Why Team Happiness Can Be the Wrong Thing to Aim for [video] - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/143894732 <comment><USER2> Look, try to hire emotionally intelligent people. Be honest to them about what they're getting into when they get hired (ways in which the company operates, the technology stack the company is required to support, etc.). Finally, be open to suggestion when you can be accommodating to better ways of doing things that are mutually beneficial. If you're still having problems, you might need to acknowledge that you made a bad hire and act accordingly (toxic people make your emotionally intelligent employees unhappy in ways that you _are_ responsible for).

Obviously optimizing for "happiness" in some sort of naive, single-minded sort of way is not the way to go about things. If you have the type of employees that you have to infantilize and throw dumb perks, entitlements, and power to in order to make them happy, you need to reconsider a few things. But on the flip side, if the only inputs to your model of employee wellbeing are "bad news" and "ignorance/delusion", you're probably running an abusive workplace.

This kind of stuff shouldn't be rocket science.

<comment><USER3> It really is that simple. Empathy is key.

But this type of philosophy has to come from the top, and if a founder or management team is even a little psychopathic, then I feel like there's really not much you can do (but maybe I'm wrong here, and people with more experience can chime in)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting topic, but the presentation makes me happy to be done with school. I don't miss sitting through 50 minute lectures that could be condensed to 10 minutes, or read even quicker.

<comment><USER5> OT but I wish Vimeo had an option to play the video at 2x the speed. YouTube has that option and I love it. Use it all the time for watching conference presentations.

<comment><USER6> Most vimeo videos nowadays are sent in html5 video tags. If you're reading HN, you're probably pretty comfortable in chrome's console. Just find the video element and adjust the `playbackSpeed` variable (default 1).

<comment><USER7> One would expect at least a dozen browzer plugins which change these speeds. Ive never encountered the need - i run a slow netbook and never load the videos and I run a fast-ish laptop and occasionally am prepared to load videos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> tl;dw: Happiness is fleeting, chasing an emotion is intrinsically difficult/impossible. too often we say we want team happiness but what we really want is happiness of specific members whom we consider important, thereby creating a two class system(at which point she makes reference to the holocaust?). what we really want is equanimity on our teams, i.e. calmness. This allows for more nuanced discussion of issues, because when you optimize for happiness you and your team can hide reality from one another in order to ensure happiness.

feel free to add anything i missed, it was an hour long and I zoned out during some parts.

<comment><USER9> Yea. The opposite of drama and dysfunctional interactions is not happiness and cheers and jokes all the time. It's simply calmness and emotional stability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the way to get the best out of people is not to pander to them to make them the happiest people but to expect high standards from them, to expect everyone to give their best, work well and hard and be proud of what they do. Work/life balance is important so don't expect more than working hours but demand the absolute best from people.

Ask them "how do we get the best from you? When do you do your hardest and best work, how do we tap into that?". Tell them it's what you expect of them so they need to turn on their A game.

Pay people more than market rate.

Work is satisfying if you give it your best and do something worthwhile and challenging and hard.

Foosball table, pinball room, Xbox room, lego playroom bullshit not needed.

<comment><USER11> > I think the way to get the best out of people is not to pander to them to > make them the happiest people but to expect high standards from them, to > expect everyone to give their best, work well and hard and be proud of what > they do.

This is an impossible demand masquerading as common sense. Nobody can be at peak performance all the time, and a sane work environment shouldn't expect you to.

<comment><USER12> I think "give their best" is an entirely relative term. The best today may far exceed best tomorrow if you rate the effort based on work accomplished or effort given. But if you are rating both of those days purely on 'the best you could do given circumstances' then there is no peak performance persay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Terrible speaker basically spouting nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER14> This presentation is far too long for such little content.

</comment><comment><USER15> The speaker spoke in a roundabout way diluting her meaningful content with cliche after cliche. I think he point is nice though: aim for calmness and be honest with your team, not the allusion of happiness.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think I heard her use Nazi concentration camp guards as a metaphor to describe the potential bad behavior of employees. That was a strange talk.

</comment><comment><USER17> From my experience (I'm a coder), the best work has been done where we adhere to what Zuckerberg called "The Hacker Way". WRT the talk from "Lean Agile" conference...

Slightly OT, but Erik Meijer spoke wonderfully about it at GOTO Copenhagen[1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvMuPtuvP5w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvMuPtuvP5w)

</comment><comment><USER18> Why work where your not happy if you don't have too? Demand + skill =p opportunities. Opportunities + happy relationship = I give a shit. I know making a living is important but I don't think working under this concept is sustainable. I have been in this scenario and it's dehumanistic and unsustainable in markets where your employees have options.

<comment><USER19> Many (most?) people don't have great options, and so the choice is often between a livable wage and unhappiness, or poverty and unhappiness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Provide an environment that give workers autonomy, mastery, and purpose (see Daniel Pink's work title Drive [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc)). You provide those three things and a sane group of people, happiness will follow.

</comment><comment><USER21> Happiness is a state of mind and also a side-effect of a higher meaning and purpose. It's also absolutely subjective.

Optimizing for happiness is not a worthwhile or even possible endeavor. Instead focus on providing purpose and meaning and everything else will follow by the people who are best fit for it.

</comment><comment><USER22> I saw the title and instantly clicked on it. It's a refreshing view on leadership. The best quote come right at the beginning: _" We are chasing a mood and mood is not a realiable method of delivery"_. Very intriguing but frankly the rest of her talk is tedious and full of rambling without making more strong points. Would have preferred just a short blog post on her views. The things she said are valid and if you as a leader just rely on making the team happy you won't succeed. Still she doesn't provide any fool-proof solution except being more transparent. I didn't see the last third of the video, so maybe she provided more help then.

I think a big part of being a leader is to frame situtations always, really always in a positive way. Every event or incident can be seen in a negative, realistic but also in a positive way, eg seen as a new opportunity. Latter is much more motivating and eventually makes people happy. Also you as a leader want to be in a positive environment where people are happy, otherwise you end up just being a dull delegating robot degrading socially which is btw the biggest risk of being in executive positioms. So just ignoring this mood called happiness sounds a bit too simple for my taste. Leaderhship is way more complex. Especially in engineering where creatvity is the key you don't want people who just function you need people who can and _want_ to go to the max-- and this only works if they are motivated--or just call it--'happy'.

However, I still think she addressed an important point but I would tackle this from a different perspective: What you need as a leader are individuals which are happy by nature--or to be more precise who do not suffer of a severe depression. If you have depressive people on your team, you can't make them happy or motivated. They will always find something which doesn't work, which hinders them, which makes their entire life miserable. And not relying on making them happy, won't let them be productive neither. So, what's the point? Moreover, you risk that they infect the entire team with their negativity. How to identify or avoid having depressive people is a different question and even more challenging. And also important, you as a leader can trigger depression if you are not careful, so even if the claim 'team happiness can be the wrong thing to aim for' would be true, a leader should still aim for not making the team unhappy. And to go further the leader should aim for giving the team a perspective, a trending one. A persepctive which let them grow. Then they should be happy and again: maybe we still should aim for happiness and her talk title was just a click- or view-bait.

<comment><USER23> At least in the US, you'll want to be careful with these views as an employer or manager. At least some cases of depression will be classified as a disability under the ADA, leaving your company open to a discrimination lawsuit if you make employment decisions based on it.

(I've read the ADA, but I'm not a lawyer -- this advice could be completely wrong in practice)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> approx slides (has common slides, but is different from the presentation): [https://qconlondon.com/london-2016/system/files/presentation...](https://qconlondon.com/london-2016/system/files/presentation- slides/katherinekirk.pdf)

<comment><USER25> these don't seem to be the correct slides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> JPMorgan is a sponsor of the event talk, no doubt team happiness does not count (FYI, worked there) Also, sarcasm.

</comment><comment><USER27> What you should really aim for is customer/user happiness.

<comment><USER28> If you're talent isn't happy, you're not gonna be able to make your customers happy.

<comment><USER27> Tell that to Amazon.

<comment><USER29> Amazon has been making me less and less happy lately. I had a customer service interaction that left me speechlessly pissed. They were clearly not empowered to do anything but tell me to suck it.

They don't optimize for happy customers. They optimize for being the place you go to buy things online first and profit. Oddly, they bought Zappos which is orientated to customer happiness.

<comment><USER30> The customer service has drastically dropped. To the point where there customer responses have poor spelling (and don't actually solve the problem). They allow third party sellers which sell counterfeit goods - meaning you have to carefully look at who is actually selling the item you are about to buy. If you buy shoes its clear Amazon isn't getting the same quality as the bigger box stores despite selling the same brands.

Amazon is quickly becoming the walmart of the internet for me. I'll buy from them because its easy but I don't expect them to sell me a quality product.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


On the front lines of the Netflix Prize - <AUTHOR> http://glinden.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-front-lines-of-netflix-prize.html

<comment><AUTHOR> What I think is interesting is that they're beyond what general recommendation engines can provide; it sounds like they're down to making domain specific optimizations. I wonder how many of these techniques will be generally applicable.

