Google Account History - <AUTHOR> http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2014/06/google-account-history.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Note that before this existed, you would have to go into Youtube/Google Maps/etc. individually to view your history settings. Comments from here ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6873032](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6873032)) and here ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7804350](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7804350)) show that many users may not be aware that they had history turned on, so a centralised settings page will hopefully raise a bit more awareness.</comment>


Malaria Drug Helps Virus Patients Improve, in Small Study - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-malaria.html <comment><AUTHOR> Abstract from the actual, albeit small study:

Aims: Studies have indicated that chloroquine (CQ) shows antagonism against COVID-19 in vitro. However, evidence regarding its effects in patients is limited. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Main methods: From February 4 to February 28, 2020, 62 patients suffering from COVID-19 were diagnosed and admitted to Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University.

All participants were randomized in a parallel-group trial, 31 patients were assigned to receive an additional 5-day HCQ (400 mg/d) treatment, Time to clinical recovery (TTCR), clinical characteristics, and radiological results were assessed at baseline and 5 days after treatment to evaluate the effect of HCQ.

Key findings: For the 62 COVID-19 patients, 46.8% (29 of 62) were male and 53.2% (33 of 62) were female, the mean age was 44.7 (15.3) years. No difference in the age and sex distribution between the control group and the HCQ group. But for TTCR, the body temperature recovery time and the cough remission time were significantly shortened in the HCQ treatment group. Besides, a larger proportion of patients with improved pneumonia in the HCQ treatment group (80.6%, 25 of 32) compared with the control group (54.8%, 17 of 32).

Notably, all 4 patients progressed to severe illness that occurred in the control group. However, there were 2 patients with mild adverse reactions in the HCQ treatment group. Significance: Among patients with COVID-19, the use of HCQ could significantly shorten TTCR and promote the absorption of pneumonia.

[https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v2)

</comment><comment><USER2> Why are we not comparing infection and death rates from people who take hydroxychloroquine long-term (e.g. lupus patients) against non-takers of this drug with the same overall demographics to determine efficacy?

</comment><comment><USER3> Commentary from a pharma-oriented organic chemist:

[https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/31/co...](https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/31/comparing- chloroquine-trials)

TL;DR: better than the French but that's a very very low bar</comment>


Ditch Starbucks and work at the library - <AUTHOR> http://52tiger.net/ditch-starbucks-and-work-at-the-library/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+52Tiger+%2852+Tiger%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER3> Maybe we're lucky in Pittsburgh, but we have the best of both worlds at the main branch of the Carnegie Library. You can take a tour of where I work 2 or 3 days per week:

<http://www.clpgh.org/locations/main/tours/virtualtour/>

It's fantastic. It was built by Andrew Carnegie in 1895 and most of it is original. I get inspiration from the 20 foot ceilings and hand made ornamentation everywhere you look. They simply don't build things like this any more. There are quiet reading rooms, large tables, plenty of light, and oh yeah, a Crazy Mocha coffee shop in the building. I use a cell phone dongle on my laptop and most people know that email is my preferred communication method.

If I need a break, I can look at priceless artifacts in the Carnegie museum through the windows in the open stacks. Or just get the world's most disgusting hot dog at the "O" a block away. If I need inspiration, that'll either make me or break me.

One of these days, I'd like to make the claim that some incredible technology of the 21st century was conceived in an edifice borne out of the some of the best technology of the 19th century.

"My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth." - Andrew Carnegie at the Dedication of Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, November 5, 1895.

<comment><USER4> I used to work (a few years ago) at Sainte-Geneviève library (in Paris), and it was as you said: inspirational. You simply "had to" work once there. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioth%C3%A8que_Sainte- Genevi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblioth%C3%A8que_Sainte- Genevi%C3%A8ve)

<comment><USER5> Yes, I remember it well. It's next to the Pantheon. I remember getting those ancient, priceless books that couldn't be found anywhere else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In my (biased, but well-founded) experience, it comes down to a question of whether I'd rather be distracted by a cute girl or an old man getting reprimanded for looking at dirty pictures.

[bg: I really like libraries - worked at one in the suburbs in high school and have since moved to the city, which exaggerated the weird bits]

One thing that's worth noting: if you're on a college campus, a great place to find some legit quiet time is in _departmental_ libraries, especially the social sciences.

<comment><USER7> I came here to post this very thing. When I was working downtown I decided to go to the library during my lunch break. To my surprise there was almost nobody in the library actually reading. However, there were people on every single computer workstation. Glancing over the screens I could see a variety of pornographic images, facebook and myspace pages, and youtube. The library is a great resource, but I was completely pissed off that my tax dollars go to support that.

<comment><USER8> _"but I was completely pissed off that my tax dollars go to support that."_

People who can't afford a few hundred dollars for their own computer and the monthly bill for internet access? If you're looking at porn in the library, it's because you can't do it anywhere else, not because you're abusing tax dollars.

Would I like the poor, the disadvantaged, the isolated to be using the library resources my taxes pay for to advance their lives? Hell yeah. Am I going to begrudge them - let alone get pissed off about - them using it to do the things I can do on my phone, on my way to the well-paying job? Hell no.

<comment><USER7> This is completely and utterly asinine. Not only does this inappropriate use cause a hostile environment for people that legitimately want to use the library, but it lowers the number of available workstations for legitimate use. Just imagine your grandmother or little sister going down to the library to do some research and being uncomfortable in this environment. Think they are going to go back? No, of course they won't. But they will continue to pay tax to fund it. I don't understand how anybody could be 'OK' with this gross misuse of public funds.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps we should pay someone to decide what people are allowed to look at on those computers. Actually, that doesn't seem fair. Perhaps we should pay a committee to decide, and they can hand their decision to an IT department to implement. Well, I suppose adding another responsibility to the library's IT staff will mean we'll have to pay to add a position to the department so they're staffed well enough. There. Problem solved. Funds are no longer being misused. Right?

Because this is the internet, the above probably seems really snarky. It's meant to be a calm, civil anecdote to illustrate my point, but I apologize if it does seem hostile. In any case, I think preventing people from using their library computer time as they see fit 1) will result in upset users due to many false positives, 2) results in more ... "big-brother-ism", if you will, 3) will cost as much money as it saves.

<comment><USER10> I'd pay a small tax increase of .1 cents to abolish internet pornography in libraries. Call me a party pooper, but there's a time and place, and the place for pornography is definitely not public spaces.

I don't care if there's a nude painting on display, but I do care if there's some hard core humping on a computer monito in a public place where my child can see it... I mean he was just born, give him at least a few years innocence!

<comment><USER11> You make it sound so easy. Leaving aside the complicated legal question for determining what is and isn't considered pornography* , how would you go about _actually doing it_? Is internet filtering perfectly reliable? Would hiring several extra library employees specifically to watch the internet stations suffice? Library staff are already trying to prevent people from viewing pornography on the public computers, working within the resources available. Sheesh.

* At the library system I worked at, it was a matter of staff judgement.

<comment><USER10> I reread my comment after it had been downvoted and realized I was probably not clear at all. I don't care about the downvoting, but I wanted to clear it up so no one reading it felt persecuted or unappreciated.

When I said .1 cents I actually meant a _small amount_ but not a _trivial amount_ per paycheck multiplied by the tax paying population. So around 7 million per year. Not sure if that's significant enough, but it was just a figure off the top of my head meant to demonstrate that by paying a small amount _individually_ we could help the issue.

Anyways, I've over-explained it now... but I felt like a douche when I checked my threads this morning.

<comment><USER11> I understood where you're coming from. Unfortunately, tax increases for _any_ library services can be a hard sell.

Mainly, I just wanted to point out that it's a quintessential "Small Matter of Programming" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_matter_of_programming>) issue in library policy, and people who have never worked for a library can easily underestimate the difficulty. My response was a bit over-bristly, though, sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well, actually i did work at the library, but i changed for one reason to my local coffeeplace: taking and making calls.

Thats the one reason i've left the library. I tried a starbucks for working but he is right, the tables are not big enough etc, so i actually went to a local coffeeshop and talked to the owner about me liking to work at his place.

I made a deal with him, i did all the quick-wins of online advertisement for him, (it's in germany so: qype, facebook, twitter, simple page with a fair amount of seo). For this i got my special table, big enough for everything i would ever need(i could easily place 2 macbooks + papers on it) + a coffee and bagle flatrate for a year.

I think we both made a good deal.

<comment><USER13> I wonder if there's a market for a coffee shop that has small, private office spaces available, perhaps available for free or for an hourly rent.

These might be the size of a typical restaurant booth (or a bit larger), but would be enclosed spaces that allow you to block out noise and distractions.

It wouldn't even need to be a coffee shop; maybe something like a capsule hotel for workspaces.

<comment><USER14> No. A bunch of people tried that over the last couple years in Chicago; all of them went bust. There are too many viable alternatives to "rental cubby" to charge enough. And coffee shops of all forms are almost sure-fire money losers.

