a few of those. I dont think they come close to making the point that the author is making, but they seemed factual.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A factor I've not seen analyzed is the difference in brain maturation rates between boys and girls. Girls mature faster than boys.

I suspect that this results in boys spending more time in that awkward stage where they would rather spend their time on activities that are done alone or, if done with others, do not require much social interaction.

Girls pass through that stage faster, and more of their time after gets devoted to dealing with their social groups and their positions in those groups.

It is that awkward stage that is prime time for really seriously getting into programming and many other STEM activities. Boys spend longer stuck there, so boys get a head start in STEM.

<comment><USER9> I see a lot of attempts at analyzing why there are so many males in computer science (which is distinctively bad among STEM fields), _and_ a lot of confusion between that question and the question of whether there _should_ be more males in computer science.

But those are different questions. It is _not_ a safe assumption that the best practitioners in this field should be nerds who got started in their pre-teen years (that describes me, by the way). The overwhelming majority of pre-teen computer nerds don't do any software development work of significance. I was out of high school before I wrote my first significant program, which makes my head start not that much different from someone who starts programming in their CS courses at college.

<comment><USER8> > It is not a safe assumption that the best practitioners in this field should > be nerds who got started in their pre-teen years (that describes me, by the > way).

Just to be clear, I did not intend to imply that spending more time in nerd mode might make boys _better_ at programming (or any other STEM field) than girls. I was just looking at why boys might be more likely to go into such fields.

A lot (most?) kids have decided what general area they are going to major in by the time they arrive at college, and those kids are going to be a big factor in the demographics of the fields they go into.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's because less women than men want to be in tech.

</comment><comment><USER11> The "So where are the women section?" section seems weak compared to how important it is. Here are their options:

1\. gender stereotypes (from an early age) 2\. lack of talent pool (STEM majors) 3\. in-group favoritism (in hiring)

The first thing that jumps out at me is that (1) and (3) could _cause_ (2). If it turned out that most of the gender imbalance in tech was related to (2), we'd still need to answer why (2) was happening.

It also seems like (2) and (3) should be fairly easy to study. If the number of women graduating with computer science degrees is about the same as the number of women going into tech jobs, then presumably (3) is not a big factor. (Though favoritism could factor into other aspects of the imbalance, like promotions.) Then the big question would be "Why are so few women graduating in computer science?" That could definitely be related to (1). But it's not obvious to me that a brogrammer/machismo culture in the profession would have a big effect on students in high school and college, before they've had much contact with the profession. (Though if there were more women in CS as freshmen, and that number dropped off as women did internships, that could point to professional culture problems after all.)

So the main question: Is the percentage of women in CS in college on par with the percentage of women in the CS workforce? Can someone more familiar with all the different ways to measure this please chime in?

</comment><comment><USER12> There are days when I feel bad about myself. Most people here in HN are smarter, generally more successful then myself. And then when they start talking about women in tech, and I feel much better about myself. : )

If >90% of women in tech claim there are issues with women's involvement in tech, perhaps it's a good idea to consider the possibility that they may be right, instead of assuming they're all sour grapes artsy complainers who missed out on the money boat and are now complaining. Someone's posted an image of how all women sign up for gender studies courses, and no one signs up for CS etc. Yeah, you forgot something in that image. Add a bunch of dudes hanging around the CS stall, talking loudly about 't __s ', making jokes about their bodies, etcetera etcetera etcetera. The portrayal is accurate, but it shows the symptoms, not the cause.

For those who claim to be objective Vulcans who won't agree with an issue 'just because it's politically correct to', look at it this way: assume for a moment, this issue is real. Compare it to a fever. Whereas others are saying the causes of the fever need to be looked at, you're arguing people get a lot of other diseases, and people get fever all the time, and looking at the causes is just going to waste your time from making cooler awesome apps. You cannot shut your eyes and ears to what women have to say, and argue they're just a bunch of complainers, which seems to be the general theme of comments in posts like these.

Admins: Posts such as these WILL start flame wars. I feel quite strongly about this issue, and so do a lot of people from the other side. If you want to save the community from flame wars, I suggest heavily penalizing these.

<comment><USER4> >perhaps it's a good idea to consider the possibility that they may be right

That's fine, but why can't the other side consider that they may be wrong?

The reason is actually simple: on the whole, the brand of feminism we're exposed to on the internet (that is, the west-coast, SanFran variety), is a very specific branch that vehemently opposes notions of essentialism. That is, their _a priori_ hypothesis is that men and women are exactly alike, but are shaped from birth by social conditioning. As such, any _observed_ discrepancy between men and women must _necessarily_ be the result of sexism and mysoginy.

I don't deny the existence of social conditioning, nor it's problematic effects, but anti-essentialism is a political and sociological stance, not an empirical one.

I know your position comes from an honest desire to be compassionate and progressive, but it's entirely missing the point of those who are tired of the relentless proselytizing.

It's not about sour grapes; it's about the fact that this recent wave of political correctness is laden with highly political social theory, and is lowering the level of discourse. I'm sure you're a great person (really!), but your appeal to emotion is ultimately favoring a cause with which you (hopefully) don't agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The "why we need women" section is interesting. What's the cause and effect?

Companies with women on the exec team get higher valuations -- perhaps that's because women are better at choosing winning companies? Or, since there are fewer exec-team-level women than there are men, they can be more choosy with their opportunities?