<comment><USER2> I also wonder if the way Netflix framed the question is optimizing for the wrong things. They're having contestants try to determine how people would rate movies, based on the corpus's collective ratings. From a business standpoint, it might be better to focus on which movies people would like that they haven't seen.</comment></comment>


Differences in research reporting: Men more +. Should they exercise restraint? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6692 <comment><USER2> The Left is so lacking in wisdom, and hopefully we will all be able to look back some day and roll our eyes about it.

It might be men vs women. It might be adult children of alcoholics vs folks from sober homes. It might be extroverts vs introverts. It might be native speakers of the dominant language vs those with another first language. It might be those who struggle with depression vs those who don't.

The world is a complicated place. Find your way in it; do your best. Count your blessings. Move on.</comment>


The Brave Browser Ecosystem Could Be Worth Billions - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4252749-brave-browser-ecosystem-worth-billions <comment><USER2> I love Brave! I think it's an underdog that's truly going to make waves if their traction continues. I'm really curious as to why they'd use Chromium vs Firefox as their base though. Any reasoning someone care to explain?</comment>


Live Views of Starman - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M <comment><USER2> This is the kind of marketing that blows everybody else out of the water.

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw a few minutes ago a (ghostly) reflection of the mannequin's face in the windshield -- looked like David Bowie with stage makeup... Camera view from behind the spacesuit, the car was facing Earth, the sun was behind the car (I think).

Think Ashes to Ashes, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMThz7eQ6K0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMThz7eQ6K0)

<comment><USER4> didn't get a Screenshot of that did you?

<comment><USER3> I wish. It was streaming on a Roku tv, so I don't know how to do that. Shortly before the 25th minute of the Live Views of Starman.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Making screenshots like crazy. The view and setup is so...above the words.

<comment><USER4> have you got one where you can see the dummies face?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> When are they going to boost it into solar orbit?

<comment><USER7> ~6 hours after launch

<comment><USER6> So is it on it's way now? The Earth is much larger in the live-stream than I would have expected if it were on its way (lacking any expertise).

Edit: Guess the "Live Views of Starman" are 19 hours old. Did they stream the boost into solar orbit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I seem to be the only one who is bothered by this publicity stunt. Is it really appropriate to launch garbage into space just to promote a brand? But maybe, since we got to watch two boosters landing simultaneously side-by-side, it was worth it.

<comment><USER9> It's necessary for testing to launch something so it's either this or a big block of concrete. Also it's being launched into solar orbit and there's lots of space out there

<comment><USER8> Right, but is it necessary to launch a $200,000 car while average people struggle to accumulate much more wealth than that over their entire lifetimes? Seems distasteful. Then again, this _is_ the United States.

<comment><USER10> It was Elon's personal car, I suspect it could have been sold for more than that and I imagine it could have ended up in a museum eventually. He didn't just buy a 200,000 dollar unrelated car to wave his wealth around. I imagine if Elon weren't such a strong face to these companies, it wouldn't be causing such controversy. It is ultimately a marketing stunt by a company. SpaceX launched a Tesla, because companies have more money than people so they can do that. In the scheme of things this is not a big sum of money for most companies and people do regularly accumulate that much wealth, albeit wrapped in home equity.

<comment><USER11> So, given that people are against inequality, you fail to see why some billionaire's use of a $200000+ car as a useless paperweight is offensive ?

It's a huuuuuuuge "I'm richer and can do whatever and you're not" sign, that is being shoved into everyone's face on TV worldwide. Or at least, that's what it is if you're not a rich geek that can afford a car like that. If you have a normal wage and such a paperweight is out of your reach even if you save every penny you earn until you die, then it's just offensive.

<comment><USER9> I don't get what makes this particular use of wealth any worse than any other way rich people spend money. He did it because he wanted to, not to rub it in people's faces at all.

<comment><USER11> Well, of course it's much more in everyone's face than most wealth spending.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The End of Ownership (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theendofownership.com <comment><USER2> Their ebook is not available for purchase. They make it sound like that's the tradeoff, which is sad even more than ironic since of course there are alternatives.

I just checked, and this book (from 2016) is not available from a German online shop that carries a lot of DRM-free epubs, for example (buch7.de).

So, yet again, the only way to acquire an actual electronic copy that is not borrowed is via "piracy".

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Book review by the EFF: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/book-review- end-owners...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/book-review-end- ownership)</comment>


Storm Worm botnet could be world's most powerful supercomputer - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=493 <comment><USER2> If I had a botnet like that I would donate my rooted CPUs to protein folding.</comment>


Google PageSpeed Service customers: migrate to CloudFlare for acceleration - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/google-pagespeed-service-customers-migrate-to-cloudflare-for-acceleration/

<comment><USER2> This is why I avoid using Google products. I feel more comfortable purchasing from companies who are specialized than companies that try to be something to everyone. They will do whatever it takes to be competitive because that is their main (or significant) source of income.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have migrated a several sites to CloudFlare and just by moving the site I was able to double the page speed. This was especially true for custom-built sites, built on non-WordPress sites.

</comment><comment><USER4> 10 years from now: migrate your email away from Gmail.

<comment><USER3> Interesting that you say that. That's one reason why I've always used my own domain name (that I own) for my email rather than rely on a @gmail.com or @yahoo.com or other email.

I still use gmail for my email (using the hosted app service) but ultimately I want to make sure I use my own domain.</comment></comment>


Craigslist's Allegations Of "Copyright" Violations Thrown Out - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2013/04/30/craigslists-allegations-of-copyright-violations-thrown-out/

<comment><USER2> This is actually not a great decision so far. I skimmed the decision from PACER (so the below may be wrong or missing facts), and it looks like (and remember, this is just a preliminary decision by the court) that the court found

1\. The individual posts were copyrightable

2\. The compilation (whose only creativity is being organized by geographic area), was copyrightable (because ""deciding which categories to include and under what name,"" met the minimal level of creativity necessary for copyright)

3\. Craigslist's eventually lost the copyright claims because the TOU was not an exclusive license (in the US, only an exclusive rights owner can sue for infringement, licensesees cannot)

4\. Craigslist did not need to register the actual posts it's suing over, only the compilation

#1 is maybe right (i think it depends on the post)

#2 should be clearly wrong, though there is a bit of bad precedent here

#3 is good, but the judge basically suggested with the right set of words buried in the terms of use, craigslist could have transferred copyright. This is actually really dangerous in practice (you want people to know exactly what they are getting into), because you really want copyright transfers to be clear and knowing by users, and buried somewhere in a separate TOU document, plus a button says "by clicking you accept the TOU", shouldn't be enough.

Of course, this is just a preliminary decision based on minimal briefing, so i'm hopeful the judge would have gotten it "righter" had those claims not been dismissed.

#4 is probably wrong, in the sense that registering "craigslist.org" as a compilation, should not count as registering _all the works that have ever appeared on craigslist.org_.

At best, it should be registering the works that appeared as of the copyright registration date for craigslist.org.

The compilation registered in 2012 is titled "Craigslist website 2012 (Homepage and primary supporting pages)"

That should not be "all posts". There are also two compilation registrations for post.craigslist.org, one in 2004, one in 2008.

None of these should be sufficient to claim what they did.

<comment><USER3> Keep in mind, from the judgement, section II Legal Standard:

 _In determining facial plausibility, whether a complaint states a plausible claim is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679. Allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non- moving party._ [http://3taps.com/images/pics/430_138734862-Judge-rules-in- fa...](http://3taps.com/images/pics/430_138734862-Judge-rules-in-favor-of- Craigslist-on-motion-to-dismiss-in-case-vs-3taps-Padmapper-Lovely.pdf)

So essentially these findings are made while reading all facts in the best possible light for craigslist. So it's not necessarily saying, for example, that the compilation is copyrightable - just that it is _conceivable_ that it could be.

<comment><USER2> I agree in theory, but at least my complaints are basically "even if what craigslist said is completely right, they still should have lost on the law", which is in line with the judgement standard :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Craiglist has been recognized for a failure to innovate and having among the internet's worst terms of service's."

Wow, that is quite a way to open an article! Isn't journalism supposed to be slightly more neutral than that. I understand that most of us (myself included) are quite against copyrighting, DRM and closed source etc. but let's not harshly rebuke a company with 30 employees [1]. Simply put, copyright is a contract between the society and an individual that encourages the individual to create, innovate and be artistic. Craigslist did things that they thought were right to protect their users' and their own interests. They found a market. Padmapper used their data. Courts said it is ok to do so since they didn't the copyright to begin with. Fine, let's move on.

No reason to write such a bitter sounding article peppered with "Let this be a lesson to all tech companies", "hopefully this will discourage craigslist", and "sledgehammer to scare innovators". tsk. tsk. Forbes.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps the author being "Derek Khanna, Contributor", instead of "XX XY, Forbes Staff" has something to do with it.

