Working Best at Coffee Shops - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/working-best-at-coffee-shops/237372/ <comment><USER3> My theory is subtly different from these. I sometimes call it "ambient sociability".

Humans are pack creatures. If you put us in solitary confinement we go insane. This is generally true even for introverted people; only on the far edge of the bell curve do you find people who crave absolute solitude for weeks or months on end (and these people tend to be really odd, and it's often hard to tell if the oddness is cause or effect.)

However, as every reader of programming productivity books knows, being surrounded by a bunch of people that is _constantly interrupting you_ makes it hard to focus. And so civic design has evolved the library, the coffeeshop, and the coworking space: Places where you can be alone yet also surrounded by people.

The secret is to surround yourself with people who don't have the same agenda as you. Then you won't often be interrupted by things that break your focus: The staff might occasionally ask to refill your coffee, and you'll get interrupted if the building catches fire, but otherwise you can work on your own thing.

<comment><USER4>
      > The secret is to surround yourself with people who don't
      > have the same agenda as you

Absolutely. I was called for Jury Duty a few months back. No courts ended up needing jurors during my two week service, so I ended up sitting in a comfortable room with wifi and a bunch of people I didn't know who weren't interested in what I was doing.

I got more work done in those two weeks than I had sitting in my office or working from home. It was magical. The next time a heavy deadline rolls around I'm considering packing my stuff and heading to the university library -- anywhere where I can reattain that ambient sociability.

<comment><USER5> There's also the possibility that this comes more from the _change_ in atmosphere than the particular atmosphere that you change to. Maybe for some people here the change to an atmosphere of ambient sociability is just more of a contrast than the alternatives they've tried.

I've heard and have a lot of anecdotal evidence that would suggest this, but of course that's anecdotal evidence. However, I think most of the answers here are influenced at least somewhat by this.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER6> I think you are referring to the Hawthorn effect/experiment: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I realize that I'm fighting the tide, but I'm going to ask anyway: _please_ don't do this very often. And when you do, please have basic respect for other people, purchase from the business frequently (every hour or so, at minimum), limit your total seat time to an hour if the place is crowded, and don't be "that guy" -- the dude spread over two tables, with the laptop stand, the iPad, the backup drive, the portable keyboard, mouse, etc.

There's nothing worse than walking into an otherwise pleasant cafe and being unable to sit because the place is filled with laptop zombies and/or dudes (and it's _always_ dudes) holding "business" meetings. In San Francisco and Seattle, there are _dozens_ of cheap co-working facilities, but you still can't get a seat to eat lunch in a place like Coffee Bar or the Creamery for all of the nerds that crowd in between 9AM and 5PM.

Finally, if you find yourself working at a cafe for eight hours a day, every day, you're abusing the system. Go to a co-working facility, and _pay the minimal amount of money for a desk_. If you can afford paying for multiple coffees every day, you can afford a co-working space. If you can't afford either, you should work at home, or in a library. The coffee shop is not your personal, low-rent office space.

<comment><USER8> I see your point, but I absolutely do not think that a lot of coffee shops would be at the point they are today without the "laptop zombies" (which have supplanted people with books, or people with pencils and paper).

The coffee shop I go to has completely embraced them, and has little workspaces for everybody to use.

I probably wouldn't ever go to a boutique coffee shop if not to use it as a workspace, and I don't know many people who would either.

If I'm looking for a place to just hang out with some friends, there are many, many, many bars and restaurants that are _much_ more conducive to "hanging out" than coffee shops are.

I think coffee shops have _always_ been workspaces, and I don't think the modern coffee shop would exist without the customers that a lot of people seem to think are leeches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not my experience. Here's why...

A coffee shop and a laptop are convenient, even fun ways to produce _mediocre content_. A blog entry, email, maybe even cleaning up a few lines of code. But as most programmers know, sooner or later, you have to enter another mode to get that additional "oomph" to get the important critical-path work done. Some call it "the zone".

In fact we just talked about this the other day:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2450260>

A coffee shop is probably the best way to think you've entered the zone without actually entering the zone. The can be very dangerous. You've had a good time surrounded by like minded people (kinda like being here at hn), but you've never actually transcended anything really important.

I spend time at the library one or more times per week, sometimes just to get out of the office. It's fun to think and get transactions done, but fortunately, I have an internal guide that tells me, "Time to get back to the silence, large screen, and comfortable chair of the office to get the real work done."

I realize that this isn't the same experience as others, but I still often want to ask them, "Did you really get done what you wanted to get done in the coffee shop?"

This subject reminds me of a great line from Joel Spolsky's "Hitting the High Notes":

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html>

"Five Antonio Salieris won't produce Mozart's Requiem. Ever. Not if they work for 100 years."

My version:

"Five workers in the coffee shop won't produce the killer work that one in a dedicated space can produce. Ever. Not if they drink 100 lattes."

<comment><USER3> I absolutely agree that my best work is done in a silent atmosphere. I can't even listen to music, it's so distracting.

But, having observed this, I tried locking myself in a completely private apartment all day, with the perfect ergonomic desk and everything, and waited for the magic to happen. That turns out to be too much of a good thing. It just does not work. I knew that I was cracking up when I went to the barber one afternoon and it ended up being the highlight of my day. When you find yourself tearing up at the prospect of spending fifteen glorious minutes making stupid small talk with a barber that you've never met before you know that you're spending too much time alone.

My guess is that what I really need is a small private office (home office, or otherwise) within easy walking distance of a library or coffeeshop or, better yet, both. Mix it up a little.

<comment><USER10> Silence is great, but sometimes silence can be, well, too silent. I bounce back and forth between coffee shops and my home office, because sometimes I want to sit at home in silence or listen to music, and othertimes sitting at a coffee shop with a lot of ambient noise helps me get into the zone. Something about having a lot of random noise around that I don't care about listening too helps me concentrate.

<comment><USER11> <http://www.simplynoise.com> and/or <http://www.rainymood.com>

<comment><USER12> Or more customizable: <http://boodler.org/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am probably the last person on HN to realize this. I've been working at home for ages (like since Hanson was still a popular band), and I'm really finding out how wacky the long term psychological effects are.

Spending too much time at home makes me more negative about everything. In particular, I'm starting to wonder if working from my home office makes me a little too pessimistic about my business and less willing to take risks. I feel pretty crabby about work when I'm working from my home desk, but as this article points out, working at a coffee shop makes my work seem cooler. That shift in attitude is a revelation both for productivity and creativity.

<comment><USER14> I've been working from home for a dozen years and I love it. The past six years have been spent working at night (I'm a night-owl, anyway). I love it. The faux socialization (and interruptions, conflicts, inanity, politics, etc) are too often highly overrated. I'll take my solitude, any day. It may mean that I seldom see the sun and go out in public even less frequently than _that_ , but I'll take that over the regular rat race, any day. Plus, all the people I would work with in my division are spread across the planet, anyway. Even if I worked at the office, I would be twelve hundred miles away from the closest colleague who does what I do.

I find that the reward of more free time (no commute, work when I'm most productive, no hassle about presentation, no noise or inanity, etc) outweighs absolutely everything else. I have turned down far more lucrative offers within and outside of the same company over the years, simply because the benefit of working from home is so extraordinarily appealing to me. A few years ago, I turned down a position that would have involved a 50% increase in salary, because it would have meant going to an office 8-5 five days a week. (And when you figure in commute and getting ready in the morning, it's more like 6am-6pm).

I have occasionally thought that the whole public space thing - were I could be alone, but not - may be appealing. I have always turned it down, however, because all of the people I know have negative connotations to guys in coffee shops or cafes with their laptops and cell phones. They associate a guy at the coffee shop doing work with the guy who stands in public with a cell phone (that probably isn't even on) yelling "buy! sell! buy!" to make himself look important. I'd probably then spend all my time being self-conscious about whether everyone around me is just looking at me like I'm some pretentious asshole, even though I'm just a guy wanting to have some tenuous connection with the rest of the human race while I do my daily thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> My theory is that by opening up myself to the possibility of meeting a woman keeps me on my toes and harnesses my darwinian energy which I then channel into my work. Working at home in my underwear doesn't create this psychological situation.

</comment><comment><USER16> If you are in the Bay Area check out Hacker Dojo in Mountain View. If you want, you can think of it as a coffee shop with

1) Free coffee __. Open 24 hours.

2) Screens you can hook up if needed.

3) Other coffee drinkers who also hack.

4) Very fast internet connection.

5) Happy hour on Friday, when you need to lose the caffeine edge.

 __Guests are welcome. There is a box for voluntary suggested donation. Membership is $100 per month. Remember the "no free cup of coffee" theorem. :)

</comment><comment><USER17> I love taking a break from home working and hitting a coffee shop. For me, it's just a way to improve my mood. Similarly, I'll break out the lawn chair and sit outside to work -- that is just as effective emotionally, but not quite as practical (glare, no real table, etc.)

My only gripe with coffee shops is the bathroom break. No way am I leaving a $2000 laptop on a desk unattended, but after a few cups of anything, you have to go. Sometimes I'll ask someone to watch it for me, but if there's no one who's around consistently or who seems trustworthy, this can't always work. So I end up packing up my shit then unpacking it again...

<comment><USER18> I guess it depends on the kind of place in which you work, but I leave mine (screen locked) at my table all the time.

Alternatively: get a lighter laptop and set it so you can close it without putting it to sleep; then you can take it with you easily. You don't need to pack everything up; the resale value of an unattended power adapter is quite low.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I agree with working in restaurants. The coffee shops near me that have wifi are full of telecommuters gaming for the tables with power outlets. For some reason I find it way more distracting to be surrounded by other remote employees oogling their laptops than I do people eating or drinking coffee.