<comment><USER15> _And coffee shops of all forms are almost sure-fire money losers._

I'd never heard that before. Is Starbucks an exception? Does their volume make the difference?

<comment><USER14> For any piece of real estate that is ideal as a coffee shop setting, one of Starbucks, Peets, Caribou, or Seattle's Best is bound to be the top bidder. The exceptions to this rule are dense metro areas where virtually every corner retail space is an ideal coffee shop location; the problem with this exception is that these spots are spectacularly expensive and serve markets already saturated with coffee shops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have a 3G/4G modem with unlimited use (from Clear), and no longer consider WiFi availability as an important part of the decision making process of where to work. I'm currently camped in the desert in Southern California, 35 miles from the nearest "big" city (Brawley, which is not very big, but it does have a Walmart).

But, I never have been able to work in coffee shops. I can't think long enough with all the distractions to do anything of real value. Email, sure. Browsing reddit, no problem. But, actual work? No way. Library would probably work, though I've only tried it a few times when I was in Canada and didn't have 3G; it didn't work very well, as the Internet was always too slow or broken.

<comment><USER17> In the past I have lived or died by Starbucks and Caribou - driving around Omaha or some random town in Colorado trying to find public internet access. Now that I have a phone with national internet access, truly mobile internet is going to completely change how I work when I travel.

The rest stops with wifi have been fun finds in the past. There's one 50 miles west of Omaha for instance with decent wireless internet - I got a lot of odd looks sitting at a picnic table with my Macbook doing emails for two hours. Now, I can do that anywhere!

<comment><USER16> My Kindle was priceless in Canada. It has free 3G web browsing, even internationally...so, when I was stopping for the night, I'd do a search for "free wifi (city-name)", and punch the resulting address into the GPS. The Kindle browser is completely unusable for normal browsing (it's like browsing from 1994), but it's acceptable for that one query.

I've found that rest stops with WiFi are rarely in working condition. I'm not sure why it's so hard for public hotspots to be kept operational, but apparently it is, as I'd say 75% of the ones at unattended locations are simply not working. I've learned to never _expect_ WiFi to work, even if it is advertised on the sign or on the website or whatever. The same is true of campgrounds, 80% of which claim to have WiFi but only about 40% of which actually have usable speed and reliability. I'm tempted, being a nerd, to just go around fixing campground networks, free of charge. But, usually, I just use my 3G/4G modem. I'm getting 500kbps-1Mbps here in the desert, which is completely usable.

<comment><USER17> Wifi is indeed usually atrocious at rest stops, which is why the one in Nebraska was such a find (my standard is 'works well for 8 bit VNC'). I find they usually ' _work_ ', technically, but the signal quality is very poor.

Some hotels have been similarly ruined for me by lack of acceptable internet service. As an entrepreneur, I'm never on a real vacation and thus a reliable, stable, reasonably fast connection is even more important than working plumbing. If a 3G device can take care of that, it's quite a relief. I always dreaded that I would sign in at a hotel, go to my room, and find the internet connection was lousy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I work out the Columbia University libraries, although I'm not a student. For $500/year you can become a Friend of the Libraries and have access to all the libraries. It's a bargain if you consider how much you would spend at a coffee shop. Also, like the article says, fewer distractions and much more space.

<comment><USER19> I'm surprised they offer such a service. The Columbia U. library is notorious for being stingy with access. As a prospective grad student visiting the campus, they told me that I could have a once-time free pass and that if I ever wanted to get in again at some point during the rest of my life, I would have to become a student.

They even refused admittance to a friend of mine who was philosophy PhD student at U Penn. She was surprised because it is pretty normal to go to other campus libraries to do research for dissertations.

<comment><USER20> >The Columbia U. library is notorious for being stingy with access.

$500/year is generous? It would probably be cheaper to formally enroll and take no classes.

<comment><USER21> I suspect you need at least one class to be formally enrolled, and that would apparently be a minimum cost of $950: [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sfs/docs/University_Tuition_And_F...](http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sfs/docs/University_Tuition_And_Fees/tuition- fees-10-11.html)

<comment><USER22> So your saying as a bonus to the library your first class is only $450! :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Best thing I've ever done. I work for a university and happen to live a few blocks away, so I will go to their library to work on my side projects. They close at 2AM and I've found a nice room there where undergrads don't seem to want to wander, so it's a perfect place to work.

It's quiet, and I've been conditioned from years of schooling that when I'm sitting at a table at the library, I ought to be working and not slacking. And, I can access journals, news archives, Safari/O'Reilly books, and all sorts of other useful resources while on the library wireless network.

I can still even get a cup of coffee at the coffee shop in the library for cheaper than Starbucks, and it comes right out of my paycheck.

</comment><comment><USER24> Great point. For the less mature, I think the library helps strip away the pretense a bit too. Sipping lattes and being on Twitter seem to go together. Being at the library and doing real work seem to go together too.

</comment><comment><USER25> My wife actually works at and for the library. Trust me when I say, you definitely don't want to work there. The amount of riff raff that hangs around that joint is just not worth it. People get trespassed, throw fits, steal DVDs, look at all manner of inappropriate material, and even straight up make scenes. The bathrooms are often vandalized with bodily excrement and the couches, as comfy as they may be, are also covered in the same if the cleaners haven't come that day. There are plenty of other coworking spaces you could join or support. Do yourself a favor, check them out.

<comment><USER26> That'll vary a lot by library and surrounding community. I've been in central libraries that were clean and didn't have anything worse happening than children being told to shush.

It'd probably worth visiting and checking one's local library out if you need a remote place to work. Spend a couple of hours - leisurely find some books, read a magazine or two - and see whether you're comfortable there. If so, _then_ try coming in with your laptop.

<comment><USER27> University libraries are generally well kept. They are better funded than the public libraries, and (often) being private property they have more discretion as to who they can throw out. Unfortunately the advent of magnetized key cards seems to be resulting in an increase in the number of libraries that require you to "swipe in".

However, you'll have to find the quiet corners because roudy college kids can make the main areas distracting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Starbucks still charges for WiFi? I thought they did away with that.

In any case, I always got around it by pretending to be an iPhone. :)

<comment><USER29> WiFi has been free at Starbucks in the USA since July 2010. Before that, a registered Starbucks card got you free WiFi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Working in a library is second to none, but the advantage Starbucks has over the library is the late closing. University library hours are one thing, but regular ol' public libraries close too early.

<comment><USER28> And open too late.

<comment><USER31> And don't let you have coffee.

<comment><USER14> That sucks; you can have coffee in the Chicago and Oak Park libraries.

<comment><USER32> The library in Quebec city won't even let you have a bottle of water open on your table, forget coffee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've tried working in the library on a number of occasions. The one bad thing I've discovered is that the WIFI sucks at pretty much every public library I've worked at. And I think that's a sample size of 4 or 5 libraries. I live almost right next to the main branch of the San Francisco Public Library, and every time I've gone there to work, I've left after a while because the Internet was too slow or didn't work quite right.

So if I want to get any coding done, and need access to the Internet, I have found the library to be a pretty bad place. If I'm just doing some quiet reading, the library can be great.

<comment><USER34> I've worked from two libraries near my house quite a bit as well as a couple sandwich shops. (I can't stand the smell of burning coffee.)

The sandwich shops are less distracting to me. All the conversations and background noise blend together for me. I try to avoid rush times and busy days so I'm not tying up a table when they need them.

The libraries are ok but have some problems. Neither really get many homeless guys but both have a lot of kids, especially in the afternoon. With big open floorplans, that's more noise than I can ignore. The availability of books sometimes distracts me, but to be honest, the book collections are now so old and unimpressive that it's not a big deal.

The other problem is that the libraries block a number of things on their network, like most webmail, instant messengers, and most VPNs. I'm still able to use https for GMail and my work tunnel so I can work there, but it seems unnecessarily restrictive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Previous discussion of a similar post: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=758458>

<comment><USER26> Nice catch - there's good discussion there, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> ++. I don't know why more people don't do this. The library is a great place to work - for free - and it comes with built in offline distractions for when you need to step away from a problem. I used to spend a lot of time at Columbia University's Butler library.

Libraries are also a great place to get internet access. I spent a lot of time in local libraries while traveling around New Zealand.

<comment><USER36> The main branch of the public library in Christchurch explicitly offers free wifi even when it's closed ... that's hard to beat (if you can find anywhere to sit).

<comment><USER37> It's capped to ~few hundred meg. At least when I was there for ~2 months a couple years back. It's really easy to get around though.

About the "if you can find anywhere to sit". I've never been in a library that was so full. I found that upstairs in the glassed off area to be the best. Got a lot done there.

NZ really does have some great libraries. Whangerei, Wellington and Christchurch being examples.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Or a hacker space. Lots of like minded people to share ideas with, help, and be helped by.

My favorite is Hacker Dojo in Mountain View. What's yours?

</comment><comment><USER39> I've tried to work at libraries in the past, but more often than not they block port 22, which means no workie for me.