<comment><USER6> Hey, that name looks familiar!

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/republican- staffe...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/republican-staffer- fired-for-copyright-memo-talks-to-ars/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Lately, he did a lot of work on a campaign to legalize cell phone unlocking[1][2]. I'm not sure how that turned out.

[1][http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the- law-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-law-against- unlocking-cellphones-is-anti-consumer-anti-business-and-anti-common- sense/272894/)

[2][http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2013/02/25/white- hou...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/derekkhanna/2013/02/25/white-house- petition-on-cellphone-unlocking-receives-over-100000-signatures/)

<comment><USER7> Yep - I spearheaded that campaign. We got a bunch of bills introduced in Congress, White House reversed their position, FCC is still investigating. I'm trying to get the best bill through Congress while we lay the groundwork for an overall copyright reform bill.

<comment><USER8> It's not every day I say this to a Republican -- in fact, I'm not sure I ever have before -- but seriously keep up the good work. We're all counting on you. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hopefully some day Craig Newmark will be held responsible for being the internet pariahs he is. Craig is a sweet, awkward man with a lot of power which he has allowed to be abused by others, and he is responsible for that. He needs to step in and control his company in the direction of good, or be seen for what he is - an appeaser of greed and evil.

</comment><comment><USER10> Does this mean it's okay to scrape / clone any user generated content without legal repercussions? I can make a HN clone that copies all the comments and everything and things would be just peachy legally?

<comment><USER3> No. For one thing, this ruling simply dealt with copyright claims. If you scrape a site you are subject to their terms of service, most of which prohibit scraping. So there would be contract and possibly even CFAA claims to deal with.

Also, the specific reason the copyright claims were dismissed in this case is that craigslist does not have an exclusive license on its posts. If Hacker News' terms exclusively license comments (which I doubt, but I haven't checked), that would make this particular ruling less relevant. It is also possible that the comments' authors could make claims against you, should they wish to do so.

<comment><USER11> Can terms of use prohibit scraping for reuse, while still allowing Google, et al., to index?

I genuinely wonder this. Can I say, "it's OK for XYZ to scrape, but not ABC?" (Or is it general use -- scraping OK/not OK?)

I think it's different for API usage, because you enter an agreement with an entity by signing up, etc. I'm speaking specifically to the unauthenticated scraping/indexing.

<comment><USER3> I don't know, but I suspect that they can. If I own some data, I should be able to give (or sell) it to you and not to someone else.

That said, once I've given it to you, if you choose to give it to someone else, I have no claim against that someone (although I might against you, depending on our contract). That's the heart of 3taps' position as I understand it; they get craigslist post data from third party sources like search engines, instead of scraping craigslist, and so do not have a contract with craigslist.

<comment><USER11> I'm pretty sure I agree with you, if you have a specific agreement with one of the parties.

What about "anonymous" scraping, however? (I put it in quotes because I know you can reverse DNS/UserAgent/etc. identify... but that's simple to spoof, and we're discussing within a sophisticated context.)

Can I say that "OOgle" can use my data (because I want visitors) but others can't? (To complicate, can I exclude only certain, specified, parties and include all others?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Derek Khanna, Contributor_

Looks like Derek found a sweet new gig after being kicked off the Republican Study Committee for talking sense about copyright.

<comment><USER7> Not yet. That's just my blog. I did take into account people's comments here and adjusted accordingly. I wrote this to break the story - while I was involved with other work. I have headed many of this forum's suggestions.

<comment><USER13> Good luck, looking forward to checking out your future posts. Have you tried posting via medium? I bet they would be interested in your posts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is it really hard to create a Craigslist clone? Just curious. I say 'clone' because of the unethical practices followed by Craigslist, and we can have some one more open-minded replace them soon (with enough marketing). I'm not sure why no YC companies (or anyone else for that matter) want to disrupt Craigslist, though.

The internet works the way it is now because of the concept of 'free and open' information. Attempting to harm the ones that enable such open-ness isn't exactly the right recipe for a long term successful Internet based business model.

<comment><USER5> Creating the clone is fairly easy. For every type of service that Craigslist provides there have probably been 1-5 clones over the past few years.

Currently both buyers as well as sellers have been trained that the place to go is Craigslist. Give that it would be impossible for a new service to have anywhere near the number of buyers and sellers as Craigslist, no rational individual is going to choose an alternative.

The problem becomes even tricker since Craigslist is for the most part free. They currently use the revenue gained by job postings to subsidize the other listings on their site. This makes it harder for a niche service to start up as they are competing with free.

<comment><USER15> For some reason, Kijiji is dominant in most of Canada. Craigslist is almost never used here. I'm honestly glad, because I occasionally check Craigslist and it's never a rewarding experience. Without the network-effects monopoly, it's a truly awful site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Original document: [http://3taps.com/images/pics/430_138734862-Judge-rules-in- fa...](http://3taps.com/images/pics/430_138734862-Judge-rules-in-favor-of- Craigslist-on-motion-to-dismiss-in-case-vs-3taps-Padmapper-Lovely.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER17> If this is an accurate summary of the legal situation (not at all something one can assume with this publication) then it sounds as if Craigslist simply needs to change their terms so that a user agrees that Craigslist has a perpetual and exclusive copyright on the content of listings. Then you may be able to aggregate the data in some form, but would have to be careful how you used the content of the listings.

<comment><USER18> I think they tried this for a bit (last summer?), but it didn't last long. The few times I need to use Craigslist I can't afford to give them an exclusive license.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. There was also speculation that they realized it could open them up to liability for the content of posts, which obviously they would not want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's a post on the EFF blog regarding some other elements of the decision (particularly relating to exclusive copyright licenses and to the CFAA): <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5641151>

</comment><comment><USER19> Yay Eric!!!</comment>


First official Workbench 3.1 and Kickstart 3.1 updates in over twenty years - <AUTHOR> http://www.amigafuture.de/viewtopic.php?p=59601#59601 <comment><USER2> This is cool to see.. I guess we'll need to let go at some point.

BRB, playing Gods & Flashback</comment>


Most Highlighted Kindle Passages of All Time  - <AUTHOR> https://kindle.amazon.com/most_popular <comment><USER2> Some of the quotes are interesting on their own. All of them are interesting in that so many people found them significant.

Also, if you read too many of them at once you start to think in one or two sentence snippets.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was unprepared for that level of Hunger Games quote density. Jesus.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does Amazon publish the data from which these lists are prepared? I'd love to make some other (better?) lists that produce more balanced results.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would say this list is a bit shocking, but I own a Kindle, and I've never highlighted a flippin thing. I don't see myself ever getting in the habit either.

Looks like the data set is quite young, I'd be surprised if their info is older than a year.

<comment><USER6> yeah, probably a new dataset and hopefully more 'history proven', less primitive - more meaningful quotes will appear soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting. I've never read anything by Suzanne Collins, but except for the occasional Jane Austin, she dominates the list.</comment>


Apply HN: Wikipedia for how, and how well, we know what we think we know - <AUTHOR> I want to combine Wikipedia, argument mapping, and prediction markets to make a collaborative website for productive large scale argumentation, that will collect and organize all the world's inferential knowledge into a single vast graph, visually show the logical relationships between ideas as connections between nodes on the graph, allow for concepts to be iteratively clarified and improved on, and quantify the degree of support (in both the rational and democratic senses) that every individual idea has.
The exponential curve of advancing understanding that we are on is driven by the increasing spread of more reliable knowledge to more participants working from a more complete database: the printing press + the scientific method + the university + the library has given us the modern world. Spreading and examining knowledge more reliably and widely will enable more minds to contribute more usefully, and will bend the curve even more sharply upward. We can do this by creating a collaborative graph-building sandbox in which users can create and place nodes (each containing a single idea), and connect them to other nodes with virtual elastic threads to show the logical connections between them: a node upstream of node X is an idea that X depends on, and a downstream node is an idea that depends on X. Users can vote on the connections they think are appropriate for X by drawing threads of their own: connections that most users endorse will pull closer together. Nodes containing the same idea stack to occupy the same place in the graph, and user ratings of the strength and clarity of each version of the idea float the best and clearest statement to the top of the stack. Users can't edit other users' statements, but voting on which ones are best allows us to improve on weak versions of decent ideas without making us settle for Wikipedia's committee style production of a single article and the edit wars that go with it. <comment><USER2> Good idea. I'm working on something related (knowledge graphs) if you want to talk about it. Do you think it would require users to understand formal logic?

Do you have an idea how to turn this into dollars? Donations like Wikipedia?