In my area there are a few restaraunt/bars however that have great wifi, few remote employees, food that isn't scones, and better music. Also, they're completely dead in between meal times so no one minds if I hang out from noon to 4pm.

</comment><comment><USER20> Working at coffee shops, for some reason, just _feels_ really great. I learned calculus in coffee shops, and I really enjoy coding in them now. I hadn't thought of restaurants - that was a good idea about showing up in the early afternoon, when they won't need the table for a while.

I do have a personal rule - no being a coffee shop mooch. I make sure I buy something every now and then if I'm going to sit there for hours.

Diners are also a pretty excellent place to work. Even staid, corporate ones actually do the trick for me, but places with a bit of character tend to be more fun.

I actually think a coffee shop culture may be a key component to a creative environment. I attended UC San Diego as an undergrad, and while it has some wonderful qualities, I think it is missing the coffee shop scene you get at an urban campus (Berkeley and Washington are a couple of good west coast examples), where there's a seamless transition from the university to the coffee shops immediately next to it. Don't get me wrong, the coffee shops in the beach towns around San Diego are pretty great, and full of students studying, but when you surround a university with them, you get a kind of magic.

</comment><comment><USER21> > ...when we are alone in a public place, we have a fear of "having no > purpose". If we are in a public place and it looks like that we have no > business there, it may not seem socially appropriate. In coffee-shops it is > okay to be there to drink coffee but loitering is definitely not allowed by > coffee-shop owners, so coffee-shops patrons deploy different methods to look > "busy". Being disengaged is our big social fear, especially in public > spaces, and people try to cover their "being there" with an acceptable > visible activity.

This reminds me of [http://lesswrong.com/lw/2qv/antiakrasia_remote_monitoring_ex...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2qv/antiakrasia_remote_monitoring_experiment/) \- 2 guys using VNC to simulate the patrons of the coffee shop. You can't help but feel that someone might be watching & judging you, and that prods you into doing something more creditable.

Why does it work? My own opinion is that it's a hack on hyperbolic discounting (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting>): we are wired to over- value short-term gratification, so small penalties or shifts in difficulty can put our desires back in whack to where they should rationally be.

Hence, melatonin can help you maintain the right sleep schedule & not stay up on HN all night because it makes you sleepy (<http://www.gwern.net/Melatonin.html#self-discipline>); but this perspective cuts both ways - if you can make yourself do things with small shifts in penalties/rewards, small shifts in penalties/rewards can _stop_ you from doing things, hence you should 'beware trivial inconveniences' (<http://lesswrong.com/lw/f1/beware_trivial_inconveniences/>).

</comment><comment><USER22> I like the theory they posit about the social expectation to look busy.

It's why I often take a walk down to the university library to work. There's a long-standing social expectation that when you go to the library, you're there to do serious things and be productive. You're not going there to yak with your friends on IM, read HN, or surf Reddit for funny cat pictures, which is what I will invariably find myself doing if I were at home. So I put my head down and get to work!

Going to the library to work is one way I can find the motivation to still put in 5 hours on a side project even after putting in an 8 hour work day. I sit down at a table there and can immediately get traction on my projects.

It doesn't hurt either that the library is a few blocks from my house, is open until 1 AM, and sells good coffee. I am going to have to find another good nearby place that's open late though because the library is only open 8-5 in the summer.

</comment><comment><USER23> I completely agree with this article. My problem is sacrificing my two glorious 24" monitors for a tiny laptop screen. I feel the sacrificed real estate really bites into the productivity gains of being in a place like a coffee shop.

<comment><USER24> Some company recently announced a portable monitor. It was kind of ridiculously overpriced, but in absolute terms readily affordable, and apparently quite transportable. The protective case flips down somehow to become the stand. Dimensions were about on par with having another 14" or 15" laptop screen. Sorry I don't have the reference at hand.

<comment><USER25> I'm not sure if I just have a different perspective about this than most people, but in my opinion you can easily overdo the whole office at the coffee shop thing. If a spot I stopped at for a quick chat with someone or a bit of coffee suddenly started having folks with laptops + extra monitors, I'd be pretty unhappy.

<comment><USER23> yeah and a space that specialized in that setup becomes one of those coworking spaces and in many ways it brings you right back to square one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If I hit a wall I have to change things up. If I'm not getting $#!7 done in the office, I go to a cafe. Productivity at a cafe is never as high, but I chock that up to screen real estate. One monitor for Eclipse and one monitor for docs. Otherwise I'm wasting time flipping.

<comment><USER27> I think you have a great point in highlighting that the cafés are great - as a fall-back. Ideally, you should have somewhere better to get more done, but if you don't, or if it just doesn't work that day, everyone should have a go-to place.

Always have back-ups; that includes work places.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Perhaps it's because I'm introverted, but I have always had the exact opposite reaction. Before I could afford to have Internet at my house, I had to use coffee shops to get work done online, and it was almost unbearable. The noise was a constant distraction, the smell of roasted coffee quickly became something I couldn't stand, and most of all, I hated being bunched up against everyone else. I suppose each experience will be different, but now that I've had the pleasure of working at home, I wouldn't want to go back if I had a choice.

<comment><USER27> Coffee shops are very different from each other. You may just not have managed to find one that works for you.

I would also not want to stay in a place that matches your description, but I'd be interested in a place that deals with the critique points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I am just noticing this. I currently work in a semi-cramped office with two other guys, but it's connected to a modern steel/glass high-rise building designed for academic research. It has a gorgeous, large cafeteria on the second floor. It's pleasant enough and there's enough activity during the morning and afternoon that it's a perfect place to work. Usually there are about 5-10 people using the cafeteria to work at any given time, plus there are lounge chairs situated at various points in the nearby hallways that can work as well.

I am less likely to get distracted with stupid internet crap when I'm in the public space. I find it relaxing, and I don't have the nagging feeling that by sitting at my office desk chair I'm wasting my life. Often those feelings are worth it all by themselves, even if there's no productivity change.

However, there are definitely distractions, and I find that I'm usually unable to get fully focused in a public space. I am often drawn to someone walking by or annoyed by a random smell. For difficult technical work, silence and peace are usually more conducive, as well as my multi-monitor setup and fast, wired ethernet connections.

But for stuff like reading email, and correspondence, knocking minor items off your todo list, and defeating a procrastination block, being in a public space seems to help a lot.

</comment><comment><USER30> I need it to be fairly quiet to code with few distractions. Yet many of my friends have to listen to loud music or they can't write code at all. It may be ADD but it seems they need to distract a part of their brain to be able to concentrate on the task.

Though I haven't much experience with them coworking spaces are much better because you can bounce ideas off other developers. I think there's a commaraderie as well that enhances the experience for me.

</comment><comment><USER8> There is an interesting social accountability aspect to working in a coffee shop, for me at least.

I work best with something playing in the background. A movie, some futurama, some always sunny in philadelphia, etc. Or I work best with 30-40 minutes of _code code code code_ followed by a few minutes of playing minecraft, or reddit, or facebook, or something, followed by more coding.

When I'm at "work", in my office, I can't really just zone out and play futurama on one of my monitors. That would be _totally_ inappropriate, and I would probably get called out on it by one of my coworkers.

And if I'm at home, I have the dog wanting to play, or the roomate wanting to go out, or a really awesome stereo begging to be played with, or a garage full of DIY projects...

The coffee shop is right in the butter zone. I would never sit there for 8 hours watching Futurama, but I don't feel bad if I watch a bit of it. The pressure to not look like an idiot is enough to keep me focused, and the freedom to do whatever I want helps keep me relaxed.

It's perfect. This is made better by the fact that my local coffee shop has nice little works-spaces for people to use.

(If you're a Phoenician, the coffee shop I'm talking about is Xtreme Bean in Tempe)

</comment><comment><USER31> "My headphones, they saved my life"

I work at a larger company, on a team with ~30 devs, my role is less about how much code I produce personally, and more about how I help the entire team produce code.

However, there are still days when what matters is me getting shit done - <USER2> those days come I pull on a pair of headphones (decent DJ cans) and put my entire music collection on random (which is less "random" than I'd like, but HN already knows that) - volume set to the lowest audible level.

This works for me: 1) the headphones are a subtle (and therefore more effective) Do-Not-Disturb sign; 2) the ambient conversations are eliminated (which is why DJ cans with high passive noise reduction are better); 3) It helps shrink the world down to the space of me and the problem to be solved.

Changing my environment also works: shutting an office door (if you have one); working in a conference room; cafeteria; coffee shop; park; library; at home at the kitchen counter - but all of those require that I _visibly_ isolate myself from the team, the headphones are more like a psychological invisibility cloak or SEP field.

</comment><comment><USER32> I practically have my coffee shop productivity down to a science. I have certain places for brainstorming, certain places for when I want some quiet & solitude, & certain places for when I want to feel relaxed vs. focused. I've written a good deal of my book at a very well-featured Whole Foods in Chicago.

I also meet up with other entrepreneurs at a coffee shop every Wednesday. It's great for exchanging ideas, or just having someone to watch your laptop while you go to the bathroom: <http://jellychicago.com>

When I lived in SF, I started compiling information on various coffee shops, based upon how good they were to work at. I kept track of if they had open outlets, and how the staff acted towards people on laptops. It might be a bit out of date, but here it is: [http://moworking.pbworks.com/w/page/10316102/San- Francisco-B...](http://moworking.pbworks.com/w/page/10316102/San-Francisco- Bay-Area-WiFi-Hotspots)

</comment><comment><USER33> _Perhaps if more restaurants or bars had wifi I too would work at them._

It is a little weird that despite the assertion that this arrangement is such a productivity multiplier, many people prefer to be concerned about WiFi availability rather than spend the ~$50/month for a cell modem enabling them to make the world their cafe.

