Ask HN: What makes Medium a better/worse media outlet? - <AUTHOR> <comment> git-pull This may not be what you're looking for, but Google seems to prefer Medium content.

I think it could be natural. A lot of smart interlinking of posts, clustering different niches, and posts being spread across social websites.

I can even give a direct example. My book _The Tao of tmux_ is available for free online. It used to be in the google top 10 for tmux. Now, a newer article on HackerNoon is up at the very top: [https://hackernoon.com/a-gentle- introduction-to-tmux-8d784c4...](https://hackernoon.com/a-gentle-introduction- to-tmux-8d784c404340)

I think people just like the Medium posts, heh. They made a publishing platform that attracted talented writers, and the feedback loop with readers seems to be encouraging it to grow.

Medium actually hampers my personal efforts since I keep my own static website and wrote a custom blog-like application I post. I feel I may end up having to move writing efforts there since the velocity there is so big.

P.S. NYTimes digital team uses Medium: [https://open.nytimes.com/](https://open.nytimes.com/) I think that demonstrates to me people just like the product and it's going to self- perpetuate until someone devises something better.

</comment><comment><USER2> My startup uses Medium as its preferred blogging host. We prefer Medium because of the ease of use, the engagement, and the overall UX. We think its gorgeous!

Being a Fintech startup that focuses on getting people BTC or USD cashback on any card, we need to push out content quickly and have something that simply works. Otherwise, our dev and attention would be consumed by our blog content.

The only downfall with Medium from my understanding is that you lose your site SEO. But the engagement is very high and its possible to double post content if you do have your own blog, so it works out either way.

I highly recommend using Medium.

<comment><USER3> I think for post people SEO is the part that they get stuck on, but i'm pretty sure you can import posts like you mention.

Does it pull in the post with styling etc.. as well?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For a long time, it seemed like Just Another Blogging platform -- maybe slightly nicer page layouts than some. But I'm now rapidly losing patience with the frequency with which it nags me to log in...

</comment><comment><USER5> I think the network effect and discovery are the key things that Medium brings to the table.

When I write blog posts on my own site, I tend to use medium as a channel where I publish a teaser post with a link back to my blog.</comment>


Lessons I learned building an MPs' expenses crowdsourcing app for the Guardian - <AUTHOR> http://simonwillison.net/2009/Dec/20/crowdsourcing/

<comment><USER2> It's nice to see someone from a big public-facing operation straightforwardly describing the mistakes made during a tech project. I learn a lot more about real-world development from reading about the hacks and errors than I do from the much more common "We used this technology because it gave us this cool feature" style of writeup. It's also more dramatic.

<comment><USER3> I seriously have improved my programming more from reading little asides from folks on their blogs than I have from all the conferences I've been sent to. (Recently, a HN comment caused me to replace ImageMagick with GraphicsMagick. Cut 50% of my request times for less than 5 minutes of work -- 2 lines of code had to change. Where have you been all my life?)

Yay for sharing information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here we were, seeing headlines about some MPs who claimed a gas bill twice, or a second home when they didn't really need a second home. It's peanuts. It's irrelevant. It's small fry. Obviously if you make rules fuzzy and allow for second homes, people will push those rules up to the limit. Just like anyone else would.

Whilst at the same time, bailing out banks for BILLIONS.

I guess it's easier to sell papers with a headline about an MPs husband claiming expenses for a £10 adult movie, than it is to investigate a multi billion bank giveaway.

If the crowd-sourcing finds a receipt for gimp outfit you can be 100% sure that'll be front page news. But why should anyone care? Is there a risk that MPs may be spending too much on gimp outfits? could thy all start claiming gimp outfits and we'd have no money to pay the NHS bills? No. Exactly.

<comment><USER5> I don't see how these two things are even slightly related. Other than the Lloyds business, what was not above board about the bank bailout? What laws were broken? How were any of the people at the Bank of England who recommended and actually implemented the bailout personally enriched?