</comment><comment><USER14> The real answer, also an INFOGRAPHIC(!):

[http://i.imgur.com/SOurzsH.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/SOurzsH.jpg)

<comment><USER4> People won't take you seriously because of your handle, but if we take your image for what it is (a political cartoon), I think it brings up some very important (albeit contentious) points.

In no particular order:

\- There's an overwhelming preference (across all academic and professional disciplines) for women to prefer working with people and for men to prefer working with things [1]

\- Gender theory is a sociological and political theory that's often touted as being scientific. To be sure, it's contributed to science (e.g.: the idea that gender roles are socially-influenced), but the idea that men and women are equivalent outside of socially-constructed differences is (a) unsubstantiated (b) unfalsifiable (we can never fully remove social influence) (c) in contradiction with what cognitive neuroscience tells us about anatomy and physiology shape cognition.

Where gender theory has a role to play is in telling us how to structure our societies _despite_ eventual differences between the sexes, but I really don't care for it's opinion on empirical questions.

[1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140)

<comment><USER14> I've found the admin to be hostile to discussion of biological determinism and have given up on discourse on this site. I'm surprised to find, given the general tenor of the commentary on this thread, that there has been a seeming absence of intervention. Perhaps on sex he is more tolerant of such views than on race.

<comment><USER4> This doesn't surprise me in the least. SanFran is a hotbed of a particularly harsh branch of anti-essentialist feminism, and YC is a SF company.

On the whole, though, I feel like these ideas can be discussed, provided you mince your words and ignore the trolls.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Promising new work shows that iPhone can display Flash animation. - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gElZqHm8uJw

<comment><USER2> How does this show flash animation and not just a video playing synchronized?</comment>


HTTPS is Easy - <AUTHOR> https://www.troyhunt.com/https-is-easy/ <comment><USER2> Troy is not suggesting people implement HTTPS. He's suggesting they use pre- rolled services made by companies which just happens to deliver HTTPS. Using a product may be easy, but implementing HTTPS is not.

I mean, come on. Who honestly thinks " _openssl pkcs12 -export -inkey httpsiseasy.key -in httpsiseasy.pem -name httpsiseasy -out httpsiseasy.pfx_ " looks easy? What the hell is pkcs12? What does export mean? what's a key, pem, and pfx? What the hell is going on here? Anyone can copy and paste random commands on a command-line, but that doesn't mean you have any idea what's going on, and when you have problems, you're totally lost.

I could tell people "programming is easy!", but it would be a misleading, stupid thing to say. Writing code may be easy, but actually making a well- written, well-supported, bug-free program that works reliably outside my own computer is damn hard.

If I want more people to feel comfortable programming, I'm not going to lie to them and tell them it's easy. I'm going to tell them the truth: that it's difficult, but that there are ways to ease into it and become more comfortable with it over time, and here are the ways to do that.

Please don't lie to people to push your agenda. It sucks for the people who then assume you're telling the truth, and try to do X, and then run into problems, and curse the people who misled them. I have been in this situation many times and it always sucks. If something is hard, just say so.

<comment><USER3> This command line turns the two files everybody on the rest of the Internet cares about into the single file that Microsoft, in its unvarying quest to be different for no reason, has decided is the right choice for their software.

Specifically you've got a Private Key (which your servers need, but you mustn't show to anybody and so must be very careful to protect) and a Certificate (which is a public signed document and it's fine to show it to anybody, if you lose it you can just get another copy). Completely different security profiles so it makes sense to keep them separate even though you need both...

And then Microsoft says OK, let's use RSA's (the company not the algorithm) PKCS #12 to bundle these two items together into a PFX file. Now we've got a file that we'll call a "certificate" but in fact must be kept private at all times and not shown to anybody.

The worst thing about PFX / PKCS #12 is that as here you're usually going to see it because somebody skipped the vital step that actually makes any of Public Key security worth having. The Subject / Applicant should always generate their own keys. If you let the Certificate Issuer make the keys, the whole enterprise is basically a charade because instead of just acting as an Authority, now they're proxying for you entirely, if they want to impersonate you they can trivially do so at any time. Security goes out the window.

One of the great things about Let's Encrypt is that they illustrated that you can do this right (Let's Encrypt never sees your private keys, indeed if you mistakenly present them they'll revoke your certificate on the rationale that now the keys are revealed and the cert is worthless) without making the end user jump through technical hoops like typing in OpenSSL commands they don't understand. Your keys are made on your machine, but unless you care you don't need to know about it.

<comment><USER4> It was a rhetorical question. The fact that you needed 5 paragraphs to explain what is going on only proves the point being made — that it is not easy for anyone who doesn't already have an intimate knowledge of PKI.

<comment><USER3> Sure, but this file and the command to produce it aren't anything to do with HTTPS really, they're artefacts of the Microsoft corporation's long-standing belief that refusing to interoperate helps you lock people into your ecosystem.

Troy wouldn't need this file, and thus this command, except that (as HN readers sometimes forget) he's a Microsoft MVP and so even when it's clearly the wrong choice he has to pimp the Microsoft approach if possible.

A better use of Troy's time as an MVP in _my_ opinion would have been to lobby Microsoft's IIS team to get ACME integration patched into recent releases ASAP‡. If this news item was "Troy's new video demos previously unannounced ACME integration for IIS 10" then it'd actually make an impact which this (unpaid) advertisement for Cloudflare does not.