The catch with up-voting is that it doesn't produce the same results as expert curation. I assume that's why Wikipedia relies on editors instead of voting.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This site wants to be Wikipedia for inferential knowledge - where Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and catalogs knowledge of all kinds (people, places, things, events, ideas, etc.), this site deals only with ideas that are arguments or claims, and that depend for their plausibility and truth on chains of inference stretching back ultimately to some fundamental axiom. This includes essentially all of philosophy, science, religion, and politics, since all of these make debatable claims about what reality is and how it is likely to respond in given circumstances, and since those claims are all based on some chain of prior reasoning every link of which are themselves debatable.

We need a Wikipedia-like central resource that explicitly graphs all of these chains of reasoning, reduces them to their individual links, and lays bare their connections and branchings, so that we can 1) understand the underpinnings of our own ideas, 2) understand the underpinnings of other peoples's ideas (i.e., stop assuming that other people are stupid strawmen), 3) show definitively that genuinely stupid ideas are genuinely stupid, by systematically meeting their bad arguments with clearly stronger counter-arguments, 4) stop having the same arguments constantly all over the internet/tv/congress/world, by having it all out in one place where the argument can be logically organized, permanently recorded, and exhaustively fleshed out, and 5) finally be able to walk through, clearly and completely, exactly what gives us reason to think that something is true.

<comment><AUTHOR> So apparently I should look at my comments after I post them, so I can edit the bad formatting.

Also, is there a HN formatting guide somewhere that will tell me how to do italics, bold, make links, etc.?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer: I'm not really eligible for a YC Fellowship at this point, as I'm not a hacker and don't have a technical co-founder, and therefore can't create the proposed site. This post is mostly for generating discussion, and for the outside chance of finding someone who sees the potential and wants to come on board with me to make it happen.

</comment><comment><USER3> Your paragraph of text is making my eyes glaze over.

Wikipedia is popular because it is easy to use and shows up in search results. However it's not clear that your thing can or will be the same. I need a concrete example of how your thing will help me in order to be able to give further advice on the idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right about the formatting, oops. There are supposed to be three paragraphs there, but I'm not familiar with HN's formatting, and I didn't think about it after I posted it.

I would say that Wikipedia became popular, and eventually earned itself a high place in search results, because it is easy to use, yes, but mostly because it provided a place/format for useful information that couldn't be accessed anywhere else as easily. It doesn't mean much to say, "Oh, my site will be easy to use too!" \- that's just an unsubstantiated claim at this point. But I don't think that's a hard target to hit.

On the other point (providing a place for useful information that can't be easily gotten elsewhere), once you have a clear idea of what the site does, it's immediately apparent that the information it provides is extremely useful, and that there's nowhere else to get it.

I'll try to give a couple more concrete examples: in politics, how often does it appear to be the case that people understand why their opponents believe the things they do? How many people can give a genuinely strong argument for the opposing view, vs. how many people are unable to give a plausible argument for the other side and tend to assume that their opponents think what they do simply because they're stupid/selfish/malicious/etc.? Our political process is highly polarized, and there is almost no reasonable, informed political debate, certainly not anywhere that is prominent and accessible, and this is extremely detrimental to the project of trying to run a well-functioning democracy. Wikipedia made it not possible for reasonable people to be trivially wrong about matters of fact, by making it simple to find out what is right. We need to do the same thing for arguments, by making it simple to look up what is strong and coherent.

In science, suppose you're a biochemistry grad student trying to get a handle on everything we think we know about the biochemistry of dementia. Currently this means reading tons of uncorrelated papers scattered across dozens of journals, and attempting to assemble in your own head a logical structure that ties all of them together, sussing out and keeping track of thousands of relevant bits of data about who knew what when, who references who, how strong each paper's individual arguments are, which points undermine which others, which ones strengthen which other ones (and how much), what are the strongest known approaches, where the open questions are, etc. Every expert in a given topic has in their head their own ad hoc version of this logical structure, and all of them vary from each other. We will gain immensely by combining all of those implicit maps into one explicit map, that will be more complete than any individual's, improvable, allow quantified collective judgments on uncertain points (a la prediction markets), and which will be vastly simpler to acquire for new would-be experts.

Do those examples make the site's function any clearer for you?</comment></comment>


How I Launched A Profitable Product in 3 Hours – The Nuts And Bolts - <AUTHOR> http://blog.amirkhella.com/2011/03/09/how-i-launched-a-profitable-product-in-3-hours-part-2-the-nuts-and-bolts/

<comment><AUTHOR> REF: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1713616>

For those who requested the specific launch steps that I used in launching Keynotopia. Enjoy, share, and upvote.

And let me know if I missed anything.</comment>


The takeover: how police ended up running a paedophile site - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/13/shining-a-light-on-the-dark-web-how-the-police-ended-up-running-a-paedophile-site <comment><USER2> For six months, the police provided strong incentive to actively commit new child abuse, because they were running a site that required active uploading.

Really, possession and distribution of these images should be legal. Then pedophiles wouldn't feel the need to hoard it. They could easily get it online. However, obviously, the _acts_ in them should be completely illegal. With the current system, pedophiles hoard images, and on sites like this, they'll want _new_ material.

Much like the war on drugs, I don't think second-order effects have been considered in policy. Sure, law makers and most sexually normal people are going to have a gut reaction of disgust to child pornography. This leads to a knee-jerk "ban it" reaction. I think the "reasoning" stops right there. For every additional concept it takes to solve a test problem, you lose 75-80% of students. Likewise, I feel like lawmakers and the public have at least a 75-80% loss rate considering the second and third order effects of their policies.

<comment><USER3> No. Absolutely no. It can not ever be legal to own or distribute this kind of material. Imagine this kind of material exists of a child that you know. And it was legal for people to send this image to others, and to post it online unhindered. When the child gets older they can find this stuff of themselves and be revictimised over again.

Fuck that. You think not as much would be created if access was easier? I highly doubt that. I personally don't know anyone that keeps one or two regular porn links bookmarked - it's always onto the next thing.

> Sure, law makers and most sexually normal people are going to have a gut > reaction of disgust to child pornography.

This quote here bothers me greatly. Sexually normal? EVeryone but pedophiles should be disgusted by this kind of child abuse.

<comment><USER4> My problem with our laws has more to do with the crimes that don't have victims. \- Individual in high school takes provocative picture of themselves and sends it to their significant other... pedophile. \- Person writes story involving underage sex... pedophile \- Person draws picture involving underage sex... pedophile \- Take a picture of sexual situations with someone that looks underage, but isn't... pedophile

These things (arguably?) don't have real victims, yet people have their lives ruined over them.

There's also the argument that being a pedophile is a mental condition. The fact that a person with such a condition can use fictional (stories, drawings, etc) material to mitigate their desire for actual damaging materials can be considered (once again, not with argument) a good thing; they are aware they have a problem and are looking to handle it in a way that does not cause harm to others.

Note: I'm a father of a young daughter, the very concept of young children being harmed by pedophilia sickens me. But the fact that a teenage boy can have their life ruined because their girlfriend (voluntarily) texted them a provocative picture is almost as horrible.

<comment><USER3> I agree with you but that's not the kind of material discussed in the article or by original commenter. Exploitation of children is evil. A 16 year old sending a dick/boob pic to their same age boyfriend/girlfriend and being arrested seems like unintended consequences.

<comment> drunken-serval However, it's currently being treated the same by some law enforcement entities.

<comment><USER5> Mostly by prosecutors looking to make a name for themselves by putting another sex crime conviction on their record and not giving a damn about the long-term consequences of the young life they ruined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The cops who have to look at these awful images to track down those monsters are heroes. I cannot imagine having to do that every day without ending up completely broken up inside.

<comment><USER7> My brother says the key for him is to stay focused on the victim and what he's trying to accomplish: stop the abuse or find them and stop the abuse, find their abuser, convict their abuser so it doesn't happen again.

If you constantly get angry or upset, you'll have a very hard time doing it for long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great job all around, but I think the elephant in the room here is that the police was effectively enabling pedophiles to exchange videos of the sexual abuse of small children. I'm not convinced this feels 100% kosher to me.

<comment><USER9> If police had not used the opportunity to collect evidence on many others before closing the site then the paedophiles would have just dispersed before reorganising somewhere else. In the long run I suspect that the total amount of child abuse material exchanged has been reduced.

<comment><USER10> That line of reasoning is very dangerous. The police have been successfully sued [0] in the past for using innocent people as bait to catch suspected predators. The argument that catching the criminal prevents future victimization does not excuse the act of allowing innocent people to be attacked without their consent.

[0] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jane-doe-wins-case-against- pol...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jane-doe-wins-case-against-police- force-1.163867)

<comment><USER9> It's not an approach without drawbacks or ethical grey areas, that's for sure. Going by the article that OP submitted my personal take on it is that the police made an acceptable trade-off in that instance. Had my child been abused by somebody involved in that forum in between the police's initial infiltration of it and closing it down I'm sure that my feelings would be very different.

That's an interesting case that you linked though, I'd be curious to read more details about it.