Note that according to the latest Budget, the actual cost of the bank bailout when the dust settles is expected to be 10Bn (5% of the welfare budget) and if Alastair Darling can be convinced not to wreck RBS, we (the taxpayer) might even make a profit on it. We own 84% of RBS, that's where the money went, into _acquiring_ stuff, not into a black hole. Not that we'll see any of it mind, but that too is beside the point.

If you want to conflate anything, MPs expenses + "dodgy dossier" is the way to go.

<comment><USER4> The point is, the Bank bailout was spending taxpayers money without our consent.

Claiming a few blue movies on the tax payer is the same, but hardly in the same league in terms of amount of money spent.

I'd just rather read about real news - that matters. Not a few grand some MPs have claimed on expenses that they maybe shouldn't have but it's a grey area.

What is the total money claimed by all MPs, that shouldn't have been claimed by MPs? 6 figures maybe early 7 figures? Oh well that'll keep the NHS running for another few hours - the scale of this just seems miniscule.

It's like finding out someone in the ships bar has stolen £10 from petty cash while the titanic sinks.

</rant>

<comment><USER6> If you believe the Clinton impeachment was about perjury in a court of law by the highest law enforcement officer in the nation, it was arguably worse than all of the above.

But based on what I read of the first batch of (leaked) expense disclosures, they paint a pattern nearly as bad as Clinton's, _much_ worse than "claiming a few blue movies*, one of an irredeemably corrupt ruling class.

Granted, this is corruption at a "retail" personal level, but it's hard to imagine these same people aren't as corrupt when they're acting in their capacity as MPs and ... how do you say it? ... members of the government/ministers/front benchers/whatever.

<comment><USER7> Yes, exactly. While the corruption may be "retail," the fact or suspicion calls into question their ability to conduct more substantial business in the people's interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting article, and kudos to the Guardian, one of the only worthwhile papers left in the UK, for funding such a venture.

<comment><AUTHOR> The Guardian's pretty well positioned for this kind of thing. We're owned by the Scott Trust which keeps us free from undue influence by shareholders and actively encourages long-term thinking about the future of journalism. We also have a very strong technology department - the site runs on an in-house custom CMS (Spring/Hibernate/Velocity) and we have plenty of flexibility to try out new things.

It's a really fun place to work.

<comment><USER5> _We're owned by the Scott Trust which keeps us free from undue influence by shareholders and actively encourages long-term thinking about the future of journalism._

In the interest of full disclosure, you should also point out that the Graun has a near monopoly on public sector job ads, so is effectively State- subsidized.

(Back in the late 90s I worked on your old StoryServer implementation... What a bunch of arse that was).

<comment><USER9> _"the Graun has a near monopoly on public sector job ads, so is effectively State-subsidized."_

Cobblers. (And a lazy Conservative Party talking point to boot.)

The TES and Times Higher have more education jobs, and local papers get a far higher local government spend in aggregate. And in the Guardian that's only Tuesdays and Wednesdays (having bought them before I can tell you that the Saturday job supplement is merely a repeat and I never paid more for it).

In fact the vast majority of advertised public sector jobs are not advertised in the Guardian. Under what bizarre definition of 'monopoly' would this fall?

<comment><USER5> Show me a BBC ad in the Daily Mail, then.

<comment><USER9> Right after you show me _any_ media job ad in the Daily Mail that's not for DMGT itself, sure.

<comment><USER10> Are you claiming that the Daily Mail doesn't accept media ads except from itself?

If a general circulation pub is willing to take govt ads but govt doesn't place them, it's fair to ask why.

<comment><USER9> No, I'm saying _nobody_ else in the media industry is prepared to buy them, and therefore the BBC is not remotely exceptional in this regard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Great story. It was actually kind of interesting to see EC2 relegated to a small part of one paragraph -- sounds like it did its job as expected. What else can you tell us (or me at least :-) about this aspect of the project?