‡ Bonus points since IIS is a commercial product, cut a deal to get your paying customers one free cert from a commercial CA using the new integration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Let's Encrypt doesn't help people redirect to HTTPS, add HSTS, configure the versions of TLS they support or fix HTTP references in otherwise secure pages."

So, this is only true if you squint at the problem. In one sense Let's Encrypt is ISRG's Certificate Authority project, and it doesn't dice vegetables OR pick up dog hair. But the wider Let's Encrypt ecosystem does help you with lots of this:

* If you use Certbot (the hugely popular EFF maintained "reference" client for Let's Encrypt) with popular servers like Apache you get options to switch on HSTS and CSP: upgrade-insecure-requests

* If you use a bulk host, as a great many of Troy's target audience do, they either already have a single button push (easier than Cloudflare) "Get me free SSL" or they could but they've chosen for commercial reasons not to enable it (in the very popular CPanel a hosting company has to go out of their way to ensure this is disabled if they want to instead upsell customers to paid certs and squeeze a little more cash out). "Go to Cloudflare" and thereby centralise things even further is definitely the wrong choice in this scenario.

</comment><comment><USER5> So it's easy as long as you use Cloudflare, otherwise you still have to fight with private keys, csrs, permissions, hsts, http->https redirects and what happens when it expires or otherwise goes wrong.

Thanks Troy!

<comment><USER6> I wonder how highly you must think of yourself to adopt such a snarky tone when talking about someone who contributed so much to internet security.

"Thanks lbriner!"

Edit: Downvoters have spoken, and apparently the parent comment is the kind of content you guys want to see on this site. What a world.

<comment><USER7> The snark is well deserved. The article's title is condescending and wrong, setting up TLS isn't "easy," and claiming otherwise is unproductive.

This is nothing but a glorified ad for CloudFlare, and doesn't prove that HTTPS is "easy" but rather using CloudFlare's package offering is easier.

I like Troy Hunt, but this isn't one of his best.

<comment><USER8> > setting up TLS isn't "easy," and claiming otherwise is unproductive.

Well... it is if you use Cloudflare. But yeah, it should be httpsiseasyIFusingcloudflare.com or something.

> This is nothing but a glorified ad for CloudFlare

It's technically not though. He says they didn't even know he was making this. It's just a nice little free resource for anyone using Cloudflare or looking for a relatively easy path to https. For him, it'll drive some traffic back to his other site and build his brand a bit more.

It'll probably result in a bunch of Cloudflare sites beefing up their security a bit and capture some who haven't previously tackled https at all. Isn't that a good thing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interestingly, the certificate Cloudflare attaches to the domain seems to contain all (or at least some subset of) the Cloudflare user's other domains in the Certificate Subject Alternative Name field. Managed to find he also owns [https://troyhuntsucks.com](https://troyhuntsucks.com) this way.

<comment><USER3> Depending on your deal with Cloudflare (ie how much you're paying them):

1\. You may share a Cloudflare issued (deal with Comodo) cert with arbitrary other Cloudflare customers. This illustrates that only Cloudflare is ensuring your data isn't muddled with data from those other customers. But to be fair in reality this is true in all cases because of how Cloudflare actually works.

2\. Your sites may get their own cert, only your names appear in the cert but it's still issued by Cloudflare using Comodo and isn't really "yours" in any sense.

3\. You sort out certificates and Cloudflare uses the ones you provide for your sites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> IMO this is dangerously harmful advice. Even if you do the Full SSL (Strict) version, you are trusting CloudFlare with all data. It's probably fine if you are just doing a static site or something, but the fact that CloudFlare has access to users' passwords gives me the creeps.

(You are also trusting CloudFlare to generate the private key of your web server, which is no big deal if you are already using their services between you and the user, but might be more complicated if you decide to trust that cert for internal use.)

Ultimately I only recommend this if you want a fast fix to prevent public wifi operators from injecting stuff into your HTTP content. Any other use and you'll not be able to sleep at night wondering what kind of data CloudFlare has stored.

<comment><USER11> Ultimately Cloudflare is just another provider you have to trust if you decide to rely on them, just like your web host and anything else you use. For any non-trivial site you should do a risk assessment of the service providers, external javascript and other software you are using to determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks, and for the most sensitive use cases they should be kept to an absolute minimum. As you say, for a static site HTTPS terminated by Cloudflare is more secure than plain HTTP so it makes the most sense in that situation.

<comment><USER10> Hmm I guess you are right, I was just thinking of the simple case (run on your own metal, no external JS, etc...). I am just uncomfortable with the amount of data that passes through Cloudflare and especially the idea of depending on them just to gain HTTPS support (which you could do almost as easily in other ways). Cloudflare as proxy seems at odds with a decentralized view of the web.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If it was easy, you wouldn't need a webpage with a configuration video tutorial series to convince people of the fact.

</comment><comment><USER13> I wonder the percent of HTTPS websites on Cloudflare that are using browser <=HTTPS=> CF <=HTTP=> webserver.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's also made easier by awesome tools like Mozilla's config generator: [https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config- generat...](https://mozilla.github.io/server-side-tls/ssl-config-generator/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Strange, my browser reports that [https://httpsiseasy.com/](https://httpsiseasy.com/) is not secure (both Firefox and Chrome). Maybe its because I'm accessing it behind a corporate firewall but https works properly with other sites.