<comment><USER10> After a bit of Googling, I turned up this novel [0] by the Jane Doe who successfully brought the suit.

As for the original ethical question, I believe the tradeoff is an utilitarian one. Personally, I find utilitarian arguments totally unconvincing because the measure of utility is subjective. People read about the murder of a stranger in the morning paper, finish their breakfast, and carry on with their day without a second thought; the murder had a miniscule effect on them. For the victim, on the other hand, the entire universe has been permanently destroyed, causing an infinite loss of utility.

[0] [https://www.amazon.ca/Story-Jane-Doe-Book- About/dp/067931275...](https://www.amazon.ca/Story-Jane-Doe-Book- About/dp/0679312757)

<comment><USER9> Thanks, I may well track down that book.

I've never explicitly thought about the issue in utilitarian terms but it's given me something to think about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it just me finding it very strange how such child predators have "diligently kept a ledger" of their acts, with names?

I am obviously not a criminal psychiatrist but this seems all too convenient and the paranoia in me screams that such evidence might be planted. Then again, maybe these monsters need to periodically validate themselves by looking through that "ledger"...

<comment><USER12> You could make the same argument for why serial killers shouldn't keep trophies ... but they do.

The trophies are said to allow the killer to relive their crime - perhaps the ledger is an effort to validate the paedophile's acumen as a business person? Or maybe he was making enough cash that he needed to accurately launder it through his other businesses?

<comment><USER13> Also similar to how the Nazis kept extremely detailed records in concentration camps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apparently it _is_ possible to investigate such sites without hacking, just regular investigative work. Who'd have thought?

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how many of their tactics they withheld from the story, given that child abusers will be taking notes. At least there's not much that can be done about location recognition.

<comment><USER16> There were some hints in the article.

Forensic teams look at brands. Coca Cola labeling isn't identical across the world, and is very common, so leaving a bottle of coca cola in the room can provide a hint to location. (There was a programme on BBC Radio 4 that mentioned programmers getting together with police to develop machine- recognition of coca cola bottles. Sadly, the BBC search is _hopelessly poor_ , so I'm unable to find the programme.)

There's other stuff, like wallpaper patterns and fabric patterns in windows.

There's a bunch of image processing, the most obvious example being swirly- face man, but there are plenty of others. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paul_Neil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paul_Neil)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is the "The Love Zone" (TLZ) case, I believe (which was a Tor HS). Not sure what country the gag order applies in, but I suspect not the United States.

</comment><comment><USER18> "The disarray was typical of a predator's home."

Is this true? Do sexual predators tend to live in wildly unkempt and unwashed homes?

</comment><comment><USER16> > Paul Griffiths, a police officer from England with a cropped haircut and a > hard stare, worked on Argos in Queensland as a victim identification > specialist, scanning gigabytes of images and videos each week looking for > clues – a brand of food, a grain of wood – that might give away a child's > location. Above his desk was a whiteboard scrawled with two dozen usernames: > the forum's most wanted.

You can help law enforcement identify locations by using an app to take photographs of hotel rooms.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12058357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12058357)

<comment><USER19> Why bother, NSA has all the private data it needs to do this on a scale that could actually work, like hotel room pictures geotagged by your smartphone, as well as your indoor pictures from your house.. Of course, you're really naive thinking this will only (or even predominantly) be used against child molesters..

<comment><USER20> Well, NSA's mission is foreign intelligence and counter intelligence. Fighting crime isn't related to their tasks at all. And I would really prefer if it stayed that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> When they first took over the first user account, did they post any new images? Or were they able to move quickly enough to take out the webmaster before they got kicked?

</comment><comment><USER22> Epic sleuthing.</comment>


Stripe CEO Discusses Online Payment Service  - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/video/87619974/ <comment><USER2> He did a great job with the interview. I think Stripe will be the next big YC company, on the list with Heroku, Dropbox, and Airbnb.

I always find it a bit odd though, the claim that before Stripe you had to have a merchant account. I've signed up (on behalf of various projects) for PayPal's "Web Site Payments Pro" a half dozen times. It doesn't require a merchant account, the setup is quite quick, and it has a very simple API ("NVP"). It's pretty much everything Stripe is except less polished, with a slightly slower setup, and a $30/mo fee (insignificant for all my projects).

I'll definitely choose Stripe next time though just because they're at least 20% more polished on all fronts and I like them a lot more than PayPal. I can't help wondering whether they just didn't know about PayPal's product or they're ignoring it for marketing purposes.

<comment><USER3> Patrick from Stripe here. This is a really good point, and one that's worth clarifying. I'm just back from a run, and can't reply in depth right now, but wanted to add this comment as a placeholder before the thread falls off your radar. Will update here within a few hours.

(And, PS, thanks for the kind words.)

[Update follows]

I don't think we've ever claimed that before Stripe you had to have a merchant account. We're of course aware that there were a a bunch of services that didn't require a merchant account before Stripe (not just PayPal, but also Google Checkout and Amazon Payments).

The point we always do try to make is that the vast majority of sites (and, especially, the _best_ sites) end up using their own merchant account. Whatever about the feature sets of PayPal and similar systems, people still ended up preferring merchant accounts, and the traditional merchant account infrastructure powers most of the e-commerce on the web.

It turns out that there are actually pretty good reasons for this: the merchant-account based solutions gave you the most control over the end-user experience, the most control over the relationship with your customers, and so on. Merchant accounts were the best solution and still are the most widely deployed option.

To the extent that Stripe is competing with anything, we're competing with _that_.

And so, to get back to your point: it is, overall, a pretty subtle situation, and how best to make the landscape clear in a few sentences to someone watching TV -- or someone who doesn't know much about the industry -- isn't easy. We want to be as accurate as possible without compromising clarity or brevity. If you've any suggestions as to how we could do it better, they'd be much appreciated: I'm email@example.com.

<comment><USER4> Now can you bring it to Europe, too ? :-)

We will build you a golden shrine and worship you every morning for doing so.

<comment><USER3> Working on it, I promise :-).

<comment><USER5> I wonder why it takes so long and how work on something like that looks like. Is is something you can share with us?

<comment><USER4> I guess it's like an army of lawyers trying to understand the part national, part european legislation of a couple of dozen countries ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great interview - if only the interviewer wasn't trying to crack a joke at every opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER7> The sooner they get into EU market, the better. I wish they already were here.

<comment><USER8> Is it a crazy idea to set up an account in the U.S. on behalf of non-U.S. sites and take payments via Stripe, with the caveat that the exchange rate might not be exact when you transfer funds a few days later? I can't imagine the many ways this could be found illegal and shut down, but with a small margin it could be profitable.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, profitable, but somewhat scammy and, as you pointed out, probably illegal too. Not worth the fuss if you ask me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What tactics are used to defeat fraud?

</comment><comment><USER10> I may start using stripe in the future. For right now we just left authorize.net (they suck) and moved to Samurai by FeeFighters: <https://samurai.feefighters.com/> \- I haven't heard much about them on HN but so far they seem great. Their implementation may not be as easy as stripe but they are slightly cheaper and, in our case, there was already a plugin for our shopping cart. Either way, I'm glad to see some changes in the payment industry.</comment>


Ask HN: Best technology stack for my web project? - <AUTHOR>

I am not a developer but know Java/JSP/Servlets from my previous life. So when I wanted to put a prototype/MVP together for my own web initiative, Java/JSP was the language of choice; however, I have now got stuck into a dilemma. The problem is that my webpages are a mixture of server-side code (JSP) and HTML, and I need to get the webpages redesigned, but it is very difficult nowadays to find good front-end designers/developers who work on JSP.
As I understand I have the following options to move forward. Can the HN community please provide some suggestions?
1-- Continue with JSP (front-end) and Java (back-end) - Keep looking for front-end developer/designer. Server side language should not be a problem.
2-- Migrate the application to Ruby on Rails - I have read/heard it is a great framework for web development
3-- Migrate the application to PHP - Seems to be the language of choice for web development nowadays
4-- Migrate the application to Python  - As I understand it is not easy to find good front-end Python guys either, but I have read/heard good things about Python as a language
*5-- Remove server-side code from front-end so that I have - HTML/Javascript with template engine such as handlebar.js/CSS (for front-end) and REST-based Java API with JSON output (for backend) - Are there are any disadvantages of going ahead with this approach. I can imagine that having a stable language as Java for backend is good from performance perspective.
Advice please?
Cheers, Deepak <comment><USER2> If you already know Java, then Wicket[1] is a good choice in that it does a nice job of separating the HTML from code. You can let a designer have at it and work on layout and what-not, and seamlessly tie that into your Java code.

As a side note, though, it should be perfectly possible to use JSP as a view layer with fairly minimal bleed-through of Java "stuff." If you stick to JSTL tags and _absolutely, totally and completely_ avoid scriptlet code in your JSPs (write a custom tag if you have to) it's possible to have JSP pages that a web developer can work with, without excessive difficulty.

