Apple Reveals 'Swift Playgrounds' Educational Coding App for iPad - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2016/06/13/apple-reveals-swift-playgrounds/ <comment><AUTHOR> Was hoping this post would be updated with more info, but apparently not. More details available at [http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/13/swift-playgrounds- app/](http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/13/swift-playgrounds-app/) and [http://techcrunch.com/2016/06/13/apple-launches-swift- playgr...](http://techcrunch.com/2016/06/13/apple-launches-swift-playgrounds- for-ipad-to-teach-kids-to-code/)

</comment><comment><USER2> He say free as if they almost made it paid</comment>


A New Physics Theory of Life - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/#ixzz3Lw5rbLPe

<comment><USER2> >"You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant," England said.

Makes me think even more about Fermi paradox.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've always thought that the rules of physics demand order. You take a box of magnets at random, shake it up. You get stacks of magnets. Physics + energy == order.</comment>


Mozilla Leadership Changes - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/24/mozilla-leadership-changes/ <comment><USER2> I think that people in tech should obviously be able to support whatever political causes they want, but I would bet that Mozilla will have a harder time recruiting LGBTQ employees with a public homophobe as their CEO, and I think it behooves anyone with such a high position in a company to realize that their personal stands still reflect on their company (even if the company culture is actually fine and Mozilla does a good job protecting their LGBTQ employees from discrimination).

</comment><comment><USER3> Links to blog posts are broken at the bottom of the page.

Mitchell Baker's post - [https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/24/a-return- to-found...](https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/24/a-return-to-founders- as-mozilla-moves-forward/)

Brendan Eich's post - [https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/mozilla- news/](https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/mozilla-news/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Wishlist:

-Cease copying Chrome's UI

-Comprehensive Bug / Security review focus cycle

-Slightly slower release schedule[achieved in part by the previous item]

<comment><USER5> -Don't donate any more money to anti-gay laws.

<comment><USER6> Mozilla does not do this. Individual has the freedom to pursue their political belief just as anyone can choose to work for and not work for someone you do not agree with. Just as you can vote for a President who is in favor of X solution X instead of solution Y. An open web means exactly that: everyone can participate. And by that we don't mean everyone has to agree on everything.

<comment><USER5> They don't have to agree on everything but I certainly wish they'd agree not to try and ruin each others lives.

<comment><USER7> On the scale of techies trying to ruin people's lives, I'd put the level of these donations pretty low down the list of concerns myself, even if I don't love them (Peter Thiel's right-wing donations worry me more, for example, because they are much, much larger).

<comment><USER8> I don't mind money going towards Libertarian asshattery because frankly, I'm happy to see it crash and burn as publicly and spectacularly as possible.

Or not. In which case I'm prepared to change my views. But I'm not prepared to change my view about the 14th Amendment and the wisdom and decency of assuring basic legal equality for everyone. To my mind, that is an entirely settled issue. I'd no more go back on that than I'd tolerate a return to slavery (which, let's not forget, is the horrible error that necessitated the 14th in the first place).

<comment><USER7> You are happy to implicated in some bullshit libertarian experiment to see if it crashes and burns, harming many people, but are offended about being implicated in some bullshit Christian experiment to see if it crashes and burns, harming many people? To me, the collateral damage of Christian fuckery and libertarian fuckery are roughly comparable.

But in any case, Thiel gives money not only to candidates of the Libertarian Party, but also (in fact, mainly) to the regular, anti-gay GOP. It could be that he hates gays. It could be that he doesn't, but just considers funding anti-gay propaganda to be acceptable collateral damage in a quest to promote the Republican Party's other positions. Either way, he's a _much_ bigger problem in my mind than some small fry giving 4-figure amounts to them, because he's giving 6-figure amounts to the bigots, which they can use to promote bigotry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think that the "very successful launches of Firefox OS" claim is odd.

While justifying it with the "15 countries with 4 operators and 4 device manufacturers"-style claims may sound good, in practice we don't really see much serious adoption.

It isn't even really competing with Microsoft's or BlackBerry's offerings at this point, and even they are significantly far behind Android and iOS when it comes to market share.

If Firefox OS were actively competing against Android and iOS, I could see it being called a "success". But at this point it's, at best, the fifth-place player, and realistically it's further down the list than that. There isn't much to indicate that it'll get much uptake, either. So all in all, that's not really impressive, I'm afraid to say. It surely should not be described as "successful".</comment>


Copyright, Antitrust, and Disney's Monopoly - <AUTHOR> https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/copyright-antitrust-and-disneys-monopoly <comment><USER2> I only took a few econ courses in college and can see the basis for breaking up Disney according to the author is wildly exaggerated. This post smacks more of modern-day partisanship than actual copyright law.</comment>


Web applications suck and they're not worth creating - <AUTHOR> http://metacircular.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/web-applications-suck-and-theyre-not-worth-creating/ <comment><USER2> The blog entry was tagged by the author as "blasphemy." It should have been tagged "idiocy."