Luckily Hemingway brought paper and a pen with him.

</comment><comment><USER34> I read in Esquire or Wired or somewhere (I'm having trouble finding the source online) that smells change our perception of time. Baby powder slows down time for us. Coffee beans speed it up. Perhaps we frequent coffee shops to get work done, because we want the work or workday to get done faster.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think whether you work best in a one kind of ambient atmosphere versus another (a place of social interactions versus a place of quiet) depends on whether you are an introvert or an extrovert.

Introverts and extroverts are equally able to function and enjoy both environments, but an introvert has to "turn it on" in a social atmosphere, and therefore needs quiet alone time to recharge his batteries. An extrovert is the opposite; he has to "zone himself in" to make use of quiet alone time, and needs social time to recharge his batteries.

I think extroverts are the people who enjoy the ambience of the coffee shop, drawing energy from the hustle and bustle around them. Introverts find this more taxing; they're just as able to do work, but they'd probably be more productive in a quiet study room.

</comment><comment><USER36> I recently went on our company retreat and spent 7 days in the Spanish countryside.

The last 2 days of the trip, we were in Barcelona.

While the entire trip was productive for important reasons (Wildbit is an entirely distributed and international team and spending social time with the team was extremely valuable and enjoyable), I found more inspiration and motivation from the couple of days in the city compared to the peacefulness of the countryside.

I wrote more about the experience here:

<http://dangerouslyawesome.com/2011/04/signal-seeking/>

Of note: "Noisy environments provide sort of a filter to cut through the noise in my head. Sort of like panning for gold, if everything goes well, all of the cruft fades away and I'm left with some nugget of gold."

</comment><comment><USER37> Ive been working from home since late 2006 until early 2011. I was pretty happy with it despite always having the feeling of not getting enough done.

I now work in an office in my own startup and simply love it. Conversations with other engineers, the whole energy of people working on the same thing in the same room and actually being able to differentiate between work and being at home are things i really really love right now.

I now have to commute 20min (one way) by car, but i dont really care. Sitting at home all the time and having your highlight of the day being a walk to the grocery store is depressing after several years ;)

I wouldnt want to work in a coffeeshop though, maybe as a writer, but as an engineer i need my large screens, comfy chair and big desk.

</comment><comment><USER38> I've tried working outside the office. Usually I can get intensive work done in short bursts, but it's too tempting to go take a walk and set up your temporary office in some _other_ location for a while. "You've been in this cafe for too long, you should go to the library... this library is dark and ugly, why not go sit on a bench outside? This bench isn't really comfortable and the screen is too glary... but hey, it's time for lunch and there's a really great place only twenty minutes' walk away..." Finally I get to the end of the day and figure out I've done about four good twenty-minute periods of work and had a really nice stroll in the Botanical Gardens.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've tried finding something similar in my (European) country, too. Unfortunately, we don't have any Starbucks, and I find the silence in libraries to be too loud for my taste.

I've found two "eh" coffee shops, but one's always crowded and has poor ventilation, and the other one cranks up the music as if to scare people into only buying take-away, while the coffee-grinder or blender makes it impossible to get anything done on the same floor.

I've actually considered doing a start-up coffee shop to address this very thing, but it's to big an undertaking at the moment. And I'd rather do it in a country that seems to respect that culture already, which renders the idea somewhat moot.

<comment><USER39> "I've found two 'eh' coffee shops, but one's always crowded and has poor ventilation, and the other one cranks up the music as if to scare people into only buying take-away, while the coffee-grinder or blender makes it impossible to get anything done on the same floor."

Well guess what Starbucks is? The combination of these two.

Well maybe only in the countries where I frequent Starbucks... ie. wherever there are no decent "indie cafes" to speak of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'd speculate that most people are more effective when they feel observed and having strangers around you creates that situation.

Now coming to think about it I think this is why they had posters of the leader in "1984" everywhere.

<comment><USER39> Then I'm not most people. It's _exactly_ reverse for me. Way less effective when I feel observed. Luckily I don't feel observed in a coffee shop much, most of the time. Whenever I do, I decide to "observe back" and notice that no-one was observing anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I love being the "typical apple hipster" at the coffee shop or bookstore or panera with my macbook open and textmate filling my screen.

You know what's boring? Track practice for 9 year olds, but it is a great time to sit and code. I churn out so much code while those little legs move around the track.

I just love not working in the house. It's crazy since I absolutely love looking at how people have their home offices setup on sites like wherewedowhatwedo.com and lifehacker's featured workspaces. forgot about <http://www.deskography.org/>

</comment><comment><USER42> I find this works for me when i working on "output" related tasks..such as assignments, projects (ie creating something).

However when I am trying to learn/study and retain information I find I need a mostly quiet area.

</comment><comment><USER43> Anyone know a good mp3/ogg of coffeeshop sounds? That might be entertaining to play on headphones to pretend that you are at a coffee house.

Better yet if a coffee shop sets up an audio stream :)

<comment><USER44> Here is one I recorded years ago:

<http://bf84.com/s/coffee.mp3>

Only two minutes, though. :-[

I used to be kind of into recording "spaces." My favorite was a movie theater lobby, very tall and echo-y.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> FWIW, parts of Windows Server 2003 were written at Starbucks ;)

</comment><comment><USER46> My take on this is that there's a little part of my brain that wants (nay, needs) to be distracted so that I can actually get on with working. It can be a TV in the next room, a movie or video game soundtrack pumping in my headphones, or a coffee shop full of people and white noise. If that part of my brain isn't distracted by these things, it interrupts the main thread and I find myself lost in HN, my feeds, the BBC website… anywhere but my work.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm surprised. 81 comments in and nobody commented on the real reason why you work best in the coffee shop: that's where all the hot people are.

You don't go there to work. You go there to look busy while you people watch and maybe- just maybe, get somebody's attention. As a result, you get a lot of work done, because you can only surf idly for so long alone.

Its like the gym, except more fattening.

:)

</comment><comment><USER48> I never liked working at coffee shops when I was working for myself. For me the best place to work is at home. Working at home can be very difficult but if you have the discipline and a quiet work space it can be very productive.

Definitely don't have a TV in the same room as you work. Also, playing music with headphones is great to get in the "zone."

</comment><comment><USER49> At both the office and home distractions abound. Different distractions, and there's generally less at home, but they're the types of distractions I either can or need to engage with.

At a coffeeshop there are distractions, but they generally aren't ones I can or feel compelled to engage with. For me, it's easier to focus on the task at hand.

</comment><comment><USER50> Just needs to be a clean and well-lighted place.

</comment><comment><USER51> plus there's an endless supply of coffee; that does wonders for productivity.

<comment><USER52> When working at home, I find it a nice break walking over to the coffee maker or teapot to make myself a fresh cup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I think that many of the points hint at it, but don't directly address the fact that the work space is inherently temporary. If I were to get up right now and go use one of our lab bench computers I'd be getting more done even though its not 20 feet away from my desk. Nothing else would change, anyone who came to or called my desk would still get to me, it wouldn't change the hour I leave. I think our designated workspaces can get us into a rut that leads to less productivity.</comment>


'We are all Thomas More's children' – 500 years of Utopia - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/04/thomas-more-utopia-500-years-china-mieville-ursula-le-guin <comment><USER2> Utopian socialism's failures are the reason Marxism came about as a structured, disciplined critique of class society. Idealism is no way to make people's lives better. Instead, you must understand the root causes of oppression in order to attempt to overcome it.

<comment><USER3> disciplined Marxist society also needs a manager class, turns out that managers have their own self interests - namely they needed stability/lack of purges and had the urge of turning public property into their own private property. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

<comment><USER4> Ah, yes. I remember how that was a major problem under literally every leftist regime ever tried, and has never been a problem under even one capitalist regime.

I'm certainly enjoying the glorious capitalist utopia we live in today, where perfect market competition has eliminated all the old woes of human life! Why, if I can afford the loan payments, I won't even have to die of old age! /s

<comment><USER5> OK, you're saying that capitalism is the problem, not the solution. But saying that disciplined Marxism is the solution hasn't worked out very well in practice, either - not better than capitalism, in fact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've tried to read Utopia but that book is written so dreadfully I had to drop it after 20 pages or so.

<comment><USER7> That would be the translator's fault (unless you can read Renaissance Latin -- which is not quite the the same as classical Latin).</comment></comment>


Show HN: JavaScript terminal, simple expression evaluator - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mudroljub/js-terminal <comment><USER2> This is pretty neat. One thing I noticed is ff you type in a lot of stuff and make the scrollbar appear, the input shows up on the line under the ">".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I will fix CSS.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I made it this morning with 20 lines of code :)</comment>


Why I Hope to Die at 75 - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/? <comment><USER2> Some people want to die - depression, religion, cultism, or just plain ignorance - and some have apparently decided when. I support the individuals right to choose suicide, but I also believe it's our duty to tell them life is worth living.

If Ezekiel had been born 500 years ago, would he be writing this article about dying at 35? How would the brain states of a 35 year old him today or 500 years ago differ? What would a conversation between the two be like? "You should die at 35, that's a full life, living past 35 will be pain and decrepit.."