[1]: <http://wicket.apache.org/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I will explore Apache Wicket</comment></comment>


New York Is Urged to Consider Surge Pricing for Taxis - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/nyregion/surge-pricing-taxis.html <comment><USER2> I hope this doesn't become a widespread practice with traditional taxi services. Surge pricing is one of the worst aspects of ride-sharing services.</comment>


Hackerspace Passports - <AUTHOR> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Passport <comment><AUTHOR> Downloadable source for the passports; includes PSDs, stamp designs, original InDesign illustrations all under the CC Attribution NonCom license: [http://har.ms/blog/downloadable-source-for-hackerspace- passp...](http://har.ms/blog/downloadable-source-for-hackerspace-passports/)</comment>


Hong Kong Protests Show Dangers of a Cashless Society - <AUTHOR> https://reason.com/2019/07/02/hong-kong-protests-show-dangers-of-a-cashless-society/ <comment><USER2> Any technology that is pro-society should never be over-centralised (e.g. control over citizen freedoms to use that technology).

Physical cash is material technically government-controlled and -produced, but people can freely trade it with great independence.

I don't think we'll have a big problem here. People's drive to freely trade critical resources between each other is so strong that they'll create their own currencies if they need to - which is exactly what the burgeoning ecosystem of cryptocurrencies already is.

</comment><comment><USER3> While the overall point is IMHO extremely valid (cash is some form of liberty), I somehow feel that something in the matter is _queer_.

Taking public transport to get to the area of the protests might have not been the best choice anyway.

I mean, is it so far-fetched that the queues at vending machines are monitored and recorded by security cameras and facial recognition can be later used (syncronized with the actual ticket emission time) if the government wants to know who went where?

I see from the photo of the linked within article:

[https://qz.com/1642441/extradition-law-why-hong-kong- protest...](https://qz.com/1642441/extradition-law-why-hong-kong-protesters- didnt-use-own-metro-cards/)

that many people wear surgical masks, but I dont think that would be an issue if the governement wants to identify someone.

And there is no need of a pre-made database, it can be built later, assuming that the holder of an Octopus card re-uses public transport, you film him/her _next time_.

<comment><USER4> If the government has a high-resolution camera and the latest tech maybe.. But a regular security camera would probably need at least eyes plus the nose/mouth to make a facial model afaik. If a person enters their home station wearing a mask, and returns with a mask later, that probably keeps them quite anonymous.

A more immediate concern for the protesters is probably that police were stopping young people clad in black in MTR stations at hotspots, as well as those taking minibuses leaving the scene of the June 1 event, and jotting down their IDs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have been beating this drum for a long time:

[https://vimeo.com/27653912](https://vimeo.com/27653912)

</comment><comment><USER6> article of the week.</comment>


Ask HN: Viability of "Amazon Lambda" for C and/or native code? - <AUTHOR> A prominent skill set among electrical/embedded/firmware engineers is C.
With the advent of IoT, these engineers are being asked to design/write server side components for their products. However, server programming, especially scalable, elastic, low-maintenance and (server) configuration-free options like Amazon Lambda tend to favor javascript/python...
Would you or someone you know use an Amazon Lambda like service for running native functions, without having to configure/learn Docker? <comment><USER2> What do you mean "configure Docker"?

Check out hyper.sh. They allow to launch a Docker image in ~3-5s, without the need to maintain a VM cluster. You can use an API service to automate the provisioning, and then forget about the infra thing.</comment>


How to Tell If Someone Is Truly Smart or Just Average - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-mission/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-truly-smart-or-just-average-a2f0bcac5db2 <comment><USER2> This is all-over-the-place. Firstly it argues you can tell if somebody is "truly smart" based on if they answer interview questions with an overly- technical explanation...

Then it plays heavily on our fame-bias (and confuses correlation and causation) to argue "Look what all these well-known geniuses do, if you that too you'll be a genius like them!"

It then proceeds to offer a self-reported anecdote about the author becoming smarter (with no external validation like some objective test, nor even a definition of smart).

Then tries to sell us a course...

</comment><comment><USER3> This article reads more like a self help book. And it acts as if the Zuckerbergs and musks of the world have a mystical power to see the world more deeply than everyone else when truly a tremendous amount of luck goes into forming companies like they have.

</comment><comment><USER4> This should be labeled as "Advertisement".

Has this been "fake voted"?

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a good article. The author explains how genius entrepreneurs are able to accomplish great things because they use a whole collection of superior mental models. That fits what I have read about particular business geniuses like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

However, there are also other types of geniuses, such as artistic and academic ones. My guess is they also have superior sets of mental models. It would be interesting of someone did some mental model studies of these groups.

</comment><comment><USER6> > I was learning a deeper and fundamentally different way of understanding > reality — like I've accessed a hidden, secret level in the game of life. > It's thrilling to uncover deeper layers of understanding that I didn't even > know existed.

> Reality somehow feels different on an aesthetic level

Is the author hypomanic?

</comment><comment><USER7> The title rubs me the wrong way, it comes off elistist and arrogent. Average? Just because you are "smart" doesn't mean that you are going to be effective and excel at your job. There are other intangibles such as instincts, communication, customer interaction, business intuition.</comment>


Consider the Possibility That Trump Is Right About China - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/consider-possibility-trump-right-china/609493/ <comment><USER2> Whether Trump is right about anything is completely orthogonal to whether something is true.

Trump has proven repeatedly not to base his opinions on facts, so while his opinions might coincide with facts from time to time is besides the point.

The article in question does not at all touch on how we got there and why there is now public/office willingness to do something about it.

It has long been true about both US and China that they are not stopping at much to achieve their global-ruler agendas, just in a slightly different way. So there is no need to consider how China is doing that, we all know they are. And the mention of US aid coming with no strings attached — ha.

And the most blatant explanation of the current trade war is the rising economic standard in China, where salaries are not multiple orders of magnitude smaller anymore, and the production costs are now not even an order of magnitude lower than they would be in US. Which means that the globalist capitalist system driven by big US businesses is getting close to not getting any returns on making China richer and more equal economically. But this discrepancy in standard of living has long been the driving force of USA's purchasing power and middle class fortune.

<comment><AUTHOR> Politicians lie, so get over it. And honestly, I don't care if what he says isn't accurate all the time. I care that he is doing what is best for the United States. And for the most part he is.

The most significant aspect of the article is that The Atlantic, a left-of- center news publication, which usually doesn't agree with Trump on anything, agrees with Trump about China. That is not something that happens very often.

<comment><USER2> I disagree that whether someone agrees or disagrees with someone else is worthy of an "article", and even less that it makes an article worthy (but whether something is true or not, why that is, and what the consequences might be, would make a good one — alas, this is not it).

You do have an important insight there: you believe—well, you claim that—Trump is doing what's best for the US. I do not, but belief is usually not up for debate.</comment></comment></comment>


Mathematicians calculate that there are 177,147 ways to knot a tie - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2014-02-mathematicians-ways.html

<comment><USER2> Specifically: ways to tie a neck tie

<comment><USER3> Yeah, for some reason I read this as tie a knot, not knot a tie :)

<comment><USER2> Same!</comment></comment></comment>


Rich Hickey on becoming a better developer - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/prakhar1989/1b0a2c9849b2e1e912fb <comment><USER2> Mostly agree but the musician analogy. McCartney is a master of none player. The best bands constantly reinvent their sound and structure exploring and starting over.

The premise here is starting over or learning new languages resets you to Zero.

I disagree.</comment>


Learning To Learn: Pencil, Then Ink - <AUTHOR> http://betterexplained.com/articles/learning-to-learn-pencil-then-ink/

<comment><USER2>
      Wayward paths can help us better understand the correct ones.

Very true, IMO. It's one of the reasons I love my algorithm textbook more than any other school textbook I've ever had: it not only explains why you choose a certain way of proving an algorithm, or how to construct an efficient one, _it gives you seemingly-logical, incorrect alternatives that people naturally fall into_ and explains why they're wrong. It actively helps you to recognize potential mistakes later, rather than having you stumble onto them without understanding why you made the mistake.

<comment><USER3> Well don't leave us hanging! What is the textbook?

<comment><USER2> Ah, apologies:

      Algorithm Design
      by Jon Kleinberg & Éva Tardos
      ISBN: 978-0-321-29535-8

Or an Amazon link: [http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Jon- Kleinberg/dp/0321...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Jon- Kleinberg/dp/0321295358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1263600138&sr=8-1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I recently picked up Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" book. Supposedly, it's been updated recently, to contain her most recent knowledge on mark-making and 'seeing' the drawing in life.

I used to be quite a decent pencilist, but after 18 years of not having drawn a lick, and perhaps relating to the drugs that were consumed during my teenage years, I've simply forgotten how to do anything, how to even see the marks that need making, to complete even rudimentary drawings.

I'm only a few pages in, but at least on the premise, the referenced book in this works on similar principles.