"It's a simple fact that complex web applications are almost impossible to create."

Maybe for the author. Aside from the stupid notion that complex == funky GUI widgets, it dismisses not only great AJAX frameworks but the Adobe Flex rich internet app building tools. Heck, with Adobe AIR you _are_ making a desktop app that can live in a browser _or_ the desktop. Rich text box controls? How about embedding FCKeditor, YUI's editor, or any of the other AJAX text editor components.

"And then you have to host this. Once you grow big, you will need a full time system administrator to manage all of this, the way Fog Creek and 37Signals both do."

Right. There's no overhead to creating and distributing desktop apps? You can automagically update customers' software without also managing the process?

The sad thing is I'm actually typing a rebuttal when it's clearly flamebait with an incendiary title. Must.. resist... next time.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Girls suck, and they're not worth dating (sob... sniffle...)"

Fortunately, enough guys get over these setbacks to propagate our species (and create web apps, build startups etc) ;)

</comment><comment><USER4> His idea of a complex web application is completely misguided. He sees a "complex web application" as a "desktop application that runs in the browser." That's wrong, and it is no wonder why such "complex web applications" run better on the desktop.

My idea of a complex web application is one that simply cannot be done on the desktop. I'm making one and I don't even include any Javascript libraries. AJAX != Complexity.

<comment><USER5> Not that I agree with him, but what exactly can't be done on desktop? Everything you can do in a browser can be done in a desktop application because the browser is a desktop application.

You might argue that it would be easier to develop as web application, you might argue that it would lower barrier to entry because users won't need to download and install software. But please don't imply that there is some special about web applications which can't be done in a desktop application.

<comment><USER6> For practical purposes, I agree with the original author that there are things that can be done on the desktop that can't be done on the browser, but not the other way around. This is just a simple extension of the fact that the user has the same computer and the same internet connection, but in a browser-based app, you don't have access to all the computer's resources. Therefore, you have less overall power available and there are things that theoretically can't be done. If you have unlimited bandwidth and transfer speeds, then there is no difference.

And there's nothing you couldn't do with a desktop app, if for no other reason that you could "Greenspun" a full browser into your desktop app to include anything that theoretically couldn't be done without a browser.

<comment><USER5> Up modded both for merit and for making Greenspun a verb.

<comment><USER7> Already a verb (or at least a gerund):

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=greenspunning](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=greenspunning)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an argument that has been going on since the first web apps started to emerge. The general argument is this: "You can't implement feature x in a browser". Initially the list of features that could not be implemented was quite long.

Things like rich-text editing, asynchronous communication, audio, video, drag and drop, sliders, etc. were very hard, or impossible. So, things like complex games, email clients, im clients, text editors, spreadsheets, and media players were out.

And that leads to the problem with his argument. The list of things which cannot be done on the web is constantly being reduced. Everything on that list can now be done... and fairly easily. (Which isn't to say they don't take time. Complex things take time... easy or not.)

So, now people have started saying things like "Well you can't implement (Photoshop|GIMP|text editors|IDEs|.+) on the web". That may be true for some limited amount of time, however, even now inroads are being made in all of the above. (See Heroku)

In short, people are going to continue clinging to the sinking ship that is this argument until they finally run out of applications to point at. If theres one thing I've learned from recent history... its best not to bet against the advancement of technology.

</comment><comment><USER9> Who voted this up? I'm not sure it really merits a reply to be honest.

<comment><USER10> The trick is, don't make conclusions about the article based on its title.

I found comfort in his anger towards the difficulty of developing for current web application platforms. The situation is obscenely bad.

<comment><USER11> Has it ever been easier? Is there some hidden nostalgia for a world I'm not a part of that made application development dramatically simpler? Writing code is hard, no matter what the environment, one of Java's largest failures was 'write once, read anywhere'. Look at Joel's experience with .NET: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PleaseLinker.html>. This article is just shrill yelling of 'square peg! round hole!' and apparently it works.

<comment><USER12> > Has it ever been easier?

Yes. I remember many years ago I wrote a web application for a swiss banks financial intelligence unit. It was only used by a handful of people and they wanted a really rich user experience, so I wrote -- in one day -- the complete application again as a fat client. It was simply better in every way. The main client said, "That's it! That's what we want!" The director of IT said, "That's a fat client. We can't have that in the bank." The web app was never terrible, but the fat client I made them was much better and easier to create.