Yes, I could set up a proxy server on EC2 or something. Or I could go to a coffee shop.

</comment><comment><USER40> A few years ago when I was trying to start something in Boston I was working in the Public Library but ran into the same problem with the homeless. I wrote about it a little tongue-in-cheek. I was younger and maybe a little looser with my words:

[http://topstartup.com/2007/04/30/the-homeless-problem-at- the...](http://topstartup.com/2007/04/30/the-homeless-problem-at-the-boston- public-library/)

It was later picked up by the Boston Globe [http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008...](http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/06/15/free_to_all/)

</comment><comment><USER41> This is spectacular for small towns or smaller regional libraries but have you ever been to a large city library? It brings out some of the weirdest people.

Collegiate libraries in my experience are nice, but can get crowded at times.

<comment><USER14> I spent the first year of my company working out of a big city library. It worked great.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=758458>

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I wondered this as well when I lived in Seattle. The public library system in that city is phenomenal. Many of the small branches have nice modern designs and you can always go to the Central Library which has tons of desk space, power outlets, and window seating. Internet access wasn't blazing but I never had issue with blocked ports nor was it ever "too slow to do work".

Not sure about all the branches but the Capitol Hill branch has a decent sized meeting room which a monthly Tech Startup meetup used to use (though that was 3 years ago now).

</comment><comment><USER43> I _like_ the distractions of a good coffee shop. I like being someplace with music playing and people wandering through. It provides engagement for the parts of my brain I don't use when working.

My favorite coffee shops are loud enough that I'm not distracted by other people's conversations. Either the music is loud enough to drown them out, or enough people are talking at once that it all blends into a meaningless susurration. A place which is too quiet--like most libraries, actually-- amplifies distractions.

</comment><comment><USER44> I work at a large public library that actively encourages work of all kinds within.

Free wifi, power points for recharging laptops (indoors and in the gardens surrounding), free bookable meeting rooms, designated quiet and non-quiet areas, a cafe, and even a recording studio.

Libraries are torch bearers of civilisation, and in an age when Alexandria has been reborn in an ethereal form, they are devoted to sustaining culture and knowledge in whatever manner is required.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'll echo the same as most other posters: Internet is the limiting factor.

I love working there. No distractions is a great way to shut out the world and focus. My local libraries limited internet access to an hour a day. If 3g was cheaper in Canada, I'd just man up and get a stick or tether to my cell, but I'd need a line of credit to make that happen.

</comment><comment><USER46> That's how we got started. Our university let us book private rooms for 2 hours in a row, so we reserved 6 hours every day (we're 3). We did that for 3 months. The library manager thought we were doing some class project and helped us get a good room every day :)

</comment><comment><USER47> For the introverted moonlighting hacker who doesn't get out much except for the coffee shop, libraries are great for getting a ton of stuff done.

However, for social interaction and meeting people once in a while the coffee shop is a good change and/or alternative. Taking breaks more often works and being strict with your time management works well, but you have to be strict when your in the coffee ship from my experience. Meet lots of new interesting people too.

I like both, it will depend on my mood too. I say use both if you can. Where I live the coffee shop (not a big chain), is much more convenient though and mostly filled with students from the local university.

</comment><comment><USER48> I tried, I honestly tried. The result was they have really uncomfortable chairs and the bandwidth is really bad. The silence and concentration is good but I have a headset anyway.

The chairs are not really a deal breaker, but the bandwidth totally is.

<comment><USER26> Yep. The big take-away from this thread and the related one linked above is that libraries vary a _lot_ , and you'll have to try yours out to see how it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> It doesn't have to be either Starbucks or a library. It can be both.

<comment><USER32> I would definitely go to a library that serves lattes and pastry ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> That's ok provided that you have a local library. In the UK at present there is a concerted campaign on behalf of the government and local councils to shut libraries down.

<comment><USER51> And just at the time when I discovered a nice comic books selection at my local library (Wimbledon), for when you're "working".

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Unfortunately, I echo many of the reservations of working at my local public library: can't make calls, horrible hours of operation, etc.

I'll add one more thing: horrible network filtering.

<comment><USER14> Where do you people live? Our libraries open early in the morning and close at 9PM.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> This debate is exactly why I'm looking at co-working. I've yet to try it, but the local shop (ideafield Tampa) is only $99/month + a $25 one-time desk fee. That's not bad.

</comment><comment><USER54> I prefer to find a nice quite place at the local college (which I graduated from years ago). Its got highspeed and unrestricted internet, since its a learning environment its generally distraction free and usually somewhat quite. And no one frowns at you if you've spread paperwork, plans, books, a laptop, etc. all over a desk or table. And I for one seem to be highly productive doing work in a learning environment.

</comment><comment><USER55> Good reminder to finally go try this... but honestly, it is the phone usage that's worried me. I hop on Skype many times a day, and the overall noise- floor at a coffee shop makes it possible to do so without bothering anyone (I use earbuds, so hearing isn't generally an issue). I think our library has a nice outdoor area though.. might be okay to take calls out there.

</comment><comment><USER56> I find that one of the most productive places for me are hotel rooms. For some reason I seem to get a lot of work done in a hotel room in a foreign country. If you need to make a living while working on your project, a Sales Engineer type role that has you traveling a lot (trains/planes aren't bad for concentrating as well) is in my experience a great way to do that.

</comment><comment><USER57> Combine the two and work at your local Barnes and Noble - they often have a coffee shop and areas for you to spread out and read/work/etc

</comment><comment><USER58> Many academic libraries are open to the public and have better accommodations. I live in Boston so it's academic library heaven.

<comment><USER59> I still go to my University library. It was a fantastic place to work when I was there, and has only gotten better. There's a nice atmosphere - people are generally working, but having a laugh and enjoying being together too. There's no music but my own headphones, and the WiFi is free. I'm surrounded by books on any subject I may need through the day.

My local library however, is drab, too quiet and I feel out of place with my lap top working there. Like I'm being watched for doing something odd. I get more distractions as the noise level is less consistent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> This holiday season I was in State College, PA and the local Schlow Library was a great place to work and much quieter and more comfortable than the coffee shop. - <http://www.schlowlibrary.org/> \- Since then I try to find a library when I am on the road.

</comment><comment><USER61> Libraries are also available just about everywhere in the US. I was bike touring this summer and was doing a little freelancing on my netbook. I could stop in a good library in just about any town of 500+ (and definitely a county seat) and pick up wifi & charge everything in a power outlet.

</comment><comment><USER62> Boston public is a fantastic place to be productive. Beautiful structure. People are very respectful of the 'this is a library, stfu' rule, free wifi, and in the summer they host live music in the courtyard. One of the most laid back and under-estimated places in the entire city.

<comment><USER63> I work often at the Bates Hall. Spacious, beautiful tables, respectful atmosphere -- even when crowded it's remarkably quiet. The Johnson building is much less appealing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I have the same problem today that I had back in college- no caffeine at the library. I love working at the library, especially university libraries, but I need a steady stream of caffeine in order to do my best work. If they had a coffee maker at the UCLA library, I'd be sold.

</comment><comment><USER65> I did some work at the main branch of the Chicago Public Library yesterday. It was okay, but full of homeless people and not really all that quiet.

The Lincoln Park Whole Foods is my new favorite spot. I work all afternoon, have a really healthy dinner, then do some writing over a wine flight.

</comment><comment><USER66> Before I got a proper office, I'd have loved to have worked at my local library when I needed a break from working in the house. Only problem: the library (like most UK ones, I imagine) won't let members of the public plug in laptops for power. :o(

</comment><comment><USER67> I like the library over Starbucks (or other coffee shops) but our local county libraries aren't open 7 days a week anymore due to budget cuts.

I'll have to try the local community college library though -- I hadn't really considered it in the past.

</comment><comment><USER68> Internet speed can also be an issue, for good or bad. I'll hit the coffee shop if I'm syncing with a server regularly or know I'll be researching a bunch, but the I'll hit the library if I want the internet to feel like dial-up.

<comment><USER69> exactly, the library is great and super quiet, but I was there today and the internet was horrendous...

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I personally did this for over a year (Springfield, Missouri) in our kickass library downtown. Great coffee shop nearby, quiet, plenty of books (doh) and magazines to read as break entertainment and just fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER71> I actually like to work in establishment that is weird amalgamation of coffeshop and rock club. During normal day hours it is almost empty and distraction free, but you can distract yourself if you want to.

</comment><comment><USER72> The internet at the Minneapolis Public Libraries block port 22 and filter the internet. No looking at Flickr for you!

The Minneapolis Public Library merged with the county a year ago, and I'm not sure if the policy changed.

</comment><comment><USER73> This may seem radical but... how about working in an actual office? You can get your own office. Room to spread out, no noise. You can still go out to Starbucks in your break, to get that vibe feeling.

<comment><USER74> Libraries don't charge thousands of dollars per month to rent your workspace, that's certainly one reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I have occasionally brought my laptop to the library near my office to work. However if I'm at home and want to head out, the nearest coffee shop is 4 blocks away and the nearest library is 20.