</comment><comment><USER16> No it is not easy at all. I have had a very bad experience with trying to support https on my simple golang server that just needs to serve a couple of jsons. I gave up and switched the whole thing back to http (because mixed is apparently worse than no https for some reason known only to Google and Mozilla).</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best modern way to do "Keep window on top" in OS X? - sahin-boydas <comment><AUTHOR> Marketing styles it as macOS nowadays, but anyway the modern way is when you are watching a video, click on the button that makes it pop out.

For example this clip on Vimeo [https://vimeo.com/channels/staffpicks/361821058](https://vimeo.com/channels/staffpicks/361821058) in the bottom-right, one-to-last button is the popout button. The clip will now hover over all other windows. Other websites have other buttons, or have this in the generic right-click menu. And some simply don't offer this.

If you're asking for a way to keep _any_ window on top in macOS, there isn't a way. The above also works in Safari, but not in Firefox.

<comment><USER2> > If you're asking for a way to keep any window on top in macOS, there isn't a > way.

What an unfortunate lack of functionality. On XFCE, a _free_ Linux window manager, I can right-click a window and select `always on top`. MacOS is a premium product and doesn't offer that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh yeah, tell me about it. I used Linux for many years on the desktop, until I changed career into iOS development. I really missed it.

One redeeming grace is that macOS does support virtual desktops quite well. That, combined with a nice 32" monitor, means I no longer need it as often. But it's a miss, to be sure.

Edit: if the "popout video" button isn't there for a video on a website, then it's in the right-click menu. Of course, some (most?) websites including Youtube have a custom right-click menu. To get it back, there is an extension, but boy what a hassle.</comment></comment></comment>


Multi-Modal Vehicle Concept [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.sandia.gov/research/robotics/unique_mobility/multi_modal_vehicle.html

<comment><USER2> Well, it's interesting, but doesn't getting rid of the wings and later the flippers mean it's a single use drone?

Also, how limited are missions that the drone can only do things in this order and not, say, start with flying, then carry out its mission on land and then escape via rivers/sea?

Also, also, the potential for reverse-engineering on anything left behind is a weak point.

</comment><comment><USER3> Stupid question, but couldn't a quad-copter basically accomplish all of this by using roters that change their axis?</comment>


Illumination for Computer Generated Pictures (1975) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~ago820/cs395/Papers/Phong_1975.pdf <comment><USER2> I was 21 or so when I discovered this paper and re-implemented Phong shading for a combination of a an early i386 (1986 iirc), combined with a co-processor board that had a DSP32 on it, which - amazingly - would do some pretty impressive float calculations. It was a tricky combo to program for, the bus was a limiting factor but when it worked it was quite fast. I later also ported the vector math section of a small ray tracer to that DSP32. The main application the designers of the board had in mind was real time filtering of telephone voice data streams (the board had two RJ11 jacks) so it wasn't an ideal match for graphics work but it worked quite well in spite of that.

Given the resolution limitations of the display hardware I had access to at the time computing the images was actually easier than displaying them, in the end I resorted to all kinds of very fancy dithering schemes and palette hacks to output the images, some so faint that you had to view them in a darkened room (but they looked pretty good, they were faint because I used interlocking RGR/BGB groups of pixels (6 pixels to display two true color pixels) so you'd lose a lot of light output. Fun times!

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm always amazed to see work like this from the '70s. (I know I shouldn't be, but some blind spots die hard…) My father was taking undergraduate computer science classes at that time, and his stories, many of them involving punch- card mishaps, left me with a different idea of what was possible before my generation. In one of his courses—it may even have been in the same year that this paper was published—his final project was to design a program to apply right-hand justification to text. It was a real challenge for him and the other students in his group. My understanding is that they were able to get as far as calculating how many words could fit in a given line, and how many extra spaces should be added to bring it flush with the right margin. But all of those spaces would be dumped after the first word in the line, not distributed evenly. They still got a passing grade.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. It's cool to look at actual work from that period.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ah the original shading paper from B. Phong. It really was remarkable the difference it achieved with similar computation to Gourard shading. I implemented a Phong shader for Amiga "HAM" mode and was quite pleased with the results.

<comment><USER2> 'Gouraud':

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very sad. He passed away the same year this article was published. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bui_Tuong_Phong](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bui_Tuong_Phong)

</comment><comment><USER6> This paper also cites MAGI[0] who would go on to bring us light cycles and recognizers[1][2][3].

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Applications_Gr...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Applications_Group)

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

[2] [https://youtu.be/7qtNAArfCfQ](https://youtu.be/7qtNAArfCfQ)

[3] [https://youtu.be/-BZxGhNdz1k](https://youtu.be/-BZxGhNdz1k)

</comment><comment><USER7> Phong shaders were the 'cool kids' thing in the 90s when I had my first Amiga A1000. My how far we have come!</comment>


Rule #1 for beta invites: remind me what you do - <AUTHOR> http://scottkle.in/rule-1-for-beta-invites-remind-me-what-you-do <comment><USER2> Not just beta invites.

I often get emails along the lines of: "Annoucement! Spluttr adds 25% more foo to free plans!" or similar.

Now I probably signed up to Spluttr 6 months ago, took a quick look and decided I wasn't interested as I needed 25% more foo.