<comment><USER5> I think Edwards actually has a completely different approach. The book referenced in the article uses the idea of making an object out of basic shapes: put together some squares and circles and you have an elephant. The only problem is that that approach only works for making a kind of stencil image of an elephant and totally fails for realistic drawing. Edwards' approach is totally focused on convincing the brain to drop its preconceptions (like the squares and circles) and transfer the reality of the actual lines and shadows that are in front of the eye to the paper. You actually have to stop the mind from trying to substitute it's template of an idealized "elephant" (or the idea that I should draw a circle because someone told me to draw a circle) and let the pencil just follow the eye.

<comment><USER6> I think Edwards's approach is more compatible with Ames's construction approach than your description implies. Sure, Edwards is trying to get you to see what is in front of you rather than rely on preconceptions. But what is in front of you can often be described as a collection of generalized shapes, as Ames does. And, indeed, this is a good way to get the initial proportions of a drawing correct; I believe Edwards discusses some helpful construction rules in the portrait section of her book.

In other words, you should draw a circle not because someone told you to draw a circle, but because the thing in front of you genuinely has an underlying circular form at that size and in that position -- as Ames must have done when he came up with his drawing books in the first place. And the more you do this, the faster you learn the underlying structure of things, which makes it easier to draw from memory, draw from imagination, or simply draw from life without needing to stop as frequently to measure things.

<comment><USER5> Generalized shapes might help if you're drawing extremely regular objects (books, balls, apartment buildings) or perhaps if you need to draw a generic "horse" from memory but it's not a big help with life drawing. Edwards and other life drawing teachers often suggest drawing the negative spaces as a way of breaking the habit of using the brain to figure out what the object is "like" (e.g. it's like a square sitting on a circle) and focus on what it is.

<comment><USER6> Yes, negative space is useful for focusing a student's attention on the shape itself rather than the subject. But it also has the tendency to encourage a local rather than global focus, so that locally all the shapes look right, but the global proportions are wrong. Or where you work your way around a bicycle wheel drawing all the negative shapes, and the last shape you draw is too wide or too thin.

Which isn't much of a problem for things like still lifes, but it becomes a bigger problem in, for example, portraiture, where the human eye is particularly sensitive to errors in proportion -- which is why Edwards includes some construction rules-of-thumb in her portraiture chapter.

You may be focusing too strongly on "circles and squares" as idealized shapes... If you look at the picture of the elephant in the article, none of the shapes is quite a circle. Rather, they outline masses, like the blobs you might see if you defocus your eyes. Being able to capture the proportions and locations of these masses is actually very important when drawing from life. (see, for example, Nicolaides's "The Natural Way to Draw")

<comment><USER7> Just wanted to say thanks for the analysis -- I'm considering learning to draw again and it's great to see these perspectives :).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What I've learned at Arkency and why I am leaving - <AUTHOR> https://blog.arkency.com/what-ive-learned-at-arkency-and-why-i-am-leaving/ <comment><AUTHOR> In this post, I summarize last 3 years of my work (out of almost 20) as a senior full stack web developer.</comment>


Show HN: Search your codebase with code blocks instead of text - <AUTHOR> https://sourcescape.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hey there HN, I'm Jieren, and I'm building this app here.

I submitted this two months ago and I wanted to share again as there's been some significant progress. Instead of a fairly janky interface where you're clicking and dragging things around, now it's just a text editor where you type in code and you get search results that mirror this code.

All this is driving towards a vision of a "no-code" [0] builder for static analysis and making static analysis as easy as code search.

Looking forward to your feedback!

jieren at sourcescape.io @jierenchen

[0] Extreme air-quotes because you're literally searching with code blocks

</comment><comment><USER2> i love blueprint, always wondered why i haven't seen it used in a project. until now!</comment>


Break the pattern - <AUTHOR> http://blog.truffle.io/break-the-pattern

<comment><USER2> This is soo true. We need to break away from the everyday mundane tasks. Life is all about taking the less traveled path!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> BTW, anyone coming to spend some time in Seattle. Email me at email@example.com and I would to show you around!</comment>


Getting started with Futures [Rust] - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alexcrichton/futures-rs/blob/master/TUTORIAL.md <comment><USER2> This is still a work-in-progress draft of a work-in-progress library. Expect to see something more polished soon!</comment>


A super lightweight AMD-compliant JavaScript loader - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zengjialuo/kittyjs

<comment><AUTHOR> only 2.8kb while requireJS is 6.2kb. The implement is naive so u can easily read the source to understand how AMD works.</comment>


It's All Software - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/its_all_software <comment><USER3> Gruber: _... Apple's vision for "access anywhere" is "iPhone everywhere"._

I'm reminded of how Jean-Louis Gassée, head of Apple's Macintosh development in the late 1980s, responded when asked how they plan to connect Macs to the network. He held up a piece of phone wire and said "this is our network". This was a reference to Apple's proprietary LocalTalk protocol which could be used over regular RJ11 connectors.

The gist of this story is that Apple completely ignored the need for interoperability with the Mac. The iCloud has a whiff of the same hubris.

<comment><USER4> _Gruber: ... Apple's vision for "access anywhere" is "iPhone everywhere"._

The problem is that the dream of iPhone everywhere is dead for most people. Android isn't looking back. iPhone will never surpass Android in marketshare again. For most people, if the iCloud means an iPhone device, that means iCloud won't be used.

<comment><USER5> Hm, how is "iPhone everywhere" meant, though? I read it as "my iPhone with me everywhere", not as "everyone has an iPhone". You might be talking about two different things

<comment><USER4> Yeah, you're definitely right. Although the lack of ubiquity is still a problem -- especially if iOS devices stay flat in terms of marketshare. iOS owners will have to tether everything into their iPhone. People with the other clouds will have first class support of their cloud data with whatever device they use.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, those two things are not entirely unrelated. Making having an iPhone with you everywhere really useful will also depend to some extent on how good you can collaborate and share with other people.

You shouldn't forget that connection but I also wouldn't exaggerate it. Also, iOS still has a sizable market share, maybe more than the Mac ever had? That helps, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is Gruber at his best. He correctly points out that the distinction people (including me) seem to be drawing is basically an arbitrary one.

I think the more abstract distinction comes from what each company wants you to do with their products, though. Apple wants you to use their hardware. What you use it for doesn't matter so much as you using it, and every decision they make, including leveraging the cloud, is informed by this.

Google, on the other hand, wants you to use the web, because the web is where they get paid. And the web is where we connect to each other.

Google's model makes that connection its fundamental primary motivation, while for Apple, the connection is incidental, just another feature.

<comment><USER7> _Apple wants you to use their hardware. What you use it for doesn't matter so much as you using it_

This is unfortunately less true than it used to be. It matters to Apple if you want to run unapproved software on an iPad, or heaven forbid install Linux on it. I expect these restrictions will be coming to Macs over the next few years.

 _Google, on the other hand, wants you to use the web_

Google wants you to use Google services and see ads that make Google money. They don't especially care whether that means web apps with AdSense ads or native apps with AdMob.

<comment><USER8> _It matters to Apple if you want to run unapproved software on an iPad, or heaven forbid install Linux on it._

Doesn't it make more sense that Apple is trying to build a large and consumer friendly platform (approved apps) and that it would be an unjustifiable expense to support installing alternative OSes (Linux)?

Why is there always the assumption of nefarious motivations when it's more simply explained? They are only trying to make money, after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Apple makes their money from hardware sales, so their services will be locked or closely tied to _their_ devices. While Gruber may be right with Apple bringing a web interface to some of iCloud, it won't be their focus. And that makes perfect business sense.

Google, on the other hand, just wants to serve you ads. That could be on HP, Dell, Apple, or Samsung hardware (although, I'm sure they'd prefer you bought Android or Chrome devices).

Personally, I prefer to buy Apple devices and use Google services. Apple makes the best hardware, but I don't want to be forced into buying them forever. With Google I can be assured access to my data from just about any future hardware vendor.

<comment><USER10> Why do you prefer to lock your data to a service provider rather than a hardware provider? You are still choosing something to hitch your wagon to.

<comment><USER11> The service provider has a reason to make it easy to use their services on any hardware. Hardware provider has a strong reason to not make it easier to access their services from third party hardware. So why not go with the company that doesn't care* how you access them, especially in the context of your data? It is repeat of why Kindle is much more successful than iBooks.

*Google is blurring the line a bit with Android, but still makes their real money from their services.

<comment><USER12> I think you are spot on describing one side, but it's worth looking at the other side. How do these companies make money? For the hardware company, that's easy. For the service company, that's monetizing your data. Apple cares more about how you access data, but less about the data itself. For Google, they don't care how you access your data so long as their algorithms also have access.

The Kindle example veers off slightly from Google because people pay for their ebooks.

<comment><USER13> Im much more comfortable if the company Im paying makes money on the hardware I buy and doesn't make money on my data.