</comment><comment><USER76> My bank has a little lobby with a coffee machine where I and a couple others hang out and work. I like to stand up while I work and they have a couple taller tables that work nicely for me.

<comment><USER77> Are they happy with this, or have they just not noticed? I'd feel bad about using another business's resources unless they explicitly allow it.

<comment><USER26> Well, it's his bank, so the lobby really is for his use to _some_ degree. Also, I'd have to think they'd pay attention to who hangs out in their lobby repeatedly and for any length of time, if only for security reasons. (Or I'd have to hope.)

As long as he's a customer and doesn't seem to pose a problem, they probably don't mind. (And bankers would do something if they perceived a problem, if only by having the security guard hang out very close to the people in question.) If they haven't _noticed_ that a few people work in the lobby, then those people really must not be impinging on anyone there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> I've been working from the British Library in London lately, and it's been great. If you're working at a library, though, please do consider making a donation. Sure it's free, but...

</comment><comment><USER79> This post is neglecting to list the most obvious reason of all to work at the library - a wealth of reference information (in...gasp!...something you can hold and read in any light!)

</comment><comment><USER80> I'm going to take this advice. The math alone tell me I could afford 2-5 new startups a year with the money I waste on the impulse purchases of food/drinks.

</comment><comment><USER81> I would agree with working at library. But I haven't been able to overcome one notable issue:

Hours: Saturday 10AM - 5PM Sunday 12PM - <USER2>

Saturday is a possibility but Sunday is a joke.

<comment><USER82> I work for the New York Public Library, and believe me, we wish we could be open all day every day.

Last year, city budget cuts took the libraries in Queens and Brooklyn from 6 day service to 5, and we managed to keep NYPL open 6 days, but with reduced hours.

That said, there's a lot of people who freelance out of our libraries, and as strange as it sounds, one guy launched his hedge fund out of our business library (we have a few free Bloomberg terminals).

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> May I recommend coworking. It's the best of the library and Starbucks with the added bonus of great networking opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER84> Libraries are terrible for one reason: the hours are terrible. End of story.

</comment><comment><USER85> ...while they still exist.

</comment><comment><USER86> Stay at Starbucks. I'll take the Library & keep it to myself.

</comment><comment><USER87> Don't go to the library. I don't want people taking my seat.

</comment><comment><USER88> It sounds like people need to open more hacker work spaces.

</comment><comment><USER89> love the idea, in theory. in practice, i'd have to drive to library, but can walk to any number of coffee shops or book stores instead.

much easier to execute for a student.

</comment><comment><USER90> we conduct our monthly usability studies at the library in two adjacent study rooms. quiet and no bullshit internet, skype screen sharing is no problem :)

</comment><comment><USER91> good article! more accurate to say that libraries are different, better in some ways, worse in others. take advantage of this fact.

</comment><comment><USER92> or you could just work at home...

</comment><comment><USER93> My local branch of the SF Peninsula library (Redwood Shores if you have to know) has a cafe with wifi and plenty of wall sockets. Nice place to work.

As others noted, hacker work spaces are also good.

</comment><comment><USER94> "one time a woman asked me to troubleshoot her connectivity issues. Sorry, lady, but I'm trying to work here."

I stopped reading at that point.</comment>


Ryan Dahl's node.js chat server  - <AUTHOR> http://nodejs.org:8001/chat.html

<comment><USER2> is this the source?

<https://github.com/ry/node_chat>

it's been up for a while as demo/example, or am I confused. Deja Vu post.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks! This is cool. I didn't know socket.io was that simple.

<comment><USER4> I like the old school JS in the source, no jquery needed.

<comment><USER5> It's sad that it's considered "old school" because it doesn't use jQuery.

<comment><USER6> I haven't seen any examples of Node paired with jQuery. Do most people just use vanilla JS with Node?

<comment><USER2> I think you use what works best for your problem set taking into account your expertise. I'm using (no demo available yet) nodejs, express, socket.io, and yQuery together. There's a jQuery wrapper out there for use with node, I think. jQuery makes my life easier on the display side, but I can see how if I had real-deal-holyfield javascript chops I'd gravitate to DIY or some slimmer framework.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I guess, this has taken "minimum viable" to the next level.

<comment><USER8> I think it's more like "minimum visible"</comment></comment>


Journey to a $15M Run Rate at Teachable (SaaS) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/teachable/scaling-teachable-part-2-our-journey-to-a-15m-run-rate-a9305d772e5e <comment><AUTHOR> Happy to answer any questions people might have here - I've been around since the ~12k annual run rate days and have had a front row seat to all the scaling challenges referenced</comment>


Big ol' ball o' JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://bradfrost.com/blog/post/big-ol-ball-o-javascript/ <comment><USER3> > > In this symbiotic relationship, each party has a secure job with a well- > defined role

> Historically, different languages suggested different roles.

Otherwise known as silos. In my experience, front-end developers and back-end developers not working together but each "role" merely throwing their results over the wall and expecting the other side to do whatever it is they're doing is a huge problem. We supposedly have DevOps but we don't even have sufficient collaboration within the Dev part of that equation.

None of these roles delivers a usable product or solution to a problem on its own.

CSS-in-JS or defining styles at a component level is not a problem per se either. It can become a problem if there's a mismatch between the document structure envisioned by a designer and the component architecture devised by a developer. Component architectures aren't foreign to designers though, the perhaps most prominent example ironically being Brad's own Atomic Design paradigm.

Just yesterday I saw this talk about "Angular for Designers" by Stephen Fluin, which advocates making JavaScript applications, of the Angular variety in this case, more accessible to designers: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP- fNM8OITI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP-fNM8OITI)

This in my opinion is the way forward rather than artificially setting up boundaries between roles defined by the languages they use.

<comment><USER4> A team of full stack devs tend towards whatever they fancy when handing out JIRAs, and the separation is still usually front or back-end. It becomes an unofficial silo anyway. The full stack advantage is for sudden departures: the project doesn't completely stop because people can fill in with mediocre code. A disadvantage is that you don't have specialists and risk more technical debt that can't be enforced by linters/testing.

The reason this debate will never end is because it's never anchored to how the business sells and delivers products. Full stack is better for shorter product life cycles. Specialists are better for longer-running products and monoliths. Code quality really doesn't matter if the product disappears.

The key evidence to me that full stack is mostly BS is that it only crops up in web roles. Outside of web dev, people are still silo'd -- security people and systems developers aren't pulled off-task to go work on the company website. We're completely fine accepting their responsibilities in terms of the product. If you're a front or back-end web dev though, there's this constant pressure of "why haven't you learned to full stack yet?"

<comment><USER3> The early days of web development up to roughly the end of the 1990s technically were full stack. It's just nobody called it that at the time.

It's only by the early 2000s and the advent of architecturally complex, heavily back-end-leaning frameworks such as J2EE or JSP that front-end and back-end diverged. These frameworks had their benefit compared with the fast- and-loose way web apps often were developed before but they also introduced new problems.

Apart from inherent architectural issues these frameworks introduced a new crop of developers to web development that was at least somewhat averse towards how front-end development is done on the web. To this day, I still know developers who loathe JavaScript, CSS and HTML because "they're not the proper way of doing things".

Furthermore, with traditional desktop applications you also usually have a full stack attitude, although again it isn't called "full stack" in that case. Desktop application developers are typically expected to be able to write both UI code as well as business logic and database access code. Probably that's because with desktop applications there's usually only a single language you're dealing with.

<comment><USER4> Desktop and web development also got to ignore responsive design for a long time, and that revolution added serious complexity to HTML/CSS/JS and browser engines. You could slap a minimum desktop resolution on your product and call it a day.

<comment><USER5> HTML/CSS were engineered to be device-independent and to separate styling from the underlying semantics, from day one. Properly understood, "responsive design" is a triviality; all good design is responsive design.

<comment><USER4> >HTML/CSS were engineered to be device-independent and to separate styling from the underlying semantics, from day one.

These were business trends, not mechanical limitations.

>Properly understood, "responsive design" is a triviality; all good design is responsive design.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Responsive design means for a page to respond to different viewport constraints by re-arranging elements and making rules for different breakpoints that you choose to support. None of that is trivial unless this is another "it's not a hard CS problem so it's trivial" argument.

<comment><USER6> Re-arranging elements optimally into different sized containers is clearly _not trivial_.

It is an instance of the bin-packing problem, which is _NP-complete_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "I could ask my mailman to guess what background-color: blue does and he'd probably guess right"

Mind you, ask your mailman what

"div.a > .b:nth-child(3n+2) { margin: -5px -1px -5px -10px; }"

is supposed to do and you might get a different response.

<comment><USER8> And then looking at it the other way, the equivalent JS is:

        backgroundColor: "blue"

which as an isolated bit of code is no more or less understandable than the CSS.

The problem I've had with CSS is answering the question, "If I change this code, what will happen?" It is so easy for the answer to be "random other things break" that keeping CSS organised is really hard. At least with CSS-in- TS a "Find all references" will tell you where the style is used.