In the intervening months, you've lived, breathed and sweated Spluttr whilst I've signed up for another 20 services and forgotten what most of them are for.

Remind me in every email.

<comment><USER3> I wonder what the counter point to this is - the regular users who do know and are wondering why you keep telling them what you do? I wonder if a one size fits all email is even a good idea? Sure it's easier, but if it wasn't that difficult to do - what about an email for users that have signed in/up within the past X days get one email and those who haven't get another (politely reminding them what it's about)? Probably need to AB test it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also, make sure you put it on your front page. A lot of times I see a link to someone saying "look at my cool project" on HN, and it takes me a long time to figure out what the project is actually supposed to do.

Also, make sure you explain it clearly. Once I went to a site that had pictures of food all over it and it said "like AirBNB but for food". I could not remember at the time what AirBNB was.

</comment><comment><USER5> And rule #2: don't ask me to spam with friends for an earlier invite.

<comment><USER6> I don't understand why you'd think this is annoying. They're asking you to spread the word if it's a service you're interested in, and in return they'll give you a higher place in line. Seems very reasonable to me.

<comment><USER7> But the problem is that you haven't even been able to try it yet, so you're "blind recommending". It's a bit pyramid scheme-y, really- you bring yourself closer to a potential pay-off by involving other people that trust you.

That might be fine if I'm forwarding it to other people in the HN-type crowd, but I often tell my less tech-inclined friends about cool services I've started using. But I would never recommend something to my friends without being able to try it myself and work out if it is recommendation-worthy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes, this is a big deal. I won't go searching to find out what you do when you announce a new feature. I will however read it in the email.

Going a step further, if you haven't seen me in a while (say a year), send me an email reminding me I have an account with you, and summarize what you've done in that time. Remind me of my username too. This is kind of a big deal, because I sign up for everything (can't have username dilution :) ). Just because I don't use your site now, doesn't mean I won't after your new features, so as long as it doesn't turn into spam, I like the reminder.

Amusing anecdote: I signed up for Reddit within a year of it's launch, but really start using my account there until 2.5 years or so ago when I decided to re-evaluate it. I had completely forgotten about my earlier signup and was real bummed when I learned of my username being taken. Fortunately I was smart enough to do my "It's probably me and I've just forgotten" ritual where I try all my password variants and sure enough either I really got lucky and the old sophacles had one of my passwords, or it really was me. I probably would have been actively redditing 2 years prior if there had been a not-to-spammy email reminder once in a while.

<comment><USER9> I thought I was an idiot and alone with the same ritual! Thanks for freeing me up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can someone explain to me what is meant by "Optimize for the back button?"

<comment><USER11> From Paul Graham:

"The median visitor will arrive with their finger poised on the Back button. Think about your own experience: most links you follow lead to something lame. Anyone who has used the web for more than a couple weeks has been trained to click on Back after following a link. So your site has to say "Wait! Don't click on Back. This site isn't lame. Look at this, for example."

You can read the full article at: <http://www.paulgraham.com/startuplessons.html>

<comment><USER10> Thanks for that. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I agree that its a good idea to remind people what you do, especially if it takes a long time between the sign up and launch (or further communication between parties). I just put up a landing page for my startup and think I did a decent job conveying what the company does, but I'm curious, but how much is necessary to remind them (in future communications)?

Is a one-liner enough (i.e. "We're a crowd-sourced record label!"), or would people prefer the whole spiel (i.e. "We're a crowd-sourced record label that does this, this and this!")?

</comment><comment><USER13> Not just beta invites and email promotions, but also emails to advisors and early investors. It's more than just a reminder of what the heck you do, it's also handing them language to talk about your business to other people.

For beta users, advisors and early investors - these people are going to be your advocates. You need to give them the tools to advocate for you, and a well crafted 3 sentence elevator pitch that describes your business is a huge help.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'd also recommend asking people for their FIRST name only, and emailing people with a personal email right after they sign up for the beta. Start a conversation, ask them what their problems are, what features they want, etc. Make them feel special, and tell them "Nice idea, why didn't I think of that! I'll try to include that."

They're sure to remember you if you do this. You can even do automated email segmentation. If their reply has "Sent from my iPhone", you know you can send launch emails for the iPhone version to these guys. If their reply has "Sent from Droid", send the Android launch emails to them.

Starting a conversation also lessens the probability your launch email gets put in spam as well... I'm sure Gmail, Yahoo, etc all have algorithms where if you respond to an email address, any future emails from that email doesn't get marked as spam.

<comment><USER15> I disagree. Most of the time that I sign up for a beta service (at least for a free beta), I am doing it out of curiosity more than anything. I'm not about to start a long conversation with every beta I sign up for.

<comment><USER16> Same here. I tried to engage a conversation with my beta users when they registered, but I got 0 replies (out of 30 signups) and the 1 thing I got was more instant unsubscribes.

I guess it depends on the service offered (mine is file sharing for companies in french) but in that case interested users just don't seem to be willing to send an email after already taking the initiative to subscribe, confirming email etc.</comment></comment></comment>


France: President Francois Hollande seeks to extend state of emergency - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/france-president-francois-hollande-seeks-extend-state-emergency-until-isis-can-be-totally-1539638 <comment><AUTHOR> The original title (does not fit the 80 letters limit): France: President Francois Hollande seeks to extend state of emergency until Isis can be totally defeated</comment>


The Government Is a Hitman: Uber, Tesla and Airbnb Are in Its Crosshairs - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/31828/the-government-is-a-hitman-uber-tesla-and-airbnb-are-in-its-crosshairs/

<comment><USER2> I'm really getting tired of this.