Everyone here who is arguing that web applications are 100% as easy to produce as fat client applications are arguing out of ignorance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _"... You may actually discover that your customers actually want to host the software themselves, even though it's a web app, in which case you have to do #terrible things# [0] to make your dorkus malorkus customers happy. ..."_

When I read this bit with link to the Joel on Software article on Wasabi I realised the author missed the finer point of why. From Joels article ...

 _"... And we have the ability to add any feature to the language that we want easily... this is the same power Paul Graham talks about in On Lisp, the power to invent new language features that suit your exact application domain. Lisp does this through a mechanism called macros. ..."_ [1]

Wasabi was a summer project by a super bright Intern who created a real compiler. [2] Meaning if the need arises to port the application to another language it can be done. For the price a one summers project Wasabi FogCreek can change languages without major re-writes. Wasabi also means the source code can be released. The customers get the benefit of access to the code they run. FogCreek still get to charge hard cash.

Never underestimate Joel.

[0] Wasabi, <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01b.html>

[1] Wasabi, Ibid

[2] You can read more "Up the tata without a tutu" ~ <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000026.html>

</comment><comment><USER14> I remember having this argument many years back when developing handheld applications. Every customer we talked to wanted to view their app on the handheld through a browser, rather than use our fat client.

About 15 minutes of discussion put that to rest. I can dig up my bullets if anyone cares.

<comment><USER15> I suggest you revisit the handheld arena with an open mind in 2008. Some things still apply, but with bigger screens, always-on internet connectivity, and built-in web browsers that support full html and sometimes flash and ajax, handhelds are trending towards relying on web apps for mobility and extensibility. A web app should be the first mobile solution for a handheld because it is cheaper, easier, less wasteful in development, that also allows you to easily track statistics about which apps and features are being used, and how.

Then you can create a native version for the blackberry and iPhone to take advantage of one of the two things I believe make a native app advantageous at a later point in time:

1) synching the handheld's data with your web app, or 2) saving data to access if you're without an internet connection.

As far as GUI elements go, the iPhone lets you make your program look like a native application.

As far as speed of access, launching an app on an older treo model would take at least 2-5 seconds, especially a database application. You can load a web page over Wireless-G in today's handhelds in that time.

<comment><USER14> I think that your statement that you should build a web app first is absolutely correct: as long as you assume it will be the 'one to throw away' (<http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1011623>). It will be a toy application and barely a proof of concept.

I've personally replaced dozens of those systems.

I believe that there are differences that are specific and salient to handheld devices that are still quite relevant today.

1\. Processor Speed / Battery Life / Energy Density

Moore's law does NOT apply to batteries; they increase in capacity at about 3-5%/a. This means that the limiting factor on processing is NOT the processor, but the energy you can feed it (and that you can wick away as heat). Cutting edge handheld processors are still at about 400-600MHz and have been stuck there for many, many years.

2\. Browser complexity and inefficiency

This is related to the first point. Browsers are among the most complex applications that run on desktops and handhelds. They tend to eat up obscene amounts of memory and use a lot of clock cycles interpreting languages (CSS, HTML, Javascript, Flash...). This chews through the available (slow) processing available on handhelds. You could limit what you use, but AJAX and its ilk are part of what make a web interface workable.

3\. Security

This may only be relevant to the work I did in Healthcare. While I trust the SSL implementations, I don't trust the caching implementations on Handheld browsers. Given that these devices get lost, do you want to be liable for confidential patient data stored on them in a format that isn't under your control? Want to encrypt it with some clever javascript in the browser? See points 1 & 2.

4\. Diversity

Developing for IE6/7/8, FF, Opera and Safari is one thing. Adding the proclivities of the browsers on the iPhone, WinCE, PalmOS (where there are several), RIM, and all other smartphones will make you go bald. Now imagine testing on all of them as well. The issue is more interesting. If your marketing dept gets wind of the fact that it works on a mobile browser, you're suddenly flooded with support calls the moment a new fancy phone appears on the market.

5\. Novel User Interfaces: beyond the G in GUI

One of the cool things about these phones is that they have neat UI things to take advantage of: the 5-way scroller on the Palm, the rocker switch on the RIMs, multitouch on the iPhone, fingerprint, passcard and barcode scanners on some specialized devices. NONE of these are under your direct control if you build a web app. You're at the mercy of the common set of UI made available across the browsers and how each of those browsers interprets the gestures.