<comment><USER9> You can organize using a class hierarchy, which make it possible to have separate rules for .foo button and .bar button. To over-rule something you make it more specific like .foo form button, .bar form button

<comment><USER8> I think the core of the problem is that CSS is applied to the whole page, so it makes thinking about local changes hard.

CSS Modules[1] tries to help by introducing "local" CSS, then there are other approaches like BEM[2] that bake a namespace system into the class names, then there's OOCSS[3] that tries to break it down into separate .foo and .bar "objects" a bit like your example, then others going in the opposite direction like Atomic CSS[4] that try to make all the CSS rules so narrow that it is OK that they are global, then have multiple class names used on each HTML element to make the usage local.

Really, it is quite hard, lots of smart people trying to make it work.

Personally I've found the approach of CSS-in-TypeScript the easiest to work with, since I'm very familiar with TypeScript and it allow re-using the same tools to solve different problems (and my usecase wouldn't be a good fit for static HTML in the first place, so depending on JS for rendering is OK), but I can see how people not familiar with TypeScript might prefer a different approach to handling the complexity.

[1] [https://medium.com/front-end-developers/css-modules- solving-...](https://medium.com/front-end-developers/css-modules-solving-the- challenges-of-css-at-scale-85789980b04f) [2] [http://getbem.com/introduction/](http://getbem.com/introduction/) [3] [https://www.keycdn.com/blog/oocss](https://www.keycdn.com/blog/oocss) [4] [https://acss.io/](https://acss.io/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The author is advocating for a departure from "everything is a flavor of javascript" to "it's ok to have front end designers only specialize in HTML/CSS".

I think the argument could be made that, ironically, the "everything is Javascript" is a direct result of having front end specialists that only have experience with one Turing complete language, being JS.

When Node came out, one of the biggest selling points was that front end designers would be familiar with the toolchain and backend language, and could become more full stack.

SPA frameworks came out when UX people decided page refreshes were ugly and slow, so they took HTML and turned it into a template language for JS instead of semantic markup.

Finally, in general, the trend of pushing web interfaces far past what HTML/CSS were designed to do by the front end community (who, rightly, see potential in their platform) is why more "power" is required, and why a Turing complete language is needed for an ecosystem originally intended to use forms as the only means of I/O.

<comment><USER11> > I think the argument could be made that, ironically, the "everything is > Javascript" is a direct result of having front end specialists that only > have experience with one Turing complete language, being JS.

Well, and HTML+CSS: [https://github.com/elitheeli/stupid- machines/](https://github.com/elitheeli/stupid-machines/)

But yeah, your point stands.

<comment><USER10> I should have learned by now to always double check before assuming something isn't Turing complete!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Full stack devs not taking the front end seriously is definitely a thing. It's like the icing on the coding cake, and they tend to get frustrated when they find out it is a very hard thing to do, mostly because CSS is very unintuitive. You can get 80% of the way there with an afternoon of training, and then the remaining 20% takes like 5 years of experience and IE will still f you up from time to time.

But this completely jumps the shark when equating negligence of the front end to gender bias. Basically the author is pissed and vindictive, but gets to keep thinking of themselves as the good person, because the objects of wrath aren't just CS majors who know how to tree sort and don't care if the button looks flat or 3D, but are morally evil people who are the source of oppression in the world.

I have to take CSS seriously or I'm a woman-hating racist? Look man, I just like computers and building things.

<comment><USER13> They assume things are easy, because they would be if CSS was a properly engineered solution. But it isn't. Having to wait for flexbox to be able to easily vertically center stuff proves the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Quoted from the article:

> We need to address the undervaluing of HTML and CSS for what it is: gender > bias.

I find it baffling how some people can make such ridiculous statements to fit their narrative and insecurities.

<comment><USER15> He's quoting someone else though he is agreeing with them. The full quote is:

> We need to address the undervaluing of HTML and CSS for what it is: gender > bias. Even though we wouldn't have computer science without pioneering > women, interloping men have claimed it for themselves. Anything less than > 'real programming' is now considered trivial, silly, artsy, female. That > attitude needs to eat a poisoned ass.

And it's from this link: [http://www.heydonworks.com/article/reluctant- gatekeeping-the...](http://www.heydonworks.com/article/reluctant-gatekeeping- the-problem-with-full-stack)

I admit I don't understand the point. I haven't experienced this perception of HTML/CSS as something "trivial, silly, artsy, female". It's possible though that this does exist? In some places? I mean people do have a tendency to think of what they're good at as superior to the things they're bad at...and loads of programmers are really bad at HTML/CSS.

<comment><USER16> More obnoxious than the "gender bias" claim is the idea that because computer science as a field owes its entire existence to female pioneers (leaving aside whether there's any sane sense in which that's true), men who now participate in it today are "interlopers". This is the first instance I've seen of the logic of "cultural appropriation" being applied to genders instead of races; women invented this, so it's immoral for men to participate! Uh, no it isn't, and fuck you.

<comment><USER17> > women invented this, so it's immoral for men to participate

I don't necessarily agree with argument in its entirety, but it isn't about the mere participation of men. It is about the exclusion of women. Very different things.

<comment><USER16> No, that's not what it means to "interlope" (the original author's word choice). It means to intrude in a space where you are not supposed to be.

<comment><USER17> I was looking at the phrase "claim for themselves", which I took to mean excluding women.

I see what you mean by "interlope", that is a good point. That is a rather poor word choice from the quoted article (by Hayden). I find it hard to believe that Brad, being a man himself, would argue that men can't participate in the field.

<comment><USER16> Sure, it's obvious madness, and it's hard to believe that anyone who says it (or quotes it approvingly) could really believe it. But that's basically what I expect out of any feminist commentary on any topic. The entire space is littered with claims like this - ones so patently false or morally outrageous that one thinks that surely, _surely_ , the author doesn't really believe what they're saying. Stuff like that there exist no innate biological differences in ability between the genders, or that pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to exert control of women's bodies, or that being falsely accused of rape is less likely than being struck by lightning, or that Otto Warmbier deserves no public sympathy for being tortured to disablement and death by North Korea because he was a beneficiary of white privilege.

I've long since given up hope of trying to parse the madness. I sincerely don't understand what motivates people to say these ridiculous things, and as a consequence I sincerely can't tell when somebody _means_ what they say to be figurative and when they are expressing a genuinely-held (but mad) belief completely literally. Given the alarming frequency with which these sorts of claims in fact become accepted truths among feminists that get repeated over and over, I err on the side of assuming the latter.

Hayden used the word, and did so in a context where there was no obvious way to interpret it as hyperbole or metaphor. In the absence of any other possible interpretation, I'm going to assume that he means exactly what he said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The thing that makes HTML and CSS different from Javascript is that they are _declarative languages_.

The execution engine is elsewhere and the 'code' is really configuration for the HTML/CSS engines. Same thing for SQL which is another language he mentions.

There are many advantages to this. First, of all it's much less error prone to write, and second you don't have to run any code to predict it's output.[1]

If you pull the markup languages into a procedural framework, you lose many advantages.

[1] Testing becomes a matter of seeing the results in a browser, which is not to say it's trivial. The downside of declarative languages, is that it can be hard to debug when the engine does something unexpected (remember ie6?).

</comment><comment><USER19> > Any code that can be written will eventually be written in JavaScript.

Well that's a conscious decision the developer makes.

You don't _need_ to use any of this.

If, as a beginner, you just want to write an HTML doc with some styles - <USER2> still works.

However, if as a beginner you jump into a Webpack / React / CSS-in-JS setup... well you're going to have a hard time.

Complaining that "that's the way things are going" seems to pass the buck. If you don't want to go that way, then don't!

<comment><USER20> > If you don't want to go that way, then don't!

You will if you want a job. Noone's hiring devs who only know html and css and don't want to learn anything else.

<comment><USER21> Brad Frost clearly doesn't want to learn anything else and apparently people keep hiring him.

<comment><USER20> There are the odd few, including Harry Roberts, but they're the exceptions. By and large, you're not getting into the industry knowing only html and css when (given the amount of easy-to-access online resource) it's so easy to find devs who will learn those plus more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Isn't the idea with full stack devs that you might have an organisation that isn't large enough to have fully specialised staff? Or that some part of the code needs some special skill eg SQL but not enough for a full time specialist?

Also it's useful to have utility players who can fill in gaps in any position.

<comment><USER23> > Also it's useful to have utility players who can fill in gaps in any > position

You end up in the "width vs depth" debate if you go along these lines. It is debatable whether it is better to know 60% of all worlds or >95% of one world. (Assumption: It is extremely rare finding people who know >95% of all worlds).

However, I agree with your point that full-stack is the way to go if you are limited on resources (small orgs).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Agree with some of the insights in this article. Basically in frontend /full stack jobs generally the only interview questions are related to javascript -- kind of assuming that it's the hardest/most important part of the job. But CSS and layout stuff is its own skillset imo. Thankfully I feel more comfortable in the js coding aspect of things so this never burns me when seeking employment.