<comment><USER3> Replying to this comment because it seems to be the only properly argued, non- partisan 'against' comment at the time of this writing.

I don't agree with some of the author's conclusions, but I agree with this idea: when your body and mind naturally deteriorate to a point where it makes living a happy life either impossible or extremely difficult, you should have the choice of ending it without society (especially the parts of society who haven't experienced the same problem) judging you.

If by the time the author reaches 75 and fairly non-invasive medical means are available to maintain his health (note: I said _health_ , not _life_ ), I'm sure he would avail himself to them. If he's denying that, then he's not being entirely honest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Brilliant - Once I have lived to 75, my approach to my health care will completely change. I won't actively end my life. But I won't try to prolong it, either.

</comment><comment><USER5> What a perfectly evil man. I hope to live to 100 or more. I also plan on being active and productive until that age. I thought death cults were only in the Middle East.

<comment><USER6> He was one of the architects of ObamaCare, and he thinks that people like you should have more of their decisions made for them by people like him.

[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/ezekiel_emanuel_...](http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/ezekiel_emanuel_lets_the_cat_out_of_the_bag_on_obamacare.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This reads like a grotesque Cass Sunstein-architected "nudge."</comment>


Startups are best at solving the personal problems of their founders - <AUTHOR> http://www.ycopenofficehours.com/#goal <comment><USER2> I think it is both personal problems of founders and problems that affect the world around them. Many startups begin with someone realizing that there isn't something that they need so they create it. We also observe things in our world and see things that can be improved.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I disagree with that sentiment. I think the best startups solve really large, difficult problems that affect the _world around them_.</comment>


Reality: Old Spice sales are down since ad campaign began - <AUTHOR> http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/despite-enormous-popularity-old-spice-guy-not-helping-sales--1403

<comment><USER2> Forbes contradicts this (<http://tinyurl.com/2exqhg7>). Here's the quote...

And, perhaps, persuasive. Total sales for Old Spice body wash at supermarkets, drugstores and mass market retailers excluding Wal-Mart were up 16.7% in the 52-week period ending June 13, according to SymphonyIRI Group, a Chicago-based market research firm.

So the yahoo article is singling out the one sub-brand of body wash in the Old Spice Man's hand (which is down) but the brand itself seems to be up. Now I don't know about the rest of you but I didn't even notice what specific type of Old Spice Body Wash he was holding and I don't think others had either. So I don't think that specific sub-brand's falling sales reflect on the ads at all.

(To give the appropriate plug I actually found the forbes link via this site: <http://tinyurl.com/27d9aer>)

<comment><USER3> This makes more sense to me. It would be very surprising if what I think one of the most engaging ad campaigns in recent memory had a NEGATIVE impact on sales.

<comment> a-priori Not saying it happened here, but one way this could happen is if the ad campaign alienated a large segment of the brand's existing consumer base.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In all fairness to the team behind this, they're obviously trying to cross the product over into a new demographic. If Old Spice's existing demographic is dying off, there can be a huge payoff if they succeed in making it hip and ironic. Remember the Black Label campaigns in the 90s? That succeeded in turning a moribund beer brand into a hip brand. It's worth swinging the bat a few times over the next five years to see if they can do something with Old Spice.

<comment><USER5> I guess they should have used the occasion to say "oh by the way, we are now called 'young spice'".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Isn't it way too early to tell what the effects of the campaign are?

I for one had never heard of Old Spice before, still haven't actually seen their product (not so prevalent here), but I do look out for it when I go to buy deodarant, since I want to try it out.

<comment><USER7> Last time I "tried" Old Spice I got a rash. They make crappy deodorant. It's okay if you're used to it but if you switch prepare for the worst. For some reason I've found this to be more common with Old Spice rather than any other deodorant brand.

<comment><USER8> I've gotten a rash from just about every deodorant on the market after half a container or so. The only ones I trust are the simple white cake ones. And they usually say 'dermatologist tested' since they require a gimmick to be sold.

I wish we could go back to when nobody wore the stuff.

<comment><USER9> You might want to try a crystal body deodorant, such as this (or an equivalent brand):

<http://www.thecrystal.com/crystal_story.cfm>

Costs about $5 or $6. I got mine at my local drug store (if yours doesn't carry it, try a health food kinda store). They're supposed to last at least a year.

I made the switch about 4 months ago and am happy with it.

<comment><USER10> One thing to note is that that's only a deodorant, not an antiperspirant. It certainly helps prevent smells with no lingering perfume, but that's it.

I tried the Crystal deodorant and was happy with it, but I had to switch back to my regular antiperspirant because sweating led to chafing, not body odor (I shower 1-2x a day). If I wasn't concerned about sweating (cold day at home, no workout), I'd probably use the Crystal stuff again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My first instincts are to assume this is a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" statement. Just because sales are falling doesn't mean the commercial is ineffective. After all, how do you know that sales wouldn't be down 14% without the ads?

<comment><USER12> If that's the case then you can say the commercial is ineffective, because you can say that the commercial didn't raise sales. You can never conclusively say that the commercial raised sales when they're up or lowered sales when they're down, but the commercial surely didn't raise sales when they're down.

<comment><USER12> For those who are downvoting me, care to explain why I deserve it? Where am I wrong?

<comment><USER13> You seem to have missed the point of the question "After all, how do you know that sales wouldn't be down 14% without the ads?".

The commercial is not the only thing affecting sales. If there is some other factor driving sales down strongly the sales may still fall overall even if the commercial is successful (i.e. attracted a large number of sales).

<comment><USER12> I see. My point was that good advertising should increase sales not slow the decrease of sales. But I guess when you're running a business that's tanking the OP would be correct in calling the ad effective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This really is a poor article.

It's not stated if that's a new product or an established one they are talking about. Also, whilst they say one product is down, what about the others? If you dig into the bnet article ([http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10007535/the-old- spice-...](http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10007535/the-old-spice-guy-a- media-darling-has-a-dirty-secret-sales-are-down/)) you see that the sales figures are for the 52 weeks upto the 13 June - long before the online campaign started.

All the yahoo video links fail to load properly for me. The mention YouTube but don't link to it all. They link to their own previous coverage for no good reason.

</comment><comment><USER15> Conventional advertising wisdom revolves around brand awareness. Old Spice just got millions of people to say "Old Spice" to their friends a hundred times a day each with a big happy smile on their face. If sales are down, I'd bet its anomalous and/or too soon to tell. Look at the numbers six months to a year from now.

<comment><USER16> This is the irony of most internet advertising campaigns. Media Buyers (the people who organize ad campaigns) are graded on three things: -Brand Awareness (how many people see it) -CPM/Cost Per Mille (how much the ad costs per 1000 impressions) -CTR/Click Thru Rate (how many people clicked on the ads)

Most ad campaigns have nothing to do with actually trying to drive product and most ad agencies are not tied to incentives surrounding product sales.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> No advertising campaign is going to make people rush into their bathroom, throw away all their old supplies, and rush out and buy new ones. You'd need to look at least a few months of sales to determine how successful it was.

</comment><comment><USER18> >Are the women targeted by the ads not actually the ones making body-wash- related decisions for the men in their life?

Those ads are clearly not targeted at women.

<comment><USER10> Neither are their products. :( As a woman, the ads amused me so much that I was tempted to buy one of their products, but it was the fairly masculine scents that put me off. If Old Spice ever sold unscented products (looks like they did at some point, then gave up on those..), or products with more feminine scents, I'd probably try it at least once just because of the social media success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > perfect example of the male body

Ha! I must spend too much time around weightlifters/powerlifters. He looked a little scrawny to me.

Another interesting case of internet popularity not translating into sales was "Snakes on a Plane". From wikipedia:

""" Due to the Internet hype surrounding the film, industry analysts estimated the film's opening box office to be between US$20 million and US$30 million.[4] While Snakes on a Plane did narrowly beat Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby for the number one position during its opening weekend, it did not meet these estimates and grossed only $US15.25 million in its opening days, a disappointment for New Line Cinema. ""

<comment><USER4> While I admire powerlifters, I wouldn't consider an extremely muscular body aesthetically perfect. My man crush is on athletes who are muscular but not extremely so, like Greg Louganis, Rafer Johnson, or Roger Federer.

Federer can carry my bags any day ;-)

<comment><USER19> I never said that powerlifters were perfect. There are obviously many attractive body types. And almost anything is more attractive than the fat standard. Physical beauty is pretty small thing. We all get old. It matters a lot more what you create and how you treat children.

I was just making a little observation about how much perspective matters. No insult was intended for the gentlemen in question. It's just that after hanging around with powerlifters I probably would call someone with a bigger chest/shoulders perfect.

But downvote away! I have karma to burn.

<comment><USER4> I save my downvotes for comments that lower the quality of discourse. Disagreeing with me in many cases raises the level of intelligence of a discussion even if I don't personally like it :-)

<comment><USER19> > I save my downvotes for comments that lower the quality of discourse.

Interesting strategy. I usually reserve mine for people who use ruby.

<comment><USER4> > I usually reserve mine for people who use ruby.

Downvote away! I have karma to burn. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Either way, when your ad campaign is the most remarkable thing about your product you still have a problem.

<comment><USER21> What's remarkable about any of their competitors?</comment></comment>


TSA Master Keys - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/tsa_master_keys.html <comment><USER2> Not only is this another impressive demonstration of incompetence, but by disseminating the idea that people's luggage could be "secure" and "backdoored" at the same time, they're actually destroying what security has existed before. They should pivot to be the "Transport Endangerment Agency".