6\. Constant connectivity

Again, this may be due to my work in the medical field, but I was shocked at how many installations were crippled do to lack of building-wide WiFi or huge dead zones. Like ALL of radiology. Or the entire wing that was put up in 1948 where the internal walls were plaster on chicken wire. Even looked at the size of chicken wire? Ever compared it to the wavelength of a 2.4GHz signal? It'd be hard to block signal more effectively. And if you're moving around a list of 14k ICD codes or 7k CPT codes, you're going to need that pipe to stay open.

Now, having ranted, lets look at the world as it stands:

\- why were developers up in arms over the lack of an iPhone SDK?

\- why isn't Android just a set of javascript libs?

\- why are are ALL apps on the RIM fat, local applications?

\- why did Google invest time/money/effort into creating local Java implementations of Maps and Mail?

\- can you name a single, widely deployed mobile app that's purely on the browser?

I think the world has changed, but not nearly enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Amen. I can't believe someone took so long to say it: a browser is for browsing. I have yet to see a web app that blew my mind, or hell, even came close to what a standard fat-client application can do easily.

<comment><USER16> You're not seeing the potential of the web anymore than the original writer does. The web provides utility computing, the box on your desk does not. As soon as we lose this horse/buggy mindset and start noodling on the issues of 1) proof of correctness in code, 2) fault mitigation or absorption, and 3) true concurrency (grab a unit of computing power wherever it is), utility computing will absolutely render the desktop obsolete for any computing problem -- yep any computing problem. Right now, that Google facility in The Dalles can compute anything faster than what you can do on your desktop for less money. The fastest video card you can buy for your Dell will do one TFlop -- SETI@Home claims to be averaging 408 TFlops from a volunteer project. This is the law of economics kicking in, where money spent and efficiency desired cross, and it will kill the traditional desktop.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for reiterating conventional wisdom, but the person missing something here is you.

Sure Google can computer more for less, but I already have a PC; why buy two (one for Google and one for me)? SETI@Home leverages... (wait for it)... the desktop!

Second, the point here is not about utility computing. It's about developing applications. Let's face it, web apps are struggling to the the things that most desktop apps do easily. (Ajax is a joke.) Certainly they both have their pros and cons. And there are certainly some situations where a web app makes more sense. Don't get me wrong. But when creating rich applications, the web sucks. And all your arguing here won't change that.

<comment><USER16> No, you can computer more for less because of utility computing examples like Google. And I didn't say that having something that provides computing power in the home will go away, just that the value of you sitting down with your IBM PC-AT and running Lotus 123 will go away. When you claim that the desktop is better than the web, you had SETI@Home in mind?

And it is all about efficiently using computing power -- this will change your view on developing applications for the better. The sooner you accept that the web is a better path, the sooner you'll figure out to make web apps better, and we'll all appreciate your work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ok, I waited to see if anyone would say it and no one has.

1) It is always easier to create a given user experience with the desktop. Desktop apps have more resources available and more tools. This favors the user.

2) Web apps are always easier to distribute. This includes distribution, versioning, upgrades, etc. This is not up for discussion. This always favors the producer.

3) It is generally easier to incorporate non-local data into a web app. This is not a significant factor compared to #1 and #2.

4) Success = balance between benefiting user and producer. Depending on the app, one will be favored over the other (i.e. low latency needed for games vs. low cost per user needed for ad-supported services).

5) If the user experience is acceptable to the user, then the producer benefits mean that it will probably be created as a web app. As more tools make producing acceptable user experiences cheaper, more apps will be web apps.

</comment><comment><USER17> "If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right."

Henry Ford

I guess there's a little less competition for those of us here who think we can.

<comment><USER18> i think the point is that the web is not an easy platform to create apps for. so, when you end up choosing to do, you should ask yourself if it really is the best place.

for data that really needs to be shared with other users, like social networks, the web is really the best place for it, and the benefits of that connectivity outweighs the complete pain of doing so.

for something like spreadsheet software, you dont want to replace Excel, you want to add features that Excel would have an incredibly difficult time matching, like sharing and collaboration.

the web is a great way to share information with other people, and apps that rely on such sharing find their way to the internet.

<comment><USER19> Web-based software also allows you to constantly update your software without even making the user aware that the software is getting updated. To my mind, that is one of the biggest advantages of web-based software and one of the reasons why it will ultimately kill most forms of "desktop" software.

<comment><USER9> Not to mention you can use webapps from your wii console, iPhone, etc etc. You get multiple platform support pretty much free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Awesome! One less person i have to compete with!

</comment><comment><USER21> Totally pointless. All arguments. They are one and the same.

</comment><comment><USER22> Great comments everyone. If there's one thing I agree with the other on its the first line in one of his other articles.

"Nothing bothers me more than unchallenged ignorance."