</comment><comment><USER25> I remember reading the original article and discussing with colleagues at work. The premise just seems wrong to me:

* CSS-in JS isn't gatekeeping; there are huge benefits to breaking the global CSS model, which these articles seem to ignore, which is surprising to say the least

* the market reality is that most companies are better off with 'full-stack' people - the need adaptable people, who can get things done, albeit not always with the perfect approach

To ignore these and instead point to gender bias seems bizarre.

</comment><comment><USER26> I agree that front end and back end should be treated as separate parts of the system (I'm not a fan of isomorphic JavaScript or server-rendered front ends).

But I think that it's possible to have really good full stack developers and there is a lot of value in having one on the team. Every project needs at least one person who understands every major part of the code; the more detailed their understanding is, the better it is for the project.

</comment><comment><USER27> He's not a frontend developer, he's a designer, who happens to do a bit of javascript. That's fine, but it obviously colored what he thinks about full- stack developers, and frankly it's a load of bull.

First the idea that the term fullstack is somehow a capitalist conspiracy to maximize profits over the poor developer is beyond misguided. Fullstack development came to be because of the rising popularity of SPAs and the shifting of what was once strictly backend development into client side (templates, routing, etc...).

Not all code is the same, but the separation to backend and frontend is artificial - MVC in js or in C# is the same no matter what language you write it in.

I'm a proud full-stacker and would hate to work in an organization the article paints as paradise - a place where I'll have to wait for someone to write my web-services or for the DBA to add a column to a database. In fact it is that enterprise way of thinking that made me, and I think many people, prefer fullstack work.

To me full-stack is about accountability, it's about not having someone else become a bottleneck to a feature you are in charge of, it's about the ability to see a feature from start to finish and make it the way you, as the one who actually works on it, think it should be.

<comment><USER28> Bingo...

I've gone from a company where I worked in service and api layers as well as in the UI. To a large enterprise with well-defined silos...where my role is solely as a Sr UI developer this role change has been the most regrettable of my career.

Architectural decisions should take into account all cross cutting aspects of a system. I just think it's such a lack of imagination and passion for someone to be satisfied with just doing CSS or frontend-js work too.

The best dev's I have ever worked with with are curious about all sorts of things. Have good vision as to where design decisions should be made (ie what part of the stack) and have a good sense of programming patterns and practice across the different layers.

If all someone knows how to do us UI inevitably they will view the UI as their hammer to solve every problem. This is the case even when business logic or computation should happen at a higher level so as to serve multiple client platforms.

Also I find it supremely sexist to say that frontend is a girly thing. The VP of my last company was a female with a post graduate degree studying operating systems. That to me is the real gate-keeping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Honestly, I think it's really important for people to have at least some grasp of the whole product structure even if they don't directly work on it all the time.

If you focus only on your own thing it quickly leads to alienation from the rest of the team.

<comment><USER23> Why is alienation a problem? As far as every part of the system is being worked upon by somebody who specializes in that part, the system should do well.

<comment><USER30> The problem is risk; if there is only one person that knows something about X, the project is at risk if that person goes away. If OTOH you have a team of full-stack developers with shared ownership and understanding of the codebase, that risk is mitigated. The challenge is that people (in my experience) generally WANT to specialize in one area of expertise, they want sole ownership of one part of the code.

<comment><USER31> A team can have redundancy without every developer having to know the full stack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > CSS is a relatively friendly, approachable, readable language (I could ask > my mailman to guess what background-color: blue does and he'd probably guess > right), but by sucking styling into these complex JavaScript ecosystems we > lose that approachability.

Ah, yeah. `background-color: blue` is _indeed_ worlds more easily comprehended than `backgroundColor = 'blue'`.

ಠ_ಠ

Don't do CSS-in-JS because a linter reminding you to camelCase is intimidating? Really? I've mentored several juniors over the years and none of them have been _that_ touchy.

I'm not a proponent of CSS-in-JS, but this article makes some "interesting" mental contortions (and even a jab at capitalism, for some reason? [Oh, right, I forgot that endorsing Communism is trendy in the US these days]) which I'm interpreting more as the author's defence against learning a little more than just HTML, CSS, and "presentational JavaScript".

<comment><USER32> I think the jab is more because it's "different to how it's previously been done" vs being "mentally complex".

At a stretch, I can definitely see how someone with strong roots in CSS development could see camelCased CSS as being convoluted. I think it's looking at things from a very narrow perspective, however.

Out of all the arguments in this article, I think this is definitely one of the weakest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I work with a number of frontend developers and designers who know HTML, CSS/Sass, and a beginner to lower-intermediate level of JavaScript (often jQuery).

As more projects start leaning towards "fullstack" apps, typically Node.js/React, I'm observing the main issue this article raises: these specifically frontend-focused people are getting separated/excluded from the development process, unless they become familiar with all-JS solutions (the "big ol' ball o' JavaScript").

The learning curve is significant (ES6~, Babel/TypeScript, React, dev/build steps), so they must choose to either:

\- Become more proficient in JS to be able to contribute

\- ..or focus on design/prototype using HTML and CSS as a separate phase, to be incorporated into the final product by the fullstack people

For one such project/team, I'm experimenting with a compromise: a fullstack React app that renders and composes pages/screens from folders of HTML and CSS templates that frontend people can edit freely. This is aiming toward the "best of both worlds", but it's still a bit awkward. Vue.js might be more suitable, but - at least personally - it's a compromise in the other direction..

</comment><comment><USER34> If you call a full stack developer an architect, then people have a radically different opinion regarding their role and importance to the team.

<comment><USER35> Full-stack development and architect are roles, not skill sets. That's what I see as going missing in these discussions. Anybody can do either job. Whether they do them well depends more on their general level of software knowledge, and not so much on individual skills known.

The roles are driven by business needs. The more budget is available, the more you can afford to stratify roles into front-end, back-end, and architect. But it's up to the business to decide what roles they need, not us. The output of engineering departments is something normal people have to be able to reason about. We don't build bridges just for other engineers. We do it with taxpayer money to serve taxpayers.

<comment><USER36> > Full-stack development and architect are roles, not skill sets.

That's the thing the article seems to be glossing over categorically. I kept looking for the distinction between skill sets/productivity thing and what I'll just call jobtitle capitalism. You can't cash in on being master of none, but being a Jack-of-all-trades doesn't make you look competent either.

<comment><USER35> I saw the article as a harkening back to how crafts and trades work. You have handymen and the craftsmen, who go about their jobs in very different ways for very different reasons. The author's basic point is that you can't use handymen to build anything remotely sophisticated.

My counterpoint is that if you had to rely on craftsmen for everything, the number of buildings we can have is always going to be limited to what they can produce. We need handymen software developers because Pandora's Box has been opened and the business need for software is utterly insatiable.

It won't be long before we're longing for good ole' days of code schools. People will be entering the software field with nothing more than CodeCademy on their resume soon.

<comment><USER36> In an ideal world, few craftsmen would beat more handymen's asses regularly so they take the things that matter seriously. So how do we get VC to align with this?

EDIT: What's wrong with codecademy? See, figuring things out in a way that efficiently translates human ideas to machine processes isn't straight forward and usually involves multiple attempts. Which means, I, as a craftsman, need to be pointed to shortcomings of what I do multiple times to arrive at the ideal solution. Whether I studied what I'm doing in college actually has less to do with this process, though, and more with my own humility towards my own craft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> As a mostly back end dev, I am always in awe of CSS/HTML wizards. I grew up in the "tables and font tags" era of the mid 90's, and CSS has never quite made sense to me...

<comment><USER13> CSS doesn't make sense to any sane person, kinda like makefiles. But everyone doing it is a little bit insane after being at the deep end for so long, that doing things any differently seems impossible.

<comment><USER37> Sadly, Makefiles make a _lot_ more sense to me than CSS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> A lot of strong, interesting opinions. I didn't agree with everything. I found this to be a very interesting perspective:

> I can see full-stack development emerging as a result of capitalistic > exploitation

In my experience, I have worked with a lot of lead developers who seem to wilfully propagate this notion to their managers that we need less resources, that we can squeeze more out of what we have. I understand that part of this comes from the human desire to save your ass, especially in that kind of work culture. However, I always felt that we needed to push the opposite message, even if it wasn't necessarily true. Why have two developers working at 100% crunch-mode when you can have 3 or four working at a more relaxed pace. Simplistic, but that's my view.

<comment><USER21> > Why have two developers working at 100% crunch-mode when you can have 3 or > four working at a more relaxed pace. Simplistic, but that's my view.

In this scenario, who's money are you spending?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Great article. I think what we're really seeing here is the end of web development as a craft. It's turning into assembly line and "inefficiencies" like having people specialize in different things is no longer (financially) viable, so it's been done away with. It's unfortunate, I miss the craft.