<comment><USER3> Most luggage isn't really secure in the first place. It takes less time to open up a suitcase with a good knife than it does to unzip many suitcases. The idea that a little padlock will protect your suitcase from thieves is laughable. Like physical mail, the system is based on trust, and trying to patch security onto it is difficult.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but if someone cuts your suitcase open with a knife it'll be much more obvious than if they used the master key to open it and then zipped it shut again.

<comment><USER5> Maybe if you cut it, but that's not even necessary

[https://youtu.be/zMTXzQ0Vqn8?t=106](https://youtu.be/zMTXzQ0Vqn8?t=106)

<comment><USER6> I've been through the training for airport security officers (not in the US, though) and that's one of the techniques they taught us. Also most baggage locks are ridiculously easy to pick with basic tools (literally a 15-30 minute lesson) even if you don't have the master keys available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I doubt these images really did all that much for people who wanted a set of TSA keys. The locks themselves are widely available and it's easy to reverse engineer a key if you have the lock (especially multiple copies of the lock to destroy and test on).

If anything, this just made it easier for casual lazy people to get a set of images for keys they'll never make :)

<comment><USER8> Can you reverse engineer a _master_ key from one sample lock though? Genuine question, IDK.

<comment><USER9> The way I understand master keys work is that the lock has two "breaks" in each pin, instead of just one. So each pin has two positions that allow the lock to open, and you don't know which one belongs to the master key.

I think at least two locks would be required, and depending on how many pins and possible positions there are, more might be needed in case of a collision.

<comment><USER10> I mean a lock comes with 1 key right? If you make a second key that opens it, but shares nothing with the default key - you may have a winner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems to still be a lot being done in the name of security theater in the US, and just wasting dollars on the TSA, for what appears to be very little effect.

Who's really profiting there? Is it just for the employment of people that otherwise wouldn't have a job? Or are the majority of citizens there really made to feel more secure by having them? I'd have to say some defense contractor is getting a bit fatter off this.

Seems like a ridiculous waste of money.

<comment><USER12> > Seems like a ridiculous waste of money.

The people paying for it (US citizens and those who travel into or through the US) would surely see it as a waste. But the people profiting don't, and the people profiting are the same people who make the laws mandating them.

I opt out of the naked scanners every time I fly. Just tell the TSA clown trying to herd you into the naked scanner the magic phrase "I'm opting out." After a 5 minute wait, some other clown will come over and molest you, and then you're free to go.

I do this as a little protest against a system I see as stupid and illegal. If everybody opted out, the system would get so backed up that they would have to change their policies. I'm doing my part, and I encourage you to do yours next time you fly. (Unless you're not white, in which case you should probably just keep your head down :-/ )

<comment><USER11> I'd do it if I have cause to fly into the States again, but I can't help but think its not really going to help much. From my youthful experiences at being a knob, I'd say don't piss off food makers/deliverers, or airline staff. I once annoyed a Qantas security lady, and I noticed it for a fair few trips afterwards. Then again, with wealthy interests controlling the US, I can't really see what will help at this stage. Its a descent into corruption and mess, but I can't judge how quickly it'll crumble.

<comment><USER13> You can opt out politely; I do it all the time. Recently, it's been interesting, since I dislocated my shoulder and can't yet lift my arm as high as they want me to. But it still seems to work out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Was it ever possible to have a secure lock held by tens of thousands of people with a secure master key, even if the authentic master keys were never revealed?

<comment><USER15> This. One thing that kills escrow systems dead is the complacent spread of authority.

You start with critical keys that are closely held. Over time other parties express the need for access ("Okay, if you _promise_ to be good"). Nothing bad happens (that anyone can prove...) so over time more entities are brought into the circle of trust. Eventually the dog-catcher has access to your stuff.

There's no way these keys haven't already broadly leaked (I mean, before these pictures).

<comment><USER14> I'm asking a different question.

Forget about leaks for a second.

If a mechanical engineer can get their hands on 1,000 sample locks and keys (for instance: by simply buying them) and then imaging them, is it that difficult to reverse engineer the skeleton key system?

<comment><USER16> It's very easy to do actually, you just need one lock actually. It's called key impressioning, and basically you put a blank in a lock, look for the scratches on it, file it down a bit, rinse/repeat.

<comment><USER14> It shouldn't be quite that easy, because the engineer has locks A, B, and C, and needs to discern from them the skeleton key that unlocks X, which they do not have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So luggage handlers can open my suitcase, put in some drugs, and at the other end I can get caught for having drugs in my luggage?

They should setup a service where you checkin your luggage, they check it for drugs or illegal stuff, they seal it, and at arrival you get your suitcase with the guarantee that it had no drugs at checkin.

<comment><USER18> You've just described the conspiracy theory behind the Schapelle Corby drugs case in Australia, who claimed the drugs she'd been caught with in Indonesia must have been planted by a baggage handler:

[http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Bag-handler-theory- ov...](http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Bag-handler-theory-over-Corby- case/2005/03/07/1110160746484.html)

At the time, the case & defence theory was so high profile that Australian airports had a service to seal your luggage in layers of shrink-wrap before your overseas flight, so you could know if your luggage had been tampered with by baggage handlers and prevent it being "Schapelle'd":

[https://www.choice.com.au/travel/on- holidays/luggage/article...](https://www.choice.com.au/travel/on- holidays/luggage/articles/luggage-security)

As for the TSA locks, the Prestolock TSA Search Alert locks come with a green/red indicator to show if the lock has been opened by a TSA key. Though the TSA tend to leave a notice in your bag as well saying it was opened for inspection.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, I can't say I had much sympathy for Schapelle:

It was claimed that she was the unwitting victim of a domestic airport transshipping smuggling ring, who would stuff drugs in unwitting passengers bags and pick them up at the other end. Her lawyer later admitted that this theory and the 'evidence' the defense presented around it was his invention, to the point where he was disbarred.

She claimed that she had never been involved with marijuana nor had anyone in her family. Photos and other evidence surfaced showing her smoking, and before and after her trial, family members including her mother were charged with drug offenses, including 'supply' offenses, not just possession.

Photos of her surfaced with known drug dealers and smugglers. The most damaging of these was with a drug smuggler. Schapelle claimed that the photo was from 'years ago' and that she had disavowed contact after learning of his involvement. The Indonesian prosecution showed that the photo was taken at the jail where she was being held pre-trial.

I'm not a smoker, but definitely pro-legalization. But her case was exactly that, full of conspiracy theories that had little to no backing in reality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm kinda surprised that key number 2 on the imgur mirror is a dimple lock. Those are generally used for more high security things than crap tsa travel locks; they're expensive too. Key 4 doesn't surprise me though.

[https://imgur.com/a/JQD7l](https://imgur.com/a/JQD7l)

<comment><USER20> Dimple locks are not at all for high-security, they are less common though.

They can easily be defeated with a deep-drilled blank wrapped in aluminum foil.

<comment><USER21> Many dimple locks can be picked with just some tension on the cylinder and a ball pick. The common cheap Bell brand lock at wal-mart or amazon [1] is easily picked like this. All you do is stick the ball pick in the back of the keyway, apply your tension, and wiggle the pick around the keyway as you pull it out. You might have to insert it a few times, but I've been able to reliably open one of those in about 10 seconds.

1: [http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Sports-7015777-CATALYST-U- Lock/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Sports-7015777-CATALYST-U- Lock/dp/B000AAYBKA)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The whole proposition here is ridiculous. "we must assume any adversary can open any TSA "lock""

No shit.

We're not talking about a bank vault here -- it's luggage. Does anyone, anywhere, have any expectation whatsoever that a luggage lock provides meaningful security? I think I opened my mom's luggage lock with my sister's hairpin when I was 6 years old, and I have zero lock picking skills.

<comment><USER12> The article isn't about the usefulness of TSA's locks, it's an allegory about backdoors, and another humorous take on the TSA's utter incompetence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> [http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20141130/NEWS02/141139966](http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20141130/NEWS02/141139966) \-- third picture in the slide show.

<comment><USER24> Much higher quality images here: [https://imgur.com/a/JQD7l](https://imgur.com/a/JQD7l)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Workaround: [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/expensive_cam...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/expensive_camer.html)

</comment><comment><USER26> It's sad that so many comments concentrate on whether luggage is secure in the first place. Of course it is not. The real issue is that having a backdoor makes a new class of attacks possible. A wilful or accidental leak, for example. Or you can reverse engineer the master key if you have enough locks.

The big impact is that one leak kills the security of all locks (of that type).

I don't think this would necessarily be the case when looking at (publicly) backdoored encryption. Here, you could have an individual backdoor key for each "lock". Of course, the mass storage of backdoor keys make a mass-leak also more probable.

</comment><comment><USER27> My google-fu is lacking, but recently (last year?) an inmate escaped thanks to their cellmate who was a master jeweler & had a full kit in his cell. A photograph of the guard's keys was smuggled in and the jeweler cut a key for the inmate to escape.

<comment><USER28> I think this is the story you are talking about: [http://www.news.com.au/national/killer-escaped-prison- after-...](http://www.news.com.au/national/killer-escaped-prison-after-being- issued-picture-of-master-key-to-all-locks/story-fncynjr2-1226629878591)

<comment><USER16> > THE design for a key that allowed a convicted killer to escape from a > Territory prison was printed on the cover of a booklet given to all inmates, > it has been revealed.

Pahahaha. That sounds like something you'd find in an ARG puzzle, but this was a prison. Kinda curious how the other prisoner had jeweler's equipment in his cell, it seems like that could be pretty dangerous. Good behavior?