[http://metacircular.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/the-triumph- of-...](http://metacircular.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/the-triumph-of-open- source-or-walt-mossberg-is-an-annoying-self-centered-ignoramus/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Latency is an issue. If I've got hundreds of email messages to check then I'd rather do it with a native desktop application. However, for casual use, a web application is easily the most convenient and portable solution.

<comment><USER24> both Comet and Flash address that issue...

<comment><USER23> I can see the benefit of Comet in this case but I don't see the benefit of Flash. Please could you explain.

<comment><USER24> I thought like Comet, Flash can send data asynchronously. the client doesn't have to continually poll the server. Am I wrong?

<comment><USER8> Yep. Thats correct. Although, at the last point I looked into it, there were some firewall-related problems with using Flash for that purpose. I don't remember the details though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So reimplementing Maya or Photoshop is a bad idea?

<comment><USER26> Photoshop has been done (perhaps not as sophisticated). Maya is hard to imagine, but stranger innovations have happened.

In any case: we're in the infancy of the inter-netter-webs. Someday schoolkids will view us the way we view the early aviators with their stiff, old- fashioned suits and their weirdo moustaches.

<comment><USER27> Not to mention our steam-powered bird-o-copters. As primitive as 1980's software looks from 2008, it will look twice as primitive just 10 years from now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Gmail, anyone?

</comment><comment><USER29> So, why did he use wordpress to write this, instead of a desktop application which outputs html pages or something?

<comment><USER30> Perhaps he used a desktop blogging client.

<comment><USER29> still involves a web app.

<comment><USER31> Not to mention we wouldn't be here talking about this were it not for a webapp by our friend paul...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Blogga, please.

Poster, question your presumptions. Wallowing frustration is your enemy. Things are much better than you imagine.</comment>


How heavy metal riffs stimulate our brains - <AUTHOR> http://www.deathmetal.org/news/why-metal-riffs-delight-us/

<comment><USER2> This is a cool explanation. I've wondered for years why the rest of my family doesn't seem to get the same sense of elation from metal. I supposed that music is a language, and they simply haven't "learned" metal, the same way I haven't "learned" country, but one wants an explanation that sheds light on the odd relationship between metal and classical.</comment>


We Tried Baseball and It Didn't Work (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://xprogramming.com/articles/jatbaseball/ <comment><USER2> It's a sad but accurate reflection of reality, goes well with the TDD / Dynamic programming articles earlier today.

<comment><USER3> Too bad it didn't get many comments. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Amusingly, this actually still happens in the world of tabletop RPGs. Some people will take a new game, throw out bits of it they think they won't like, change some rules, and then tell you how it wasn't any good.

If the designers of a system have spent considerable effort testing and refining it, then it should be taken as a whole, even if parts of it don't make immediate sense. Again, all true for well-designed games. Even if you don't understand the reason for a certain rule, following it can still have a positive effect.

<comment><USER5> I was always a fan of GURPS for this reason; well, that and I think the distribution of a 3D6 roll is pretty great.

You're given a pretty simple core, without much of any fluff (so lite you can get it free [1]) and then you're free to add any number of source books to your library to add more depth, or change the game more toward the direction of your liking. You can even play in fully licensed environments with fully licensed sourcebooks (like Vampire [2], etc).

I wouldn't say it's the perfect pen and paper RPG, and choosing the 'best' one is probably even more subjective and flame-war-inspiring than picking the 'best' programming language, but it fits my philosophy of gaming pretty well. I would say, though, that an RPG has a pretty direct goal to me, which is having fun. I throw out what I want if I don't have fun with it. I think the mistake is blaming the creators and saying it's stupid, which would just be kind of silly. It just doesn't fit my paradigm. That said, I've played god- knows how many pen and paper RPG's and I have a really good understanding of which paradigms I do and don't like.

I think that's how I generally approach programming languages as well, though I'm not as adept with programming as I am rolling a six sided die.

[1] [http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/](http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/) [2] [http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/vampirethemasquerade/](http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/vampirethemasquerade/)

(p.s. c.y.a. this is seriously not serious but kind of serious so ymmv)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I love this.

Articles like this are why you cannot trust industry to teach you programming. They're too busy getting it wrong, then patting themselves on the back about it.</comment>


Cardiio app measures your heart rate using front-facing camera - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2012/08/09/cardiio-uses-iphone-camera-sensor-to-get-your-heart-rate-on-the-go/

<comment><USER2> What's the process for selling something like this without FDA approval? Do you need a special disclaimer? Is there more to it?