<comment><AUTHOR> There's not a lot to say really - it Just Worked. We used it for the last project as well. This time we had two instances, one running MySQL and Redis and the other running Django. Last time we started with one instance and then moved to two when it turned out I'd written a bunch of inefficient code (the ORDER BY RAND for example). This time we started with two, but I'd avoided the dumb mistakes I made first time round so scaling turned out not to be a problem. Now that most of the activity is over we'll scale down to just one instance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Absolutely amazing that it's possible to get this kind of application up in a week. Kudos to everyone involved.

That said, make the categorisation buttons AJAX, and can we have higher resolution scans? Or is that how they were supplied? The couple of pages I did had items on them that were basically illegible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you talking about the new system or the old one? The new one is <http://mps-expenses2.guardian.co.uk/> \- it doesn't seem to fit Ajax quite as well (we should definitely have used Ajax for the first one).

The scans were sized to fit the design - with hindsight, having a "zoom" option would have made sense for some pages. They were large enough for the documents we had in advance, but you can never be entirely sure what the actual released documents will look like.

<comment><USER12> I was talking about whatever was linked with the post. yes, I think it was the one you mention.

When a user clicks a button to categorise an entry, the whole page reloads - this could be handled by ajax. And yeah the scans could and probably should be bigger.

Not that I want to sound like a jerk because I think you did a phenomenal job. Just suggestions for next time. But seriously you and the NYT are on the cutting edge of this shit and much respect is due.</comment></comment></comment>


AWS Snowball - <AUTHOR> http://blog.digitalglobe.com/industry/digitalglobe-moves-to-the-cloud-with-aws-snowmobile/ <comment><USER2> Title should be changed to 'AWS Snowmobile'</comment>


The full stack developer is a myth - <AUTHOR> https://blog.growth.supply/the-full-stack-developer-is-a-myth-4e3fb9c25867 <comment><USER2> My definition of a full stack developer is someone who is able to build and deploy a complete working application with no-one else's help. That means they can write the back end, the front end and configure the servers and of course design the database tables.

That said, as a recruiter I'm seeing employers now who really won't consider candidates unless they are expert front end and back end developers. That's a pity as I'm not convinced that's useful where there are three or more members of a team building a web application. Browser development alone is easily enough to occupy all the available work time of a single developer.

<comment><USER3> If you can design 1) the database schema, and 2) the application's frontend (either web or native app), you're essentially a full-stack developer. What's left are the operational details increasingly handled by service providers (like AWS).

<comment><USER4> Really, it's funny you say "operational details" in such a dismissive way. Even when you're in AWS I dare you to not worry about the "operational details" when shit hits the fan, e.g. your database offed itself and you need to figure out what the hell just happened.

<comment><USER5> _Really, it 's funny you say "operational details" in such a dismissive way._

Is it possible you're projecting? Ops is vital to launching an app, but it also has little to nothing to do with the development of that app. It's a completely different skill set.

<comment><USER6> I think we can work much more effectively with ops a core part of the development process.

If you spend weeks/months building an app and then launch it and find nobody wanted it then you've just wasted a lot of time and effort.

If you spend weeks/months building an app and then discover you can't deploy it in the way you planned because of an operational detail, you're going to incur a lot of rework.

How long is it going to take you to get your app into production?

If you start right from getting your hello world webapp into a production operations environment, then iterate until you have something you can start testing with users you won't have any of these problems.

You will however, have to start considering operations from the start. There's a lot less waste, it's lower risk, but you can't ignore operational concerns as someone else's problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a full stack developer. I exist, and you can hire me for $800 a day if you want.

I've always used the term to mean that I'm comfortable on the back and front end of things, and that I have a wide range of experience that means I'm familiar with _most_ of the technology you're likely to use. It also means that I can build an deploy an application from the ground up, alone if necessary.

A full stack developer is just a generalist. A good one is super useful if you only have a few employees, or if you're building a new project.