<comment><USER29> Most prisons don't look like it's shown in movies, but more like [http://static.businessinsider.com/image/53862b38ecad041f184e...](http://static.businessinsider.com/image/53862b38ecad041f184e37de/image.jpg)

It's also not uncommon for many criminals to be allowed to leave the prison and walk around in the surrounding area to go to stores, etc, unless they are a direct threat.

So, having this equip in the cell is not unusual.

<comment><USER30> That photo's probably from some German-speaking country. Is it representative of US prison cells?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Reminds me of this story:

Jail keys changed after TV lapse [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5145026.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5145026.stm)

</comment><comment><USER32> The TSA has resulted in millions in stolen items, and not caught a single "terrorist". Its procedures are a joke, it is irradiating everyone, or if they opt out, molesting them, which is a crime in all 50 states... not to mention every single TSA search is a violation of USC 18-242.

The existence of this organization proves that both Bush and Obama and the Democrats and Republican parties are corrupt and irrational... and more interested in their own power than in benefiting the country.

</comment><comment><USER33> I had a TSA lock and it lasted exactly one trip. They searched the bag (found a note inside) and didn't lock the case back up, I never saw the lock again. Ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER34> Hey everyone :)

If someone happens to have questions about these keys, we don't physically have them. But we plan on making our own versions & finding the right blanks. If you think you can help, or want to know more, you can always reach out to myself or @Irongeek_ADC.

If you happen to know Solidworks & how to trace objects, I'd like to really get to know you.

Cheers :)

</comment><comment><USER35> I usually pay to wrap my luggage with plastic, see www.cnbc.com/2014/04/02/travelers-pay-to-protect-luggage-with-plastic- wrap.html I do it more to protect the suitcase than its content. I think it defeats the purpose of a TSA lock. Is it still allowed in the USA?

</comment><comment><USER36> I generally use either a pelican case with abloy protec 2 321 or 330 padlocks (essentially the least pickable), or a pacsafe anti theft suitcase with tsa lock and seals. Not perfect, but beyond casual or even local LEO surreptitious entry.

</comment><comment><USER37> Schneier's post is a re-blog of Nicholas Weaver's original story here:

[https://www.lawfareblog.com/tale-three- backdoors](https://www.lawfareblog.com/tale-three-backdoors)

</comment><comment><USER38> There's a comment in the original post about bags with firearms requiring a non-TSA lock. Has anyone travelled with a firearm as a maneuver to secure their luggage? Seems lengthy, but probably works. I'd imagine you need to check-in in a different area and not the front desk?

Edit: I just watched the YouTube video posted below. Looks like we're just dealing with a flawed system.

<comment><USER39> I do not fly anywhere without a firearm (save for non-free cities such as SF and NYC).

This method absolutely works.

My luggage is a very large pelican case.

> I'd imagine you need to check-in in a different area and not the front desk?

Yes, and at some airports you get your very own line (which is almost never busy). I've saved multiple hours at certain major airports because of the separate screening procedures/lines.

Most of the time, though, you'll just go to a normal desk, say "I need a firearms declaration," and they'll check you in as-normal, until your bag needs to be screened. At that point, you'll go to another area, unlock the bag for the TSA (if it alarms) and receive a hand-screening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> For luggage it's usually on a zipper with two sliders, which you just pull on the tape to separate, look inside, do whatever you like while in there, and then move the sliders back and forth twice to re-close, so it never really mattered.

</comment><comment><USER41> I used to buy those TSA approved locks with the master lock. They would just cut them off anyway.

</comment><comment><USER42> OT but, I wonder what would happen if i had items in my luggage encased in a block of plastic?

</comment><comment><USER43> spoiler alert: don't check your luggage

</comment><comment><USER44> Oops

</comment><comment><USER45> The worst damage an individual can do to the environment, short of starting a tire fire at the dump, is to fly. Save the environment and avoid the TSA, don't fly.

<comment><USER46> I am pretty sure that in terms of person-miles per gallon flying is comparable to automobiles. Are you referring to some secondary damage that flying causes?

<comment><USER29> Actually, flying is better than almost all cars sold in the US (except for the VW Up!, which comes close).

An Airbus A380 uses the equivalent energy of 3l gasoline per passenger per 100km. This is a mileage of 80mpg.

Only rail is more efficient.

<comment><USER47> I remember reading somewhere that rail, and most other mass transit, isn't actually that efficient. The idea being that sure, a bus or train full of people is really efficient, but in order to get all of those people to want to ride it, you have to run a lot of empty or almost-empty vehicles around all the time. Sum up all the trips for the whole system, and it's about the same as an average-ish car.

<comment><USER29> It obviously depends – in Tokyo, or NYC, you'll have almost-full trains 24/7\. As you obviously use smaller trains at night, and only full trains during rush hour.

Even with busses, most transit authorities have lots of different sizes – from 10 people busses in rural areas at night, to bi-articulated busses for 300 people at rush hour in downtown areas.

If you always try to use the same vehicle, though, yes, you get the same mileage as an average car. You still save space on the roads, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Safety of OpenID / Clickpass - <AUTHOR>

I'm considering adding OpenID support for my web app and I like clickpass's interface, but I have a concern. If their service is down, can my users still access my site?<p>Worse yet, are all of my users (and my site) completely hosed if my OpenID provider closes up shop? <comment><USER2> You don't understand OpenID. As a site, you don't have an OpenID provider; your users do. So if their provider closes, or their site is down, that user can't log in, just like if that user's email server is down, he can't check his email.

<comment><USER3> That said, you shouldn't bottleneck the login/registration process through OpenID or ClickPass. Make sure they can login to the site, through the site, or through OID or CP just like Hacker News does.</comment></comment>


File format converter/verifier: marketing research question - <AUTHOR>

Hello,
I am C/C++ programmer with 7 years of development experience for Windows/Linux in outsourcing companies. Although learning new things is really intriguing I fill like I need to concentrate my self on some certain aspect(s) of computing to achieve some significant results, rather than bouncing from one area to another (typical for contract job). In order to achieve mentioned goal I have decided to learn internals of a bunch of file formats and provide solutions like file format converters or repairing  utilities. I have chosen this area because I really like working with file formats, data structures and exchange protocols. Especially when it comes to binary formats. So my question is: which file format converting/repairing task may be considered as worth the effort (by means of popularity/demand) ? May be someone can point me to some sophisticated way to estimate the demand for such kind of tasks ? This will also be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance for the time taken to respond to this rather naive answer.
Regards <comment><AUTHOR> Anyone, please ?</comment>


Ask HN: What was your experience using Google for Startups? - <AUTHOR> I recently learned of Google for Startups and am curious if anyone in HN community has participated/used their resources. If so, could you share your experience? Was it worth it? Did you help you do X, Y, Z when previous attempts failed (i.e. without Google for Startups X wouldn't have happened...)
""" Google for Startups is Google's initiative to help startups thrive across every corner of the world. We bring the best of Google's products, connections, and best practices to enable startups to build something better. """
> https://startup.google.com/
Thanks! <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link to the initiative: [https://startup.google.com/](https://startup.google.com/)</comment>


Steam for Linux limited beta has arrived - <AUTHOR> http://steamcommunity.com/games/221410/announcements/detail/1783684045487052635

<comment><USER2> Linux>windows</comment>


Twitter Bootstrap without all the debt - <AUTHOR> https://coderwall.com/p/wixovg <comment><USER2> After hand-crafting CSS with semantic markup for years, using the techniques suggested here, I've started liberally sprinkling Bootstrap classes in my markup. It's not clear to me that it's any less maintainable than the alternative.

My primary way of achieving reuse, as a developer, is through templating and partials and helpers; they're what I use to avoid runaway repetition of styles, which means that redundant Bootstrap class usage isn't often a pain point. But keeping classes inline _does_ make it easier for me to debug layout problems at a glance, where relationships between elements are clear. Those classes might not have semantic value to the consumer of the page, but they certainly have semantic value to me. And most of the time, I care more.

Large CSS files, even semantic ones, are difficult to maintain, and often give you little feedback on the meaningful relationships that elements have with each other. Pure semantic markup is a myth: web pages are structured documents, and that structure has an impact on style, which is constrained by the limited descriptive power of CSS itself.

<comment><USER3> I'm in the same camp. I know everyone is gung-ho on separation of the presentation layer, but I believe styles are far too intertwined into the presentation for semantic markup to be beneficial at a large scale. My primary concerns with semantic markup is that there's no quick way in your developer tools / inspector to lookup correlated rules in your LESS/SASS files and have them make sense (i.e. how many columns is this and how does it handle responsively?). As @bguthrie said, there's little you can deduce regarding relationships between the CSS file and the HTML markup. For this reason I stick with classes, as it's far easier to tell how my layout/grid is structured by simply viewing the source. I'm sure many will opinionatedly differ, but it's worked just fine for me for a decade and I find it easier to maintain and for other's to understand the structure on first glance of the HTML.

<comment><USER4> I recently started using source maps, which basically allow you to inspect the underlying less (I dunno about sass...). That might not totally fix your issues with inspecting correlated rules, or maybe you've already tried it, but I've been finding it helpful.

<comment><USER5> Sass can generate source maps too. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I used to be firmly in the "don't use bootstrap" semantic css camp, but now that Bootstrap 3 is out, I no longer see the point. It's a pain to have to think of all the specific class names for things, and the end user doesn't care anyway.I'm not sure what the actual real world benefits of semantic css are, and I have wasted a huge amount of time in the past coming up with my own stylesheets that end up being worse versions of Bootstrap anyway.