</comment><comment><USER3> Imagine something like this combined with Google Glasses. You could walk up to a person and get real time heart rate data as you are speaking to them.</comment>


The Nature of the Network Economy is Expanding and Collapsing Opportunities - <AUTHOR> http://www.victusspiritus.com/2010/03/01/the-nature-of-the-realtime-network-economy-is-expanding-and-collapsing-opportunities/ <comment><AUTHOR> Jeez, what a terrible title. Business => rapid fluctuations = good for startups</comment>


Ask HN: Have We Abandoned Julian Assange? - <AUTHOR> The most influential journalist ever, his reputation smeared and possibly being slowly murdered. <comment><USER2> It's what John Milton wrote about in Paradise Lost: To serve in Heaven or to rule in Hell. Milton backed the republicans during the English revolution, and saw his beloved revolution be usurped by the Cornwall dictatorship, and ultimately the restoration of the British monarchy. He had to flee for his life and was effectively banned from all public life. Whereas he used to serve in prestiges jobs, at the end of his life he was marginalised, broke and blind. Survivorship-bias gives a wrong impressions of rebels, most end on the outskirts of society. Milton dictated the verses of Paradise Lost to a scribe, as he put it, to justify the ways of God to Men. Substitute an all-powerful God for an all-powerful government, and it get a hole new meaning. IMHO it's still one of the best poems in the English language. There is a wise lesson here, I don't like it, but I can't say it's not true.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the excellent reply. I plan to read Paradise Lost now, I failed at a previous attempt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The answer to the question is unfortunately yes. What I dreamt in 2010 is coming true, just in a much different way. I actually dreamed that Assange was executed by lethal injection. It's still happening all be it much slower.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think Wikileaks were a novel concept, but they needed to remain ideologically pure to remain viable. Unless all the evidence of conspiracy is manufactured, the organization become political.

<comment><USER5> > evidence of conspiracy is manufactured

What evidence? Of conspiracy to do what?

<comment><USER4> [https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/930228239494209536](https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/930228239494209536)

[https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks- bias-...](https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside- point/)

<comment><USER5> is this evidence of conspiracy to get Sanders elected?

<comment><USER3> Lol, most people think it goes in the opposite direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It certainly does seem that he had a lot of fair-weather friends who only liked him when he was pissing on one side of politics, but not the other.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I'd agree 100% with this.

Sadly, it's not unique to Assange. It's a problem with a lot of society, with politics, etc.

No one seems to have the moral integrity to treat their side and the others equally, and to stand up for those who do the same. If they did, Assange may not be in jail, or awaiting possible extradition to the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The most influential journalist ever, his reputation smeared and possibly > being slowly murdered.

Journalists don't edit source material to fit their narrative. I long ago lost faith in Assange when he released edited footage of journalists being shot by a US military helicoptor with an edited audio track. The video with the original audio was damning enough, editing the video prior to release was the beginning of the end for Assange in my eyes. Since then rather than releasing any and all information Julian started to "curate" what was released. It's one of the many reasons many of the original members of wikileaks left the organization.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think perhaps it's a stretch to say he's the most influential journalist _ever_ here.

He's a divisive character and seems to have been a divisive character amongst those that knew and interacted with him, as well as the general public.

What's happened to him was all too predictable. The US was offended by him, so one way or another they were going to get their hands on him. They tried all the usual tricks - deny it, get their allies to do their dirty work while also denying it. And now they have him. I expect him to turn up dead or otherwise just disappear.

<comment><USER5> > most influential journalist ever here.

The narrative is that Assange put Trump into the world's most powerful office. The only parallel in history is Nixon's resignation. He may not be #1 but , if we are to believe the narrative, he's #2 (pun not intented)

Or we can conclude that he did not put trump in office. <insert tough decision meme here>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> That's an extremely generous description. For one, he's not really a journalist. All he does is publish leaked information. In that regard, he's not unique at all nor has he published more quantity or quality than MSM sources. James Risen on the NY Times broke the mass surveillance story. Sy Hersh of the New Yorker broker My Lai and Abu Ghraib. Glenn Greenwald published the Snowden leaks. Assange is best known for Cablegate where he actually mishandled that info. He's also best known for the DNC email leaks which we now have evidence on the record showing that he coordinated this leak with Roger Stone at the behest of the Trump campaign and probably received the info from professional Russian hackers. He has absolutely debased himself. And he's been far less influential than he believes himself to be.

<comment><USER11> > we now have evidence on the record showing that he coordinated this leak > with Roger Stone at the behest of the Trump campaign.... He has absolutely > debased himself.

I dont understand this view. So the logic being presented is if a journalist (or other) is presenting information of public interest, but it comes from a source that has a political (or other) motivation behind it they should then bury the story?

I would understand this view if Assange also received information critical of the Trumps/Russia and refused to publicise it, but what was his alternative?

> he's not really a journalist

Then what is he? His format and method are different but essentially he is broadcasting news.