At some point, you reach the level where you need dedicated specialists, and at that point a generalist can often transition to a management role.

I don't think I'm alone in this--I can't do this stuff because I started coding at 12, or because I was born a genius. I learned it by bootstrapping a startup--doing everything myself from designing hardware, to web development, to handling customers.

<comment><USER8> Question: since breadth usually is the inverse of depth, FSDevs are good enough to stay afloat in all fields; this means that an expert (someone who is specialized) is always able to crush a FSDev in his own field of expertise. So, FSDevs are always the rookies in all fields, compared to specialized devs. Does it make sense to put a FSDev in a big team?

<comment><USER7> You know the saying "quantity has a quality all its own".* Sometimes being able to draw on a wide breadth of experience allows you to see the bigger picture that most people miss. Even in an almost perfectly modular system, you need generalists sitting on the borders.

Take the case of a product that consists of a back end API, a single page web app, and a mobile app. Who do you want designing the API? I think ideally the answer is someone who has some experience with all the systems involved.

I've been on teams where the back end guys designed the data model and the API and forced the front end to conform to that. And I've been on teams where the front end team ran the show--in my opinion neither situation is optimal.

> this means that an expert (someone who is specialized) is always able to > crush a FSDev in his own field of expertise. So, FSDevs are always the > rookies in all fields, compared to specialized devs.

I think there's a few different things to say here. First, I think most teams aren't really made up of experts. Mostly because most teams can't afford to be made up of experts, and because most teams probably don't need that many experts.

Second, there is a huge amount of overlap in most developer roles, so a lot of experience in one role transitions very well to other roles.

Third, most good generalist developers probably have some field that they actually are experts in. You've probably heard the term "T shaped developers". Their field of expertise might even be something like domain knowledge or management.

And finally, for most developers, there is a limit to how specialized you can become. To have along successful career in software development you can't afford to become completely specialized. If you plan on writing software for 40 years or more, you're probably not going to be a Rails specialist for the entire time.

In the end, I think a good team requires a decent mix of specialists and generalists to function well.

*usually misattributed to Stalin

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some people are generalists, others specialists. I dont think either fully appreciates the other as much as they should.

Companies that get it right in my opinion find room for both, however in my experience the larger the company the less likely you are to see full stack developers or generalists due to the pressures of organisational structures and high level ownership.

</comment><comment> crack-the-code The thing is, this also assumes that job postings are an accurate representation of the employer's expectations. I think it's a common trend for employers to ask for much more than they realistically want, in exchange for weeding out those who feel incompetent and unable to meet certain requirements.

That being said, I think that when employers ask for full-stack developers, they actually want someone more experienced in a certain part of the stack, yet still familiar enough to get their hands dirty with other parts of the stack but not necessarily at the expert level. In other words, candidates who are more well-rounded yet focused in a certain area of expertise will likely stand out the most and meet the employer's expectations.

<comment><USER10> Also known as T-shaped developers: [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/thebeebs/archive/2012/04/01/the- rise...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/thebeebs/archive/2012/04/01/the-rise-of-the- t-shaped-developer.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm a full stack. I do front end (bootstrap,bower,npm,etc..), backend (laravel,composer, data modeling with Relational and Nosql, I also webscrap and do api), and dev ops (ansible,apache). Just not master of anything... It's not a myth. The myth is expecting them to be master of every aspect.

The website is pretty bad with Privacy Badger on btw.

</comment><comment><USER12> I guess I'm a full stack developer, does this mean I'm some sort of mythical creature?

No, my specially is the back-end. I got to know CSS when the designer went AWOL a couple of weeks before a project was to go live. I've grown experience in javascript because I couldn't find a decent front-end developer for the right terms.

Programming is a mix of learning the theory (the same principles are repeated regardless of the technology), and practice (I enjoy programming/ exploring so it doesn't feel like a chore).

I've been doing this [professionally] for nearly decade. Had I not had a deep interest in technology, I'd properly be working on some ancient codebase doing a job I hate.