The only place that Bootstrap really "traps" you is in the presentational grid class names, but you'll get this with any grid, and the Bootstrap grid is pretty solid (I have invested a large amount of time designing my own grid systems in the past).

The biggest benefit of Bootstrap that I see is that it enforces a sensible naming convention, so that someone who has not read through your quirky "semantic" 3000 line stylesheet can easily get to work on the site. The custom stylesheet (and the variables stylesheet) that you load after Bootstrap will tend to only be a few hundred lines, and contain only the things that make your site unique.

I have several large sites that I made before I used Bootstrap for everything and I constantly kick myself when I've got to dig in and maintain them. If you are a good designer and take pride in your work, nobody will be able to know that you used Bootstrap without opening the inspector.

<comment><USER7> Upvoted for truth, but TFA goes a long way towards minimizing the difficulty of creating and maintaining a semantic solution. I've been turned away from semantic css by simple pragmatic efficiency, but this solution might be worth trying out.

<comment><USER8> Yes, but then you've added SASS to the mix. If you stay in Bootstrap-land you're at CSS level still. Or am I wrong?

I want to stay at HTML/CSS/JS level. I don't want layers and layers and layers. Even using Ruby templates (if I'm using Ruby for instance) irks me. Maybe I'm weird. But I'm only a semi-professional web dev at this stage so my 2c may be worth les than your 2c :)

<comment><USER7> Bootstrap is a black box: I don't really care what it was implemented in (LESS as someone else pointed out). I include bootstrap.min.js, and then customize it as necessary in my SASS file, compiled during deployment to CSS. No conflict here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The biggest problem of using @extend this way is that it makes the CSS file grow really _really_ fast. I've done things in similar way in the past in a medium-sized project (though with Blueprint and custom utility styles since Bootstrap doesn't existed back then) and ended up with selectors that looks like this after compilation, but for the whole file:

       .tag,
       div#main h1 span,
       div#content h2 span,
       div.comment ul.info li.username span,
       div.comment ul.info li.comment span,
       div.sidebar div.search span,
       (a lot more selectors here),
       div.footer ul.links span {
          /* … */
          }
          .tag:hover,
          div#main h1 span:hover,
          div#content h2 span:hover,
          div.comment ul.info li.username span:hover,
          div.comment ul.info li.comment span:hover,
          div.sidebar div.search span:hover,
          (a lot more selectors here):hover,
          div.footer ul.links span:hover {
             /* … */
          }

Then I hit the 4095 selectors limit[1] in Internet Explorer. That pretty much force me to cleanup the whole CSS. In the end I took similar approach to Bootstrap classes, which make the CSS file size and number of selectors much more manageable.

[1]: [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2011/05/14/10164...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2011/05/14/10164546.aspx)

<comment><USER10> Are we talking about Saas? You can use placeholders to deal with that.

[http://sass-lang.com/documentation/file.SASS_REFERENCE.html#...](http://sass- lang.com/documentation/file.SASS_REFERENCE.html#placeholders)

<comment><USER9> I don't think this is quite what I want to say, what I meant to say was that using @extend will increase the number of CSS selectors by the number of selector it extends to when compiled (including nested selectors.)

For example, .form-control in Bootstrap total of 9 selectors, the login example from the article extends from it twice, now the compiled CSS ended up with at least 18 selectors. Another example would be .btn the author used in the login example, which has another 9 more selectors for .btn alone, then 16 more selectors in each .btn-variant. The example extend from both .btn and .btn-variant twice, this result in 50 more selectors that will be added. From my very quick counting, the login form example alone will create about 71 more selectors for a simple login form.

This might not be a problem for a small site, but the number could become unmanageable very quickly once the site grow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This was thoroughly disappointing.

I was hoping to see a discussion of how to separate out the structure of bootstrap and the appearance of bootstrap so that as you grow and change you have neat separation of concerns and single reaponsibility.

Instead, they trotted out the old "
 is bad,  is good" semantic web fetishism. And while yes, nav seems easier for a robot to understand, As soon as you start defining custom components you loose much of that robotic awareness because now you have to program the parser to handle unanticipated element types, and mis-use of element types. So on net you're at best a little better off than you were with
 And definitely more complicated.

I'd love for someone to prove to me how semantic naming actually helps. To me it seems like the XML vs JSON debate where we are piling complexity on chasing after an impossible goal of machines being able to consume data without having to know the context of the data. Unless I am missing something, I think we'll look back at this period of time in HTML structuring and scratch our heads like we are doing now at the XML fad.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think Nicholas Gallagher made the case against this best:

 _" The experience of many skilled developers, over many years, has led to a shift in how large-scale website and applications are developed. Despite this, for individuals weaned on an ideology where "semantic HTML" means using content-derived class names (and even then, only as a last resort), it usually requires you to work on a large application before you can become acutely aware of the impractical nature of that approach. You have to be prepared to disgard old ideas, look at alternatives, and even revisit ways that you may have previously dismissed.

Once you start writing non-trivial websites and applications that you and others must not only maintain but actively iterate upon, you quickly realise that despite your best efforts, your code starts to get harder and harder to maintain. It's well worth taking the time to explore the work of some people who have proposed their own approaches to tackling these problems: Nicole's blog and Object Oriented CSS project, Jonathan Snook's Scalable Modular Architecture CSS, and the Block Element Modifier method that Yandex have developed.

When you choose to author HTML and CSS in a way that seeks to reduce the amount of time you spend writing and editing CSS, it involves accepting that you must instead spend more time changing HTML classes on elements if you want to change their styles. This turns out to be fairly practical, both for front- end and back-end developers – anyone can rearrange pre-built "lego blocks"; it turns out that no one can perform CSS-alchemy."_

from "About HTML semantics and front-end architecture" [http://nicolasgallagher.com/about-html-semantics-front- end-a...](http://nicolasgallagher.com/about-html-semantics-front-end- architecture/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Why do HTML classes have to be semantic, and by semantic I mean describing the content encapsulated in the element? I never understood this mantra. It's parroted around and followed religiously, often lacking any arguments. It's not for users. Users aren't going to `view source` and say, "Look at all this rich, semantic goodness!" I could see their utility for search engines and vertical web crawlers, but beyond that, I just don't get it. I'm using OOCSS now and have abandoned strict semantic HTML class names. The huge benefit is that the CSS ruleset is small and maintenance is so easy. When you're using a grid system, for example, you don't have to look at the class name, and then reference that in the CSS (inspector helps, I will admit). You already know what's happening. It's a lot less to learn, and updates are much faster in my experience.

<comment><USER14> Because when you are refactoring your CSS you want things to be coupled correctly. You want all the things that are similar in content to have the same class so that they look the same. If you don't want this your site is probably not very well designed. It has nothing to do with reading the file, either by humans or robots, it has to do with correctly separating concerns and then coupling them where they should be.

<comment><USER13> I agree with what you're saying. I just wouldn't follow this dogmatically. To me it boils down to what's DRY, maintainable, and easy to refactor. I do use more abstract class names that have no presentational meaning, but that's only because it's a bundle of styles used in a lot of places, like a heading repeated all over. Or maybe it's a component with a bunch of interrelated elements. But there are one-off situations where I've used
 or
. I also find using grid classes directly is easy to maintain. Using grid classes directly also means you've separated most of your layout concerns. So separating concerns can happen in different contexts. OK, I'm done rambling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wrote an article describing this exact technique almost 2 years ago, but at the time the commenters on HN fell just short of calling me an idiot.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3653540](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3653540)

<comment><USER16> I believe I read that one also. It seems more confrontational at quick glance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> There are alternatives to bootstrap like bourbon, neat and bitters:

[http://bourbon.io](http://bourbon.io) [http://neat.bourbon.io](http://neat.bourbon.io) [http://bitters.bourbon.io](http://bitters.bourbon.io)

<comment><USER18> I totally dig the Thoughtbot toys, and use Bourbon/Neat in my own foundation - but it's a pretty loose alternative to Bootstrap if you're looking for all that Bootstrap has to offer. Bitters still kind of feels like an after-thought to me. Not sure if that's unfair or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Semantics are semantics.

The point of semantics is to glean _meaning_. This does not necessarily mean Oxford Dictionary meaning, nor does it mean HTML Spec meaning.

Here's the _tradeoff_ : The semantic meaning of a bootstrap class is evident to the developers. The semantic meaning of an element is evident to the browser.

What is more valuable to you: a common language amongst multiple developers, or a semantically rich HTML document? I'd imagine for most web-apps, where permanence is unlikely and iteration is constant, that the former is true. Bootstrap provides a predictable common language, despite it's not-so-semantic effects on the markup.

I agree with woah here - real world benefits of semantic class names are, probably, waning.

</comment><comment><USER20> TLDR: try to use Boostrap like Zurb Foundation is designed to be used.

<comment><USER21> Exactly. This is why I started using Foundation primarily in the first place. I tried staying on the bootstrap-sass bandwagon, but Foundation won me over entirely by letting me overwrite Sass variables to retheme.

<comment><USER22> "but Foundation won me over entirely by letting me overwrite Sass variables to retheme."

Can you elaborate on this? Is this not possible with LESS?

<comment><USER23> > Can you elaborate on this? Is this not possible with LESS?

It's definitely possible. I overwrite Bootstrap's colors/borders/buttons with LESS. LESS and SASS are, functionally, extremely similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So what happens when my markup needs to change? I also need to update the SASS right? If that's the case, I see no benefit.