</comment><comment><USER40> If this whole full stack thing came from a massive capitalist exploitation scheme, then why was JavaScript gonna be the chosen language for everything? There were far more languages "spoken" by more people who were already involved in web development - the typical backend languages - and JavaScript wasn't a particularly popular language either.

I do gotta say though that I don't have a better idea as to why things happened this way. I'm just guessing companies wanted to cut costs on frontend servers by only serving up static bundles and people hated page refreshes.

<comment><USER40> Please correct me on this though - I know I'm probably wrong

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Both Pickering & Frost seem so out of touch with reality that it's difficult to read. For one:

> I can see full-stack development emerging as a result of capitalistic > exploitation

The "generalist" has always been there, what capitalistic exploitation has to do with it, I don't know.

> We need to address the undervaluing of HTML and CSS for what it is: gender > bias.

Pickering & Frost: Did it seem like a good idea maybe hopping on the bandwagon of the populist rhetoric in the media? Next thing we hear about might be that Python is not trans-gender friendly enough...

<comment><USER21> Thank you for this. For a long time I've had a case of Emperor's New Clothes when it comes to these two people and others in their clique.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this.

<comment><USER41> > Emperor's New Clothes when it comes to these two people

Sorry for being a tad slow here, but how so? :) That their opinions about technology are regarded too highly?

<comment><USER21> Yes, or even regarded at all. Frost and Pickering have both written garbage here, and it's totally amazing that we all find it so noteworthy.

<comment><USER41> 100% agree with that, and I'm getting downvoted to boot!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This entire blog post is well written garbage. There is no content.

<comment><USER43> Maybe so, but can you please not post unsubstantive comments here?

Also, please don't break the site guideline about calling names.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Paradigms that CSS-in-JS introduces can be intimidating. Especially from a taditional perspective of the way we look at HTML, CSS and JavaScript.

Before, we used HTML, CSS, JavaScript as both input and output. We built layers of abstraction such as Sass for CSS. We generated HTML using backends in various flavours (PHP, Ruby, Python).

Ideas like BEM, OOCSS, SMACSS and Atomic CSS was crucial for driving the movement towards reusability. CSS architecture was treaded by the community as a serious consideration. It helped front-end teams scale in a way that's safe, easy to extend, easy to conceptualise.

Building scalable web applications, thinking in components can be a fantastic thing for web teams. Having styles coupled to components, as opposed to having them cascade down based on classes, IDs and element type does break a lot of the ways we've been writing CSS over the last ~5+ years.

The question is, how do we install systematic design principles without the structure we've been using to write our scalable CSS?

Stuff like variables, mixins and reusable visual style rules are all achievable with CSS-in-JS.

The big paradigm shift that's needed to grok the concept, is to understand that by having the input of HTML, JS, CSS written in a single language/place, we can be more deliberate how we express the relationship between styling, markup and logic.

We are starting to see people build projects to attempt to add some structure to how we do CSS in the new world of front-end, and Brad has a lot to add to this discussion given his incredible contributions to CSS over the years.

Given how expressive CSS-in-JS has made me able to express the relationship between styles, I'm not sure I'd want to go back to a world where the considerations are separated. JavaScript as a layer of abstraction can do more good than harm.

TL;DR

Layers of abstraction (i.e. Sass and now CSS-in-JS) increase ability to express front-end/design architecture. Separation of concerns by intention rather than language.

<comment><USER44> You did not address the author's point, however - that to do CSS, you now also need to know JS. That's a significant learning curve for people whose specialism is design, not coding.

I noticed this myself when we adopted React and I told my cofounder (a designer by education) that he could "just tweak the embedded HTML in there as he saw fit" (i.e. the JSX). I think I said something like "just scroll past all the code you don't understand until you reach something that looks like HTML". In practice I don't think he ever touched it - not because he's an idiot or easily intimidated, but simply because editing the HTML wasn't the most productive way forward for him anymore. Instead, he'd edit it live in devtools, make a screenshot and copy out the edited HTML+CSS sources and tossed it over to me. I don't think he was wrong about doing it that way.

I don't think you're wrong either, by the way - I don't think we made the wrong decision when we started writing our HTML (and later, also, our CSS) in JS. But, depending on your team composition, there's real world consequences to doing so that you're going to want to take into account.

<comment><USER19> > to do CSS, you now also need to know JS

Since when? You don't _need_ to know JS to write CSS. You just don't. You make an architectural decision, based on what you want to create, to use css-in-js. But that's a decision that you make. You can 'do' CSS without anything but... CSS!

<comment><USER45> Yes, working on a personal project, I can make those decisions. In a team, I often can't; I have to work on convincing others. Posts like these are part of that process.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google to strip Chrome of standard SSL revocation checking - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/guides/2012/02/google-strips-chrome-of-ssl-revocation-checking.ars

<comment><USER2> I had a long comment about security of old browser versions that I just deleted because I misread the article.

By "Chrome will instead rely on its automatic update mechanism" it means there will be a separate update stream using the same system, not that revocation list updates will be packaged with new Chrome versions. The latter would mean that not upgrading Chrome would stop you from getting cert revocation updates, which would be a Bad Thing.

To quote the original blog post[1]:

"Our current method of revoking certificates in response to major incidents is to push a software update. Microsoft, Opera and Firefox also push software updates for serious incidents rather than rely on online revocation checks. But our software updates require that users restart their browser before they take effect, so we would like a lighter weight method of revoking certificates.

"So Chrome will start to reuse its existing update mechanism to maintain a list of revoked certificates, as first proposed to the CA/Browser Forum by Chris Bailey and Kirk Hall of AffirmTrust last April. This list can take effect without having to restart the browser."

[1] <http://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html>

<comment><USER3> >it means there will be a separate update stream using the same system, not that revocation list updates will be packaged with new Chrome versions. The latter would mean that not upgrading Chrome would stop you from getting cert revocation updates, which would be a Bad Thing.

Well sure, you'd get the cert revocation updates, but you wouldn't get security fixes, which seems equally Bad. Why wouldn't you just let Chrome do what Chrome does? What would you gain by actively borking its update process?

<comment><USER2> Not equally bad at all. Holding back Chrome versions means you need to keep track of Chrome vulnerabilities to stay safe. Holding back Chrome updates and cert revocation updates means your security surface area includes every SSL website you use.

There are plenty of good reasons to "bork its update process", for example if you work in enterprise and have a change management process for browser updates. Or if Chrome introduced a feature you don't like (like Lion fullscreen). Or if you prefer to use your OS's package management system for browser updates.

It's not so much a matter of Chrome's update process as your update process. If that's "I want the newest version as soon as it comes out, all the time", then great, but there's no guarantee that's true. That's the exact reason Firefox is doing its whole ESR thing.

<comment><USER4> Just because enterprises have silly rules about updating software does not make it a 'good reason'. Just think of how much effort has been wasted over the years by most of the internet propping up IE6 to appease corporations that have these policies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Slightly off topic, but it really bugs me that Chrome has security researchers busy analyzing hypothetical attacks, but refuses to do anything to prevent practical real world attacks. My 5 year old cousin can find out all my saved passwords if given 10 seconds to access my laptop while I go to the bathroom by going to preferences->personal stuff->managed saved passwords->and clicking show when hovering over an obscured password.

Firefox and IE, have had the ability to require a master password to reveal saved passwords in the password manager for years. Sure it isn't secure against a sophisticated attacker, but at least 99% of the world's population probably couldn't figure out how to break it, much less my 5 year old cousin.

<comment><USER6> On OSX Chrome relies on the system Keychain so it's protected against that case. I don't know if it can be made to use the Gnome Keyring (or its KDE counterpart). Out of curiosity does anything like those keychains (I mean a theoretically secure storage area for authentication tokens available to developers and manageable by users) exists on Windows systems?

<comment><USER7> Windows has had a secure storage system for a long time (<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995355>) but, unsurprisingly, many developers chose not to use it and there were limited tools for interacting with it in the base install.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This sounds very similar to the way Chrome handles Google's own malware- servers list:

      "If you have phishing and malware protection enabled, then Google Chrome will
       contact servers at Google within five minutes of startup, and approximately
       every half hour thereafter, to download updated lists of suspected phishing
       and malware websites"[1]

It would be pretty cool if they made an aggregated CRL available via the same Safe Browsing API (used by Safari and Firefox).[2]

[1] [http://blog.chromium.org/2008/11/understanding-phishing- and-...](http://blog.chromium.org/2008/11/understanding-phishing-and- malware.html)

[2] <http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/>

</comment><comment><USER9> From the original blog post.

> We have to be mindful of size, but the vast majority of revocations happen > for purely administrative reasons and can be excluded.

What could possibly go wrong here?

This isn't a security improvement, it's a performance optimisation at the expense of security for Chrome users.

> An attacker can still block updates, but they have to be able to maintain > the block constantly, from the time of revocation, to prevent the update. > This is much harder than blocking an online revocation check, where the > attacker only has to block the checks during the attack.