</comment><comment><USER13> well, if you make up a definition for the term for the purposes of your article about how it's an impossible definition to meet, i guess you can write that article.

<comment><USER14> Lol, Excellent point.

I was going to say, although full stack is pretty loose, it isn't that loose.

Full stack means you can touch front end code, backend code, and you can design a table or two or dump a few things into a NoSql Db for persistance. That's hard but it's not impossible at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not a myth, I'm a full stack developer with 20 years of hardware, admin, qa, and software experience, but haven't found it easy to find a new job I'd like. Not sure if the problem is that I only apply for "awesome" jobs, which are by definition hard to get, or I have too much experience?

Also I tend to speak modestly of my achievements, another character flaw. In a recent interview, I told the guy I hadn't used the django-rest-framework package, and didn't think much of it, seeing as I have five years of django experience, and use rest apis every day, and occasionally create them. You could hear a little let down in his voice, though. I haven't been able to bring myself to lie about silly things like that--really would it have even taken me an hour to master?

However, you never know why exactly you don't get a job, maybe they had someone local or cheaper and didn't want to bring in someone from outside the bay area. Usually ask $150k for a full-stack senior dev in SF, is that reasonable?

</comment><comment><USER16> Not really a myth. I do full-stack development. Anything from Ops (will happily configure and deploy to AWS with various CM tools, will set up centralized logging, will set up and configure alerting and monitoring), to DB (been a postgres user for half a decade, dbs with hundreds of gigs of data) to backend (single-handedly built my own Rails-like framework that we used to service millions of users) to frontend (can sling together anything from raw DOM to Backbone to React). The downside is that I'm not really a hardcore expert at any of these things, so any good specialist from any of these areas will be better than me. My role is best for smaller teams spinning up new projects, not as much where you'd need the top 1% professional in a certain area. Definitely wouldn't hire myself if I needed a specialist in a specific area.

</comment><comment><USER17> I can (and have experience to):

\- size and pick your IC's

\- review and debug your schematic

\- review and debug your FPGA's

\- bring up your board

\- port a bootloader to your board

\- port Linux to your board and/or custom SOC

\- port a Linux userland to your board

\- write backend services in many different stacks

\- write frontend stuff in many different stacks

\- setup a nice ops infrastructure

(And with the exception of some of the OS X specific stuff on his list, that too).

But all of that really doesn't mean much more than that I'm old. Experience matters.

</comment><comment><USER18> You can be a full stack developer. You cannot be a full stack expert.

Expertise takes focus and time. At some point, you have to make a choice between knowing a bit of everything, or knowing one thing very well. There is no bad choice, both are valid careers.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm a full stack developer. Although not an expert in all areas, I'm efficient and productive in almost all of the areas listed.

Then again, I'm creeping on 40 and thus, slowly getting fewer and fewer recruiter calls. This is definitely an industry that prioritizes youth (i.e. low expense) over execution, experience, skills, and breadth of knowledge.

But, also, I'm probably only in the top 10% (sampling over the over 200 developers that I've worked with). And, I've worked with a few exceptional people who would destroy me, in overall comparison.

<comment><USER20> I'm in the same boat; only I'm creeping up on 50 and have been working with computers since the early 80's (TRS-80 Color Computer). I have worked on most computing systems that you can think of (zOS, HP3000 MPE, Linux, AWS, Ruby on Rails, etc.) and am constantly looking at the next new thing (Rust vs. Go).

The problem that I seem to be running into is that I'm not a super speedy coder who is able to build a full featured Rails app (with tests, DB, front end JS, etc.) in 8 hours. With age I have definitely slowed down, but I've gained so much experience and knowledge about what will work well and what path you shouldn't take. I guess that experience is really only needed with smaller companies who can't afford to make the wrong decision early on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Meh, I'm sort of in agreement. I went from backend, distributed systems, and ops, to full-on graphics engine programming, to compilers, and back again.