Tesla is in a different category from Uber and Airbnb.

Tesla makes a real product, distributes it, and sells it. They are bumping into old laws that actually make no sense in the modern era. _HOWEVER_ , unlike Uber and Airbnb, they are _attempting to comply_ while they get the laws changed.

Uber and Airbnb are bumping into old laws that make _real sense for consumers_ even now. In the case of taxi laws, they demand that drivers have things like a commercial drivers license (much harder to get than a standard license), liability insurance, and some requirement for fair practices.

Uber explicitly ignored all of these and now they are getting bashed for it. They didn't _have_ to ignore the taxi laws. They could have gotten certified as a taxi service and overlaid that with effective use of technology. But that wouldn't be a billion dollar social internet company that they could cash out --it would be a solidly profitable 50 million dollar company that they would have to run--and that's not what they wanted. So, now they're getting bashed-- _and they deserve it_.

In the case of Airbnb, lodging rules also have a purpose. They guarantee things like liability insurance, standards of cleanliness (bedbugs are a real problem again), and non-discrimination. Airbnb _could_ have complied with these laws, but, again, chose to ignore them in order to enhance their profitability. And now they are getting bashed for it. And they deserve it.

The difference is that Tesla attempted to do things itself and comply. Airbnb and Uber attempt to push the liability onto someone else and flout the law.

I suspect that Airbnb and Uber are actually going to provoke a law that says that companies also have some liability for their subcontractors. And that's going to make a mess ... all because a couple of greedy business types wanted to make a few extra bucks.

<comment><USER3> >they demand that drivers have things like a commercial drivers license

Not really relevant, you're essentially saying normal carpooling should require a commercial licence on the driver's part.

I agree on your sentiments, there are regulations for a _reason_. However, these apps are simply put P2P with a third party responsible for platform legitimacy; not the legitimacy of the clients (other than by extension.)

I haven't personally used Uber, mostly because I doubt it's got much traction in Norway anyway, but if the ranking system is as effective as, say, ThePirateBay's VIP/Trusted system then what we're having is fear-mongering and not an actual problem.

As for liability, whatever happened to accepting "at your own risk"? I suppose it's a problem of perspective for me, being guaranteed not to pay more than an equivalent of $700 a year no matter how badly my body is mangled.

<comment><USER2> > Not really relevant, you're essentially saying normal carpooling should > require a commercial licence on the driver's part.

Carpooling is a touch different in that the drivers know one another. It's also not really run as a business (usually).

> As for liability, whatever happened to accepting "at your own risk"?

It's actually less the liability of client than damage to other cars/property. Because the drivers are putting in way more miles than their personal policies would indicate, their risk category is very different from the insurance that they are buying.

The biggest issue is that, unlike Tesla, Airbnb and Uber have significant negative externalities that they are foisting off onto other people by ignoring the laws that are in place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So Portland has the temerity to block AirBnB in residential neighborhoods? That's called zoning. I guess the author thinks zoning is a "hitman" and should be eliminated?

</comment><comment><USER5> The Internet might stand a chance if government wasn't been fed vaccines in the form of centralized faux-disruption web startups that will be quite juicy targets to control. Conversely, outdated regulations might be something to be up in arms about if these businesses were actually creating level playing fields rather than just installing different middlemen to need protection from.

<comment><USER2> I don't even really mind the different middleman.

I would love to have a cab service that I could call up and keep track of the cab that's supposed to come get me by gps. I would love to have a cab service that allows me to move from point A to point B in the suburbs. I would love to have a cab service that doesn't bitch about taking me from the airport to my house (because they're not going to have a reverse fare).

Uber or Lyft could have been this and would have had some very staunch defenders. Creating a useful cab service in the suburbs would have made people weep for joy.

But they explicitly chose not to be.

And, in fact, Uber and Lyft are leaving behind damage that is going to be difficult to undo. At least one law being passed targets using GPS services to coordinate transit of people. _THAT_ law is genuinely anti-competitive because it's going to block a legitimate competitor--but it's going to get through because Uber and Lyft are such easy targets by acting like jerks and flouting the laws.</comment></comment>


How Hackers Protect Themselves From Getting Hacked - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/hackers-security-tips_n_2333527.html

<comment><AUTHOR> These are some pretty obvious advice, but some of the links provided is good</comment>


The Gmail bug that's been stealing $187M a year from Expedia - <AUTHOR> https://thehftguy.com/2019/02/12/the-gmail-bug-thats-been-stealing-187m-a-year-from-expedia/ <comment><USER2> It's only theft if the money winds up someplace else. Expedia's competitors don't count.

"The first Googler who fixes it can genuinely claim to add billions of dollars of value to the internet." If by "the internet," he means Expedia, then I suppose I agree.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, "theft" is the wrong word to use, and this is basically Expedia's bag of crap.

The larger story is correct, though. Companies leave a lot of money on the table by not looking for basic problems with their websites, apps, and other similar systems.

I regularly move away from (or never even start with) businesses that have these sorts of problems. It could be that in all of these cases I'm a unicorn, and no one else is having trouble, but I doubt it.