<comment><USER10> The source of his information was a deliberately malicious government agency. The release was coordinated to cover up the news cycle of the Access Hollywood tape. That means he is suborning espionage and he sat on it until it helped Donald Trump. And he lied about it repeatedly.

He had also promised a trove of leaks about Russia in the past that never materialized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Three types of people in the world: those who expose the truth, those who cover up the truth, and those who remain blissfully ignorant of the truth. It's been a blow to our freedom that Julian Assange was betrayed, as Wikileaks could've let us know exactly what we needed to know for 2020, but... refer to #2 of the three types of people in the world, and #3 for those who vote based on knowing only what they want to know.

</comment><comment><USER13> My personal theory is that Assange is just a too big a rebel. He is too radical, so radical, that we cannot understand him, he is out of Overton window. Perhaps to the point of being a hypocrite, by necessity.

Compare him with Edward Snowden. Snowden has moderate opinions compared to Assange. With that, he is much more readable than Assange by general public, and so he is better shielded.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is the truth radical?

<comment><USER14> Does he represent the truth?

<comment><USER5> yes. did he publish lies?

<comment><USER15> publishing only one side of the story is a lie, or do you think Russian intelligence asked him to be fully honest?

<comment><USER5> > publishing only one side of the story is a lie

while biased, it's not in itself a lie

<comment><USER16> Lying by omission is certainly a thing. Selective publishing is similar and while not technically a lie, is dishonest. I think you'd have to be naive to trust wikileaks is impartial.

<comment><USER5> there's a confusion of terms here. "Lying by omission" is possible if the source claims something and uses half the truth to support it. Assange didn't claim anything, he just released some facts X. The fact that he did not release stuff about the other side (which supposedly exists?) is totally irrelevant to the validity of facts X.

> naive to trust wikileaks is impartial.

Also irrelevant. Nobody should be imprisoned for being partial!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Dude he's not a good guy. If he was being fair, he would expose China and Russia too. But he was just leaking US secrets. They never expose China or Russia because they know what will happen in very short notice. The US is the only one of the 3 that has a true due process.

</comment><comment><USER18> [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/mueller-r...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/mueller- report-confirms-it-assange-is-not-whistleblower-or-journalist/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thats a very hard indictment against him, opinionated and wrong

<comment><USER15> except it is accurate and researched by some of the best investigators in the world, so there's that

<comment><USER5> an opinion is always accurate but never objective , by definition

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The amount of grey comments in this post (most of which are in support of Assange) is pretty impressive. Good job Crazyhorses!

</comment><comment><USER20> Pre-2016 Assange, or after 2016 Assange?

<comment><USER5> which one deserves to rot in prison forever?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yes, And Good Riddance

<comment><USER5> not all of us agree

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Julian Assange has offered humanity a lot more than what humanity can offer him at anytime. I wonder why the hell would someone get jailed for revealing the truth.

<comment><USER22> So very true and so to the point. He did not only get jailed. He got put in a solitary cell in a high security jail.. And mentally tortured. And almost nobody cares..

<comment><USER23> No one cares because there was maliciously fake news about how he's a bad house guest and didn't scoop his cat's poop and two women in Sweden wanted to contact him to tell him to take an STD test and then the police took it upon themselves to want to question him (not even charge him) about sexual assault.

Assange is going to get Epstein'd

<comment><USER5> i know you 're joking but to be clear (and because apparently there are a lot of misconceptions abotu the cases) he hasn't been charged with anything like rape and the allegations are about nonconsensual removal or condom, outlined in detail here: [https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian- ass...](https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange- arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy)

<comment><USER23> I used "sexual assault" because that's the term he's likely be alleged of doing in the US, whereas in Sweden the official term is "rape" for all/most sexual assault cases. Or so I've heard. Sexual assault I think is an appropriate term here, though I think the allegations are pretty thin, contradictory, and suspicious. Swedish officials didn't seem to care much or at all about making progress on this, since they refused to question/interview Assange remotely despite him claiming asylum. They seemed to care more about getting him in custody - a fear that's since been justified by England trying to extradite him.

<comment><USER5> actually it seems in both cases they consented to sex, despite disagreeing about the condom

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It seems like it, but how much power do we have to help?

<comment><AUTHOR> I feel so sad and powerless, what can we do against these forces of disinformation?

<comment><USER22> start with informing yourself. think and open your mind. write emails, letters, petitions. question your politicians, colleagues, yourself. leave traces of your opinion everywhere. Every one step is a step, however small. Good luck. At least you're not indifferent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> is this a glowpost?