Even the list he writes isn't exhaustive at all. You're basically either an engineer, or you aren't. If you are, you should be able to learn anything provided you have the math background for the more specialized things.

</comment><comment><USER22> That's because, for an extremely large portion of the "businesses who employ programmers" market, most of that image is just not a thing they do. I've never seen an ASP.NET consultoware shop do anything with PaaS, containers, load balancing, package managers, automated server management, search, automated configuration management, security auditing, or real UX design.

You usually have one guy or a very small team managing an on-site closet full of hardware, which is running an operating system you're probably not going to like, that is _maybe_ virtualized, if you're lucky. That's all lumped under IT, so the same people are responsible for answering support calls, setting up email accounts, and installing network connections.

Then, on the development side, you have a particular web server, database, programming language, and application framework being used for _every_ project, no possibility of doing anything else. The people who are hired here are expected to be able to make fool-proof instructions for the IT staff to be able to install the programs on the server.

And there is nothing in between. IT owns the hardware were the software runs, but they know nothing about how the software is made or what it needs. If something goes wrong, there had better be a developer on hand to "just fix it". Developers own the software, but they have zero access to the hardware, so preparing deployments is basically a ritual of finding the IT guy who hates the lead developer the least and hope he has time play telephone game on script runs that the developer massages based on his screenshots that he pastes into MS Word documents and emails.

If you're particularly lucky, your team figured out what sort of joke your "Corporate IT infrastructure" actually is and they communicate completely outside of the issue ticket tracking system that you installed to try to measure productivity because you have no clue how to evaluate anyone's work because you only have an MBA and have no idea how software is actually built or what kinds of problems IT departments actually face.

</comment><comment><USER23> The "full stack" listed in the article was missing growing the silicon and screwing the servers to the rack. Seriously, the list of what the author considers "full stack" was extreme. Otherwise, I know a lot of people (including myself) who can build you a high-performance web-app from scratch, using current tech and what I consider to be a "full stack" (most of what is mentioned in the article).

The author just cannot afford to pay them. Because that kind of skill comes at a high price. And that's where the bitching starts -- you cannot find a competent, capable "full-stack" developer who wants to work for chump change. People with those skills know what they are worth, and expect to get paid.

<comment><USER24> > The "full stack" listed in the article was missing growing the silicon and > screwing the servers to the rack

This is funny, but I actually know a guy whose last full-stack job entitled just that in addition to his dev duties! Since they self-hosted, he was responsible for data redundancy, etc. The guy's experience was definitely impressive

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I recently changed jobs. I've been "Full Stack" since I began and was "Full Stack" at my previous job and am "Full Stack" at my new job. But the author is spot on that "Full Stack" has meant different things at each of those jobs. At first, it was VCS+JavaScript/PHP/HTML/CSS. Then, Jenkins deployments+Apache server configuration+Bootstrap+Foundation+Laravel were tagged on. Now, it includes Nginx+Mongo+RabbitMQ+Elasticsearch. But I don't know that I agree that it's as meaningless as "Ninja". I think of it more along the lines of "here's our stack, we need someone who can tinker with any element within it"

</comment><comment><USER25> So if you substract the "User Design" list, I'm full-stack from the definition. I'm not a genius but I'm also not pretending I can host an app just because I can push start on a VM. I've worked at senior level in both dedicated frontend, backend dev and ops teams separately. I'm 30 with about 8 years experience.

The thing is there's basically no real advantage to being full-stack. I get paid more to specialise in either seperately. Tons of people see the cross- over as a negative. My competition are guys put apps live without testing them because the PHP server isn't incredibly different and they're totally full stack experts. :)

</comment><comment><USER26> In my experience when a job description is posted requiring a "full stack developer", they mean someone who can do some UI, business logic, and DB coding.

It doesn't mean they're looking for someone who is an expert in every aspect, or has skill sets in all 18 tiers that are listed in the article.