(I once thought of starting a consultancy that would simply examine websites for issues like this. I realized quickly that businesses simply wouldn't pay for such a service.)</comment></comment>


Tasmania is burning (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/05/tasmania-is-burning-the-climate-disaster-future-has-arrived-while-those-in-power-laugh-at-us#HN2 <comment><USER2> >Tasmania is burning (2019 – and it's getting worse)

Should maybe say (Feb 2019) - it's not about the current fires. Don't editorialize in titles like that, thanks. Important article, maybe, but that title turns it into misleading clickbait.

<comment><AUTHOR> The intention was to provide context and information, not to editorialize.

* The article is from 2019.

* The fire situation is getting worse.

* The title is intended to be informative.

I don't see this as click-bait at all, and I think your criticism is misplaced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The funny thing is, that famous lump of 'safe' coal he was showing off in parliament was coated in lacquer. Even he didn't want to actually touch it.

[https://theconversation.com/that-lump-of- coal-73046](https://theconversation.com/that-lump-of-coal-73046)

</comment><comment><USER4> I remember when I was there I got stranded in a flood... all the roads were closed and we had to huddle with a bunch of people in some cafe, meanwhile a couple of dozen kilometers away (as the bird flies) there were raging fires burning everything down.

The air pollution was also unbearable all over the island...

Another weird thing is those tasmanian devils having contagious face cancer and the australian government was moving healthy ones to nature reserves like mariah island (that traditionally has never had a predator) to try to keep them from getting infected.

Anyway, I got the impression that somehow the balance of the place was very disrupted, I mean they have plenty of rain and water (they even make some of the best whisky in the world with their excellent water) but it just isn't falling in the places with the fire?

</comment><comment><USER5> > Today Tasmania is burning. Its fires are so large that a firefighting team > was reportedly called out in New Zealand to investigate a heavy smoke haze > that turned out to have drifted across 2,500km of ocean from the Tasmanian > fires. Firefighters are confronted with 1,629km of fire front, with fires > having consumed 190,000 hectares, or 3% of Tasmania's land, with authorities > warning there is no sign of the fires abating for several weeks, and the > potential for catastrophic consequences still a distinct possibility.

Geez. Tasmania is beautiful, and that sole island contains many of Australia's national parks. EDIT: Hmm, this article is from Feb 2019

<comment><AUTHOR> That's why the title deliberately has "2019" in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of this message:

[http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/fringe2014m.html](http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/anasazi/fringe2014m.html)

[https://yowusa.com/et/2003/et-2003-05a/3.shtml](https://yowusa.com/et/2003/et-2003-05a/3.shtml)

[https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16845/is-the- ma...](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16845/is-the-maldekian- crop-circle-a-hoax)</comment>


From 5 to 32 people in eight years - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3188-from-5-to-32-people-in-eight-years

<comment><USER2> The ratio of designers to developers says a lot. I hope to be able to emulate that one day.</comment>


An in-depth tour of Nikon's Hikari Glass factory - <AUTHOR> https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/04/17/glass-for-geeks-an-in-depth-tour-of-nikons-hikari-glass-factory <comment><USER2> > ...the general shape of this diagram calls to mind the shape of the Japanese > archipelago, so Japanese optical engineers will often refer to a type of > glass as a region of Japan. For instance, if an engineer is looking for a > glass with low Abbe number but high refractive index (the extreme upper > right of the diagram), they'd say they're looking for a "Hokkaido" glass. > (Hokkaido is Japan's northernmost island.)

I found this a wonderful little detail that shows the humanity of the factory.

<comment><USER3> > It looks a bit like a map of the Japanese islands, so optical engineers will > often talk about "Hokkaido", "Tokyo" or "Nagasaki" glass.

It is interesting; I wonder if (especially since so much of the glass in optical devices comes from Japan) these terms are pretty universally-applied in the lens-making industry. It's one of those things that makes perfect sense once you've seen both the chart and a map of Japan... but if not, you'd be quite puzzled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting the comments about the bubbles being detrimental to the optics. For most of last century, having bubbles in the lens elements was actually a sign of a great lens! It was eventually narrowed down on how the glass was cooled (confirmed by this article) and it seems the slight change of refraction was largely compensating for the bubble(s).

I've got some early, pre first world war lens that are absolutely amazing optically, bubbles and all. I've also got one Tessar 4 element lens in particular, on a pre 1936 (uncoated) Zeiss 6x9 Folder that is just out of this world in sharpness.

</comment><comment><USER5> High quality glass making has a long history and it's only been the last 50-100 years that Japan has climbed up the tall ladder to become a world-class glass manufacturer.

Some of the most important science ever done was done using German lenses by French scientists (the germans didn't have the scientists, the french didn't have the lensmakers) - 2+ meters lenses used to concentrate light to burn metal in evacuated chambers. Eventually, Germany developed its own industry and science center around glass (Jena) and became the world's leader in high quality lenses (late 1800s).

In the US, it was Corning that did this work. They did melts and cools that lasted months to make the blank for the great Caltech telescope in the 20s or 30s.

it all comes down to the frit.

</comment><comment><USER6> The image that struck me is the tree senior executives comfortably dressed not in golf shirts or suits, but in practical work fatigues.