<comment><USER14> What makes you think Apple won't make money on both?

<comment><USER15> With iCloud Apple will potentially make money off the service because some customers will pay cash for extras (more space, more services, etc), but that's it.

Apple is a weird company because for all the eyebrows they raise with talk of closed systems and hubris and whatever else, they primarily make their way in the world by selling goods to consumers for money. The infrastructure enabling that is a crazy thing, but the heart of it is pretty old fashioned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _Apple solved this with the App Store, though — local native software with truly simple, obvious, easy installation and complete encapsulation of data._

The app store certainly makes it easy but its no where close to the easy installation and update of webapps - typing a name and hitting enter or clicking a link.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that Apple's vision of the cloud is "data in the cloud. apps are local" whereas Google's vision of the cloud is "data and apps are in the cloud"?

All of Google's client-side software also comes down from the cloud the same way your data does.

<comment><USER17> We'll have to agree to disagree. URL discovery is still a major problem, it's what made Yahoo as a human-curated index popular back in the 90s. In my admittedly anecdotal experience with seniors, many of them still have difficulty understanding the browser since they are task-oriented, rather than URL-oriented. And apps are task-oriented. URL bookmarks saved to the home screen help but are still prone to problems e.g. website alters the landing page and now the browser returns a 404. No problem for us but a very jarring experience for seniors who don't know URI.

And Gruber's point is that web apps still require internet access to work, albeit with improvements like cached storage in HTML 5. Whereas apps on the mobile device already work and are already taking advantage of sensors onboard the device, but the internet (cloud) makes them even better. For example, Garageband for iOS would be really hard to do as a webapp. Not impossible, but hard.

<comment><USER18> "URL discovery is still a major problem"

come on, google search is smarter than the app store search

<comment><USER17> I made no mention comparing the quality of search results because that's a whole other topic.

I'm saying the App Store has categories, "Staff Picks", "iPad App of the Week" etc and it helps in discovery, just like Yahoo did back in the day.

Google would have to tread carefully here or they would step on advertisers' toes or invite anti-competitive scrutiny due to their dominance in search.

<comment><USER19> Google doesn't have to do this, web takes care of recommendations. We have HN, Reddit, StumbleUpon, etc.

<comment><USER5> All those things benefit both web apps and native apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm a little tired of the notion that UX == UI == UX. It doesn't. Native apps clearly have the advantage on UI --- for now --- but on UX it's a lot closer. Part of UX is being able to sit down on my Linux desktop and not have to worry about whether I can check my calendar. Part of UX is not having to exit out of what I'm doing to simple check the weather. Part of it is not having to choose which computer I buy based on whether it is compatible with the document format I use. These are just a few of the areas where web aps have a strong lead in UX (and I'd add "installation" in there as well).

<comment><USER20> I'd argue that the reason I can keep using Linux is knowing there's good (or good enough) stuff out there for me to use, the only requirement being that I have a modern browser and an Internet connection. There's less and less reliance on some group of people deciding to clone some existing project or create something from scratch -- boy, do I remember the days of diving deep into freshmeat.net just to find something that would open PDFs and not suck.

The UX thing is why I'm slowly warming up to the Chromebook idea. I own an iPhone, and I love Macs, but I think ultimately the constraints of native applications will work against the users. We should cherish the million frameworks showing up instead of raising the "too much choice" flag just yet, as they will (hopefully) yield a development experience as enjoyable as the current tools for iOS, Android and Windows Phone seem to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't think there is a correlation between quality user experience and desktop software. He breaks down the difference between desktop and web-based software only to falsely associate one with user experience and one with mass- adoption.

I think choosing between the two depends on what type of app you plan on making, the type of users you target, business goals and a ton of other options.

I love how he's correctly reframed the native vs web discussion but am disappointed he decided to make it a war again. It's not a holy issue: choose what's best for your business.

<comment><USER22> Latency and responsiveness are still a huge problem for web apps, especially on mobile devices. Elements consistently come into view only when they're ready, jerkily appearing out of nowhere, as opposed to in native designed interfaces in which everything is presented instantaneously. UI feedback is often delayed, inappropriate, or at times nonexistent. This is pretty consistent across the board.

As for the user experience argument, I'm still looking for a valid excuse why the Facebook mobile website is so astronomically poorer in all aspects to the Facebook for iPhone app. In theory, they can and should function exactly the same when viewed on such a device, but they are leaps and bounds apart.

<comment><USER21> Latency and responsiveness are still a huge problem for _all_ network-heavy apps.

We have a professionally used iOS app that relies on server data (the magical cloud) and the number one user complaint is speed. Creating your client on iOS rather than in HTML/JS doesn't give you any magical "Latency and responsiveness" user experience unicorns.

<comment><USER23> Distributed software will work perfectly, provided it works under perfect conditions :)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Comput...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Computing)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Topolsky: "There is no native application for the Mac or iOS that replicates the shared document editing of Google Docs;"

Gruber: "The first clause isn't true, I'd argue. Shared document editing is not an inherent advantage of Google Docs being web-based; a native client could do it just the same."

Well, sure it _could_ (subethaedit demonstrated that well) but Topolsky clearly stated that no native apps exist that allow it right now. Great, a native app _could_. Whoopee. No one's doing it yet. :/

</comment><comment><USER25> Apple's proprietary web.

It's true the distinction between networked native apps and networked browser apps is logically arbitrary; but the practical distinction is that the web is an open standard, cross platform, widely adopted, whereas Apple's native apps are tightly integrated with the device, giving them faster response and a better managed user experience. If iOS is everywhere, then you get the best of both worlds.

Can Apple topple the web? If they are better at providing what users want, yes.

<comment><USER18> "Can Apple topple the web?"

well, then assuming a web page === a web "app"

the number of websites available to users is probably one million times the number of apps...

the number of new web sites that are started each day is probably one thousand times the number of new apps....

apple has a ways to go

and yes, i'll go there...you can't "kill" the real web if you do not allow users to access copious amounts of hardcore pornography

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm not so sure Google's long term strategy is to bet it all on browser based clients and reach at the expense of user experience. They have NativeClient in ChromeOS, which may be a play to write a more traditional OS but better merged with the web.

The current state of the web is such a crappy experience for regular consumers that Apple's model could make some headway against it and Google wouldn't want to be moving at the pace of standards against them.

<comment><USER23> Agreed. I think they're both fighting at both fronts, when you consider how Android embraced the app model and even expanded it (widgets etc), and how Apple was the most vocal of the HTML5 advocates...

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Topolsky: ...there's no mail application that exists for the Mac which will allow me to access my important information from anywhere in the world with or without a device in hand.

Yes there is, and I can't believe Gruber missed this. I use the iOS mail client to access my GMail account. That's the point of Gruber's argument, that GMail is a service and can have multiple client apps of which the browser app is just one.

</comment><comment><USER28> 99% of my use of GMail is via either Apple's Mail client or the Android client on my phone. I am probably in the minority for the former, but I'm very much in the majority for the latter!

</comment><comment><USER29> The Gmail example doesn't prove the point so well: there's a Javascript-free, widely used web interface to it that doesn't deserve to be called a client.

Something like Google Maps, or Topolsky's example of Google Docs, supports the point well enough.

</comment><comment><USER30> True cloud computing is when we have nothing but a display device that simply follows instructions on how to display the GUI that it receives from the cloud. The browser is a simulation of this future device.

Installing an app on a device is still the old way of doing things. All aspects of the application should come from the network - including the UI.

Why? Because then we can focus more on the nature of HCI itself instead of focusing on developing for different devices like we do now. Developers should be developing for screen sizes - not devices.

IMHO it's inevitable that we will all use one global standard for the client UI in the future. The web is the beginning of that and it's a powerful concept.

And let's not forget that every single one of Apple's iDevices will have Safari installed.

<comment><USER31> This argument is nullified by the fact that computing power continues to fall in cost, size and power usage.

The user does not and should not care about where his or her application logic is being run so long as this device is affordable.

The vision you present adds questionable cost savings and substantial latency: (NY->SF->NY)/c will always take 32ms, best case. Taking this trip asynchronously instead will make sense for a very long time.

Apple understands that shuffling data between devices is a real burden to users, so they've attacked that problem instead of chasing an esoteric one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Very astute. Gruber gets it.

<comment><USER32> You mean the same way some people just 'get' Jesus?

He strikes me as a serious devotee first, analyst second.

<comment><USER23> Did you even read the article? He was quite obvious and unbiased (except - <USER2> - on the part where he said "I'm biased"), by acknowledging that both strategies have pros/cons.

Jesus (to quote you), people like you are worse than fanboys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> but most stuff i access is content...and the web is great for content

i mean....does anyone actually install pointless web-in-a-box apps like the rotten tomatoes app (for example because it bugs the hell out of me to decline it each time)?

my dsire to consume content is not going away, and having an app-per-url is a nonstarter</comment>