</comment><comment><USER5> he s dangerous to the world and needs to be locked up because reasons until trump is out of office. That's what people are supposed to think.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its important to hold politicians accountable, however is in office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> We mostly don't care about either people or justice in this world. There's so much prosaic callousness and awfulness that people simply don't even bother to notice. It really shouldn't come as some kind of surprise that people are mostly "fair weather friends" and you can assume they won't have your back when the chips are down.</comment>


Finding good coders via online coding/sql test - <AUTHOR>

We have launched an online coding/sql test platform to help companies weed out the bad programmers and save time/money in the hiring process.
Candidates have to write code, compile and test it online, and the system automatically scores based on code quality, accuracy etc. and rates the candidates. There is also a video playback feature that allows the recrutier to review how the candidate wrote the code.
Currently major programming languages such a Java, C#, Vb.Net, Ruby, Python, etc are supported along with testing for SQL using a live database.
Please visit www.techtestnow.com to learn more. <comment><USER2> This is similar to Codility?</comment>


Show HN: Parrot – Self-Hosted Localization Management Platform - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/anthonynsimon/parrot <comment><USER2> I'd recommend also looking into the XLIFF format. I've been using it together with Multilingual App Toolkit v4.0 for .NET projects in Visual Studio and it seems to be quite well-designed and widespread format.

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

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion, definitely makes sense. I just added it to the project's todo.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> By the way, I'm looking for contributors as there is still lots to do. If you are just learning Go or Angular 2, you are more than welcome to get involved in the project.

As a side note: It has been a pleasure working with Go for the backend. Even though there weren't that many real world projects to check out for patterns/inspiration, Go's interface/composition driven approach made things simple. It seems to me that the community really wants to stick to a few well- thought-out interfaces for common things (HTTP, databases, etc...) and this helps to keep libraries consistent and easily replaceable.

<comment><USER3> I wish it was written in PHP (I suck, I know. I never got to learn any other back-end language).

It looks great, though.

And I love the name and logo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Out of curiosity, have you looked at Mozilla's Pontoon and if yes, can you compare/contrast the goals of Parrot w/ those of Pontoon? [https://github.com/mozilla/pontoon](https://github.com/mozilla/pontoon)

<comment><AUTHOR> To be honest I didn't know about pontoon before, which is surprising given that, like Parrot, it's a localization tool and by Mozilla. I guess I should do more research before starting a new project :)

But after checking it out quickly, it seems to me that its main focus is in- place translation for web projects (I could be wrong).

Parrot is mainly a tool to help you manage your translations for various projects, no specific platform is targeted. It comes with a REST API (useful for loading translation updates for mobile apps/games for example) and role based contributions. It's meant for small/medium multidisciplinary teams, so no features for crowd-sourced translations are provided.

Basically it was built out of the need for such a tool at my current company (gaming industry, multi-platform projects). We wanted it on premises, open- source and a web-UI for editing so that people from different disciplines can use it.

<comment><USER5> I used to work on Pootle:

[https://github.com/translate/pootle/](https://github.com/translate/pootle/)

It's on-premises, open source, has a web UI, supports many formats and comes with a REST API. I'm sure you must have seen it - any reason you didn't go that route?

Aside: I see you're shipping with nginx and have a whole ssl setup. Take a look at Caddy, your life may get simpler :) [https://caddyserver.com/](https://caddyserver.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, will take a look. Caddy looks pretty cool :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To be a little picky but it might help drive some further thinking - localization and translation are two different things and it looks like parrot does translation only? Translation is a subset of localization.

The two are conflated a lot, especially in gamedev. Translation is nice, but localization is a superpower.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is awesome and looks so elegant. I remember myself searching for something similar for days. This is definitely something I would use.

</comment><comment><USER8> Looks like somebody got tired of paying for PhraseApp [http://jmp.sh/HYBObM6](http://jmp.sh/HYBObM6)

Looks like an interesting project, especially if you don't mind managing the install yourself (vs. paying a company like PhraseApp).

<comment><AUTHOR> Parrots seem to be the ideal mascot for translation projects ;)

</comment></comment><comment> jorge-fundido Are there any tools or sites where crowd-sourced dictionaries is a key feature? As a developer of an app, I would like to have basic actions (eg open, save, login, cancel, ok) translated to all the locales.

</comment><comment><USER9> A parrot also is mascot of the localization platform [https://Phraseapp.com](https://Phraseapp.com).

<comment><USER10> Also on the trademark/naming/confusion front, there's also a prominent project with the same name: it's the Perl6 VM.

[http://parrot.org/](http://parrot.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What is the workflow like? I don't want to have to install it to know that.</comment>


The Alternative to Stripe - <AUTHOR> https://plasso.com <comment><USER2> Why should someone use this instead of Stripe?</comment>