<comment><USER7> What struck me is how everyone is clearly very senior (in age) looking, or at least how nobody looks young. Are there no apprentices/journeymen type of up&comers? I haven't had a chance to read the full in-depth article, so maybe that is mentioned, but this looks like one of those jobs that probably doesn't attract a lot of interest from the younger generation.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think there are (young) apprentices. But some parts of the process probably requires years of practice and experience before they are allowed to work with minimal (or no) supervision that only 'older' people appear at those stations.

An example from the article:

 _I asked Arai-san how the press-operator knew how long to apply the forming pressure, and he replied that there were three factors: 1) the softness of the glass, based on its appearance, 2) how the glass feels while pressing it, and 3) how the glass feels when it drops from the mold. I can imagine that it takes a lot of experience, to be able to take all these cues into account, to produce perfectly-pressed preforms!_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's interesting to see how manual the process still is.

I would've thought for something like manufacturing glass, you would be able to make the process more or less entirely automated.

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing this is the main reason lenses like the 600mm f/4 FL VR are $12,000+ (probably every element is handmade/inspected), while cheap plasticky lenses like the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR are $100 or so.

My guess is the cheap lenses are fully automated, using fewer actual glass components, without features like 'ED' glass which requires all these extra manual processes and firings.

<comment><USER9> There's a _lot_ that separates a cheap 18-55mm kit lens from the super- expensive telephotos. But probably the single biggest factor is that the 600mm f/4 requires much more glass and in much larger pieces, so even with the same target for optical quality you would expect to have much lower yield and higher manufacturing costs for the massive telephoto than the pocket sized kit lens.

It's probably more interesting to compare the differences between two lenses of similar focal length and aperture. With that kind of comparison, the kind of differences that you'll find are that the more expensive lenses tend to have metal instead of plastic frames, may have optical stabilization in the lens, fancier or faster autofocus systems, better sealing against water and dust, and more advanced coatings on the optical elements. In terms of the glass itself, you will also generally find that the more expensive lenses use more optical elements with potentially more complex shapes (eg. aspherical elements) to reduce distortion, so they tend to have more glass than the cheaper lenses. Given how many other factors contribute to the price differences, I doubt that you actually find order of magnitude differences in the price of unground lens blanks of similar size destined for cheap vs high- end camera lenses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This was really interesting -- not a process I've ever realy thought about.

You might enjoy this, Ben Krasnow talking about the challenges of making photochromic glass:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUcUy7SqdS0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUcUy7SqdS0)

</comment><comment><USER11> I've enjoyed reading this article, showing the process to fabricate just a glass lense.

The site has other articles like that one, but only related to cameras. Does anyone know of similar article, but for other industries?

</comment><comment><USER2> > The finished preforms are packed in vinyl trays, with a number of preforms > in each carrier - at least for smaller lenses like these. I imagine that the > huge front elements for the like of a 600mm f/4 might call for more robust > packaging.

It looks just like a muffin tray, though each muffin is a lens element!

</comment><comment><USER12> At first i was like: "In-depth, yeah, right ...". Then half way in the material i found myself confused with how much information was delivered. Great work!</comment>


Popcorn Time official website is moved to get-popcorn.com - <AUTHOR> http://get-popcorn.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I doubt if popcorn-time.tv is taken down. "Not Found The requested URL / was not found on this server. Apache/2.2.22 (Debian) Server at popcorn-time.tv Port 80"

The Github repo is moved (again) from popcorn-org to popcorn-official. What happened? [https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn- app/issues/1](https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app/issues/1)

</comment><comment><USER2> This one is working for me.</comment>


All programming languages are useless - <AUTHOR> http://joshhornby.co.uk/

<comment><USER2> Embrace Chandler's Maxim : 90% of _everything_ is crap. Move on and make your own decisions.

</comment><comment><USER3> So go learn something. Either you listen to advice or you don't.

</comment><comment><USER4> Joshua, you listed three programming languages, out of the thousands upon thousands that exist.

Two of the ones you listed, PHP and JavaScript, are indeed among the worst mainstream programming languages used today. It's not surprising that they bring numerous problems to the table. They are mistakes that just happened to get popular, making it appear as though they're better than they actually are.

Ruby isn't as bad of a language as PHP or JavaScript are, but it does have performance issues, and the community can be quite toxic at times.

While no language is perfect, there are ones out there that would be much more pleasant to learn than PHP, JavaScript and Ruby. If practicality is a concern, look at Python, Go or C#. You can easily get real work done using any one of them.

If you're looking for languages that are clean and consistent, try Scheme or Erlang.

If you want to subject yourself to many new concepts, look into C++, Scala, Haskell or Perl.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your reply.

I'm after a modern front end language which can used to develop web apps. Seems Ruby is best of a bad bunch.</comment></comment>


Open Source Project Prepackages Kim Dotcom's Security - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/crypton/

<comment><USER2> The title is more accurate then most people realize. For details of why I say that, look at the issues that have been reported on Crypton's github page. For a correct alternative, look at Tahoe LAFS.

<comment><USER3> These two are great:

<https://github.com/SpiderOak/crypton/issues/21>

<https://github.com/SpiderOak/crypton/issues/25>

"Note that they have been repeatedly factored for such vital purposes as playing games on calculators." You're mean! :)

<comment><USER4> Also: <https://github.com/SpiderOak/crypton/issues/27></comment></comment></comment>