OK sure. Except what's the actual correlation between time-of-detection and time-of-attack in the real world? If certificates aren't getting added to CRLs until they are actually being used in attacks then at the moment, (which previous responses from Google to CA hacks have suggested is in fact the case) then this optimization has bought you what? One-time use of the cert? (When attacking Chrome users.) What's new there?

I'm not going to deny the possibility that most CA's revocation infrastructure is so incredibly awful that this all ends up actually being a good thing for security. CA's seem to have unbounded abilities to screw up after all. This really doesn't seem like a direction we should be encouraging browser SSL to go in general though.

<comment><USER10> > It's a performance optimisation at the expense of security for Chrome users.

I'm arguing that the current, soft-fail revocation checking is useless and that we're not losing anything by switching it off. The actual revocation mechanism at the moment is that a CA highlights a major problem and all browsers push a software update to block it, because nobody trusts the revocation system to work.

So an update mechanism that allows us to react faster is a clear improvement on pushing full-browser updates. But, independent of that, the soft-fail checks aren't actually protecting anyone and it's past time that we recognised that and prompted the introduction of schemes that actually can work, i.e. mandatory OCSP stapling or short-lived certs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This problem has already been solved: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCSP_stapling>

Yes, there are problems with OCSP stapling, but it is much better then what's currently used. In addition, it does not depend on a central authority as in the approach proposed by Google.

<comment><USER12> There are two problems with OCSP stapling:

* It requires some configuration on the server side. So it probably won't be enabled for the great majority of sites until some future generation of upgrades enables it by default.

* If a MitM presents his evil server to the client, he's just going to opt out of sending the stapled OCSP response. So the browser's back in exactly the same situation where he has to block for 1 whole extra second to do traditional OCSP (and has the same hard decision to make about what to tell the user if it fails).

EDIT: Which is not to say that I don't think it's still a great idea. It just would have worked a lot better if it had been the original OCSP mechanism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Edit: Maybe wrong? see reply.

If I'm reading the sample implementation[0] correctly, the update mechanism isn't Omaha[1] (aka Google Update), but the CRX extension update mechanism[2] that keeps extensions and app bundles up to date.

[0]: <https://github.com/agl/crlset-tools/blob/master/crlset.go> [1]: <http://code.google.com/p/omaha/> [2]: <http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/autoupdate.html>

<comment><USER14> Uh, [0] explicitly refers to Omaha all over the place?

See e.g. this comment: // update and the related structures are used for parsing the XML response from Omaha. The response looks like:

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> OCSP was supposed to block fraudulent certificates (as long as the break-in is noticed and published); because of softfails the protocol fails at this task.

Google's security researchers are proposing an incrementally deployed, admin- friendly way to prevent fraudulent certificates: Certificate transparency. Part of it is a public log of what certificates were issued, so that site ops notice when a certificate is issued which they didn't ask for.

Details: <http://www.links.org/?p=1212>

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm glad that this change was made. We run a site that's 100% SSL. Our internal latency testing has led us to believe that certain users are feeling 10-15% page responses because of OCSP response times.

</comment><comment><USER17> Very cool, good to see this space progressing!</comment>


Jeb Bush dumps emails, addresses and social security nums of FL residents online - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/10/8013531/jeb-bush-florida-email-dump-privacy

<comment><USER2> How long is it going to be before a major player from the technology world gets serious about U.S. politics?

I'm serious about that. When can we be done with these buffoons who have no concept of what's going on in the world?

I'm not saying I want to see Larry or Sergei as president. Nor Zuckerberg for that matter. But I'd vote for Sheryl Sandberg any given Tuesday over any candidates I've seen from either of the two parties in the last 15 years.

Sheryl Sandberg/Paul Graham vs. Tim Cook/Jon Stuart.

That's a debate I'd care about. That's a debate where a "transparent campaign" would be more than marketing drivel/security breach.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, to be fair, the identity theft demographic can be productive in generating votes.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow. And you can find the actual RAR files here: [http://jebbushemails.com/email/search](http://jebbushemails.com/email/search)

<comment><USER3> RAR files? Another strike against him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I found one social security number in 30 seconds of looking. I have not attempted to look for more, yet.

This is DEPLORABLE.

If anyone cares about information security and is considering voting for this idiot, please reconsider.

I say "idiot" intentionally. Whatever else I may think of him, on any topic, this move alone is idiotic. The fact that his advisers didn't stop him from doing this speaks so poorly of them.

<comment><USER6> I'm not a fan of Jeb Bush either, but what do you think of their released statement?

> This is an exact replica of the public records on file with the Florida > Department of State and are available at anyone's request under Chapter 119 > sunshine laws.

It sounds to me like this is an issue with Florida policy if this sensitive data could be accessed freely already, even if they hadn't released it in this public manner.

There are many places where the blame could be laid, including in the case of SSN leakage state employees that put these SSN's into emails instead of keeping them in a safe location in a secure HR system. At any rate I don't think that Jeb Bush is the only one at fault here.

<comment><USER7> I work for a company that deals with public records data in Florida. The "Government in the Sunshine" laws[1] that deal with access to public records are clear:

>"E-mail" messages made or received by agency employees in connection with official business are public records and subject to disclosure in the absence of an exemption.

and

>Section 668.6076, F.S., requires that any agency as defined in s. 119.011(1), F.S., or legislative entity that operates a website and uses electronic mail must post the following statement in a conspicuous location on its website:

>Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records.

>If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.

That said, there is an exemption for social security numbers, but just because something is exempt doesn't mean that it must be withheld. The body holding the requested data generally has discretion:

>Social security numbers included in an official record may be made available as part of the official records available for public inspection and copying unless redaction is requested by the holder of such number or the holder's attorney or legal guardian; however, if such record is in electronic format, on or after January 1, 2011, the county recorder must use his or her best effort to keep the social security number confidential and exempt as provided for in s. 119.071(5)(a), F.S. Section 119.0714(3)(b), F.S.

[1] [http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/manual/5a60474cbfb8dbf48...](http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/manual/5a60474cbfb8dbf4852566f30068571f)</comment></comment></comment>


What are you working on currently? - <AUTHOR> Could be your project, startup or work... just curious. <comment><USER2> I created [https://DiscoveringBlogs.com](https://DiscoveringBlogs.com) to help bloggers spread word about their blogs and for others to discover new blogs. Do you have a blog? Would love to get you listed. Submit it here: [https://discoveringblogs.com/submit/](https://discoveringblogs.com/submit/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Congrats, seems very cool.</comment></comment>


Greek official wants to magically transfer gov debt to Greek citizens - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-bass-chief-bank-economist-harry-potter-can-fix-greece-2011-2

<comment><USER2> This is completely weird!

Worst of all: 45 gardeners and no garden? Brilliant! I'd really like to hear their explanation of how these people ended up on their pay-roll. Maybe they all made offers the hospital could not refuse?</comment>


OpenPose: Real-time multi-person keypoint detection library for body estimation - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/CMU-Perceptual-Computing-Lab/openpose <comment><USER2> Warning: funny license: [https://github.com/CMU-Perceptual-Computing- Lab/openpose/blo...](https://github.com/CMU-Perceptual-Computing- Lab/openpose/blob/master/LICENSE)

<comment><USER3> I was considering open pose for a project until I reviewed the license.

And by the way, why doesn't github make the license available in Mobile mode? It's the first thing I look at when considering an ostensibly open source project

<comment><USER4> To be fair, Github doesn't make much available on mobile. Not even a full readme. It's a shame their mobile website is so useless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, the output is amazingly stable. I often wonder how much better these amazing single-perspective single-frame methods could be if extended with multiple perspectives, and continuous information (especially alternating- perspective continuous), and it seems like the answer is "now you can find out!". :+ )

P.S. it is so lovely that there is an OpenCL backend as well. So many of these great methods only have CUDA available.

</comment><comment><USER6> Related thread from 2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16307481](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16307481)

</comment><comment><USER7> How does the latest version compare with VideoPose3d ([https://github.com/facebookresearch/VideoPose3D](https://github.com/facebookresearch/VideoPose3D))?

</comment><comment><USER8> Alternative to consider, not open source, but then again neither is OpenPose with their absurd license and restrictions:

[https://wrnch.ai/faq/](https://wrnch.ai/faq/)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is one of those technologies that will on balance be used for evil (despite some doubtlessly positive uses), isn't it?</comment>


Show HN: GitLab automated setup on a terminal.com container - <AUTHOR> https://terminal.com/tiny/ql7zapWQq9

<comment><AUTHOR> Feel free to try and comment. thanks!</comment>


Reverse-engineered a $500M Artificial Intelligence company in one week - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ai-academy.com/i-reverse-engineered-a-500m-artificial-intelligence-company-in-one-week-heres-the-full-story-d067cef99e1c#.usxfzm67c <comment><USER2> The article employs no reverse-engineering techniques and AI is only mentioned in the title. Reverse eng. would require at least a minimum comparison between your output and that of the target API.

He took some csv data, drew some plots and grouped plots together using k-means.</comment>