<comment><USER25> Exactly. There shouldn't be a markup structure to style dependency. Personally I would never use an element selector because it makes life really difficult when you need to refactor the markup, which happens fairly often in my experience. Using classes doesn't make things less semantic as long they are named correctly and as long as the markup is semantic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can't you do the same thing with LESS?

        body { .container; }

        body > header { .page-header;
          p { .lead; }
        }

etc

Then you can make use of bootstrap's variables as well for customizing? Obviously personal preference LESS vs SASS, but no reason you _need_ to switch from the default

<comment><USER27> For large/complex sites, you should take into consideration the performance of various selectors. ID selectors are always fastest, and single classes are faster than complex selectors.

Nested rules in LESS/SASS make things easier to manage, but when you end up using extend blocks, nested files, and parent rules, you can end up with very non-performant CSS rules. It may not matter much in a small page, but on larger pages with thousands of DOM nodes it can add up.

<comment><USER18> Unless you're just nesting the ever-loving shit out of your pre-processor, there is almost always lower hanging fruit when it comes to performance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I like this post.

I felt bad forcing my HTML to fit Bootstrap. Using @extends to keep everything semantic ensures my templates logically sound.

<comment><USER29> But what are your actual benefits to your semantic layout besides "not feeling bad"? It seems that using the @extends creates just as many issues as it solves.

<comment><USER30> What kind of problems would it create? I'm not familiar with SASS, but the approach described in the article looks interesting to me.

I like to keep the markup as semantic as possible, and keep the structure/presentation distinct. I find it easier to reason about.

<comment><USER31> It bloats your compiled stylesheet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> (In response to some of these comments)

Concise, semantic markup results in:

        * less complexity
        * easier maintenance
        * greater portability

For one example, what happens when you want to use another grid framework instead of bootstrap's? With non-semantic markup, you have to go through and strip out all those bootstrap classes on everything. On the other hand, if you use concise, semantic HTML and Sass (or LESS, if you don't mind totally abusing at-rule syntax), all you have to do is swap out the grid mixins (or, in the case of the approach in the OP, @extends) and related styles, often with no changes to the markup. Same with any other component you might want to swap out, such as form styles.

What happens when 3 years from now someone inherits your mess of HTML with presentational styles for a framework that's years old and no longer relevant? In addition to updating the styles, they also have the pleasure of spending hours or longer stripping out your outdated, framework-specific presentational classes and ids.

What happens when you HTML needs to be consumed in an unknown, unpredictable context? Content organizations are _still_ dealing with the fallout of having inflexible HTML and CSS that can't easily be adapted for mobile.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've experimented with this strategy -- avoid putting bootstrap classes directly in markup, but instead use CSS pre-processors to mix bootstrap classes into your own css classes.

I've found it's _less_ maintainable, in the sense that the extra level of indirection becomes a lot more confusing to debug or change. Dealing with a bootstrap upgrade (minor or major) only makes it worse.

The presentational classes in your markup does give me a bad feeling. Maybe if Bootstrap had been designed from the start to keep your DOM purely semantic and your presentation purely in CSS, then it would result in a framework that can more easily be used that way. However, there are other frameworks that tried to do this; they haven't been as successful (ie popular) as bootstrap, and it may be that _some_ of the reason why is the extra complexity it takes to try and keep presentation and semantics strictly separate.

There is such a thing, sometimes, as too much abstraction. When we start calling it 'over-engineering' or 'too complex'.

</comment><comment><USER34> I learned along time ago that you can either write "perfect code" or you can write "pragmatic code" guess which ones wastes less time and puts more bread on table?

I started a long time ago in college with procedural see, moving onto JAVA and .NET and its OO cruft only to realise that instead of helping its slowing me down and come around full circle

</comment><comment><USER35> > "... _we can still style this page using Bootstrap 's style definitions by > @extend-ing Bootstrap classes..._"

FYI, LESS has the same exact functionality since v1.4.0. [https://github.com/less/less.js/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md](https://github.com/less/less.js/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md)

</comment><comment><USER36> So you want your HTML to be clean and semantic and your CSS to be a spaghetti riddled @extend-fest. No thank you.

</comment><comment><USER37> Most of the applications I build are for internal users and unlikely to have any type of real designer working on the project. Bootstrap provides a way to make good layouts without a ton of design work. It's also nice to use the bootstrap css between companies without any IP issues.

</comment><comment><USER29> I see the point, but isn't this only moving the "debt" to another area? Instead of your markup being littered with Bootstrap classes, now your Less files are.

</comment><comment><USER38> I tend to agree with the post. Mainly I've used bootstrap so I dont have to focus on the design and I can focus on the other aspects. Recently I have been having to deal with getting _off_ of the row layout I used in my initial designs.

This has been a pain and the pains keep growing as I realize that I need more control over the design. In fact, recently I have spent a lot more time fighting Boostrap and now I am spending the time I saved in the beginning by using it.

</comment><comment><USER39> Isn't this how everyone utilizing a pre-processor uses it?

</comment><comment><USER40> Been doing this for my last few projects and loving it. Using yeoman helps simplify the process a ton.

Now if there was only a simple way to exclude all of the styles that are never used across a site I'd be able to cut my CSS down like 75%, but that would probably take a headless browser crawling the whole thing.

<comment><USER41> As far as I know, this (still experimental) grunt task by Addy Osmani, does exactly that: [https://github.com/addyosmani/grunt- uncss](https://github.com/addyosmani/grunt-uncss)

<comment><USER40> This is exactly what I was looking for!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> In that case one should look at PureCSS.io from Yahoo! .

</comment><comment><USER43> I am of the opinion that semantic markup is not an indicator of a quality product. Tradeoffs need to be evaluated including maintainability, code sharing, knowledge transfer and rapid prototyping among other factors. Purists that say no markup in HTML are constrained to a religion, just as any other _must do_ that drive decisions. I argue that you employ not just the tools, but the techniques and strategies that will allow you to advance. Every situation is unique.

Regarding this technique...

In some circumstances, it is more than justified. Adding another layer of encapsulation can allow for a separation of concerns that may accelerate some stages of development.

I ask myself, is this more of a tooling question? If, we had a view of our stack that a) allows for these encapsulations and b) surfaces the right information at the right time would we not make use of it?

For example, my personal frustration is that when building a new feature for Rails for example, I have to conceptually traverse the full stack (html/erb, css/sass, javascript/rjs, views, helpers, layouts, controllers, model, database) -- substitute your own versions these separations depending on your stack. That means that adding a new checkbox to a form could potentially touch 9 different layers! Do I really have to hunt and peck for 9 different files to add 1 checkbox? Oh yeah, don't forget your tests...10!

I think that organizing the layers allows different experts to optimize different layers...a good thing!, but at the cost of being able to see 1 slice of the 10 layer cake.

I often search (and have not yet found) a set of tools that will allow me to view my stack depending on my current task and goals. I am not talking about edit/debug/optimize type views that come with some IDEs. I mean the logical grouping of all concerns related to my current feature.

This is a tooling issue in my opinion. Why can't my editor give me the right view of my stack at the right time? At a minimum, let's have our editors filter project files (and database views) depth first, grouped to all files that are relevant to the feature I am currently implementing. Sure, I can quick open and type out some names, but I would rather have my editor show me the relevant files (and only the relevant files) that make up my current slice of my cake.

Is there an editor, or plugin out there that will do this today?

Or what about 1 step further... Instead of surfacing files, what about surfacing just the chunks of code that are relevant. What if my editor let me author bits of all parts of the stack for 1 feature in 1 logical file, and save it out to the traditional locations expected by my framework. I personally would be more efficient, and effective, if I could see my snippets of html/javascript/css/controller code/model code all in 1 tight view. No more would I have to keep all the connections in my head, they would be laid out right there in 1 file. Also required for this type of productivity would be simple ways to reuse and refactor.

Just looking for a tool that will let me have my cake and eat it too.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are searching for the IntelliJ IDEA Project Scopes feature [1]. It let you view group of files either manually set or automatically, based on what changed, what belongs to a particular problem, etc. Basically it exactly does what you are searching for :) 1 step further: it only can do this with regular expression; you can edit a regular expression in a new window and it automatically change it on the relevant place real time.

[1] [http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/webhelp/scope.html](http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/webhelp/scope.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Bravo!</comment>


A house for $700 in India - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/16/india.cheap.house/index.html

<comment><USER2> Maybe this will help make housing in SF more affordable?</comment>


Are programmers engineers? (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://www.ericsink.com/Are_Programmers_Engineers.html

<comment><USER2> Interesting. However, this particular one stood out to me:

> Engineering is real. Programming is abstract

I suppose it all depends on the definition of 'programmer', and the kind of programming you do, as well as how you define abstract and real, but when I explain what I do to designers or craftsmen of various sorts, I often use engineering as an analogy.

What I do is to translate specifications and graphic designs and UX mockups (analogous to an architect?) to something that, while technically virtual, is very 'real' in that it needs to work. The biggest part of my work is to produce something functional while maintaining as much of the (often unrealistic) design, or fixing bugs that arise.

And in the same way that a big engineering project can go over budget because of 'bugs', unrealistic design, or unexpected difficulties, I'm usually the part of the process that is hardest to predict and goes over budget.

That said, this article made me consider the differences. Very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER3> This made me chuckle because I tease the devs I work with about this all the time: I call them artists. It's the BA vs BS. Devs have the freedom to be much more creative than engineers. I think of devs in a similar way to architects - as in a design a building kind. Btw, I am a licensed engineers. =)</comment>