So yes the definition of "full stack developer" that this article uses means that there are exceedingly few full stack developers. But the definition implied by most job postings I see are a lot more reasonable than this article.

</comment><comment><USER27> _"True" full stack developers exist, but so do geniuses and people who have been coding since they were 12._

Exactly. There's no need for the headline bait. Neither full stack developers, nor geniuses, nor 12-year-olds who can program are _mythical._ They're just uncommon. No news there. If you think your project needs one of the former, you can find one. I'm sure we all know or work with people in all of the above three "mythical" categories.

</comment><comment><USER28> In my experience, "Full-stack" usually means knowledge of the web framework in question (Rails, Django, etc), as well as CSS/JavaScript mastery (Programming, Frameworks, and Front-end in the article, maybe some Databases and Security). I've never seen "Full-stack" refer to DevOps or UI/UX design.

<comment><USER29> Absolutely. "Stack" in "Full-stack" always seems to refer to a Web stack where the back-end is a database, a framework and maybe a service such as ElasticSearch or Redis.

I might be biased but to me, this is web development, not back-end. Back-end is designing distributed systems, data pipelines, trading systems, databases, etc... It has nothing to do with Web development.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The ends of the spectrum of the shown chart are not what I would consider in the wheelhouse of a "developer".

The top of the list is systems administration and the bottom of it is project manager and graphic designer.

A front-ender needs to know enough Photoshop and Illustrator to take comps and turn them into templates.

</comment><comment><USER31> I would qualify, I've done both servers and Android at Talkray. It's been a while since I have done both in the same day, but basically, if something broke on our Android client or server, I could jump in and get a fix, same goes for new features, and handle the server deployments.

That said, I'm happy that I don't have to do both. Oh, and right now, nobody's going to poach me. =)

</comment><comment><USER32> The term _full-stack_ was quickly picked up by other more contrived "stacks" besides the well-known ones (cloud, mobile, web, PC, mainframes, etc) and used to promote their own gimmicky products, _and_ as an excuse to muscle in on their partners businesses and bundle their products.

</comment><comment><USER33> While I agree that it is unreasonable to expect someone to deeply understand the current state of all of these technologies/problems, an actual "full stack engineer" needs only to be able to _learn_ very quickly about these problems and, ultimately, make things work.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think this whole debate is just people pedantically obsessing over the word "full". What 99% of job posters actually mean with the term "full stack (web) developer" is that they are looking for someone with _core_ skills on both the frontend and backend.

</comment><comment><USER35> I tend to hire people for what they will do, not for what they have done. AFAIK, full stack means someone who will be able to work at all levels of our stack to deliver something that works on top of the surface (eg. UI) or edges (eg. API) of the stack.

</comment><comment><USER36> Welcome to the what it means to be a start up founder. Not only do your customers expect your product to be high quality, but you dont have enough resources to dedicate to running, maintaining, or developing any given layer of the stack in isolation.

</comment><comment><USER37> It's not a myth. Or you are specialized in one or more complex skills in one field. Or you are specialized in knowing as much as you can in every field to build something out of it. So or you are specialized in a field like deployment (AWS, boto, Chef, docker, kubernetes, Mesos... and the list goes on), or like front-end (React, bootstrap, CSS3 reactive design...), or iOS app, back end, databases... Or, you are specialized in connecting all these dots. And this is a full stack developer.

Just knowing how to do the "operational details" is a job in itself. It's a job to work on very specific things at Google/Apple/FB, and it's what they need the most: developers who are the bests in their field. On the other side, it's also a full time job to know how to build a website with RoR with a RDBMS db and cache db, maybe on AWS, and even with some React in it. It's already quite a lot. And this is more what startups wants. Or at least a few of these people as a team leader or working closely with every person in their team to connect their dots, to design the app/web app/web site as a whole.

Now yes ask to a full stack RoR dev how to design and code a database and he won't know, ask him even how to do specific things on AWS and he may not know either. But he will know how to design and build the whole product from A to Z, and to manage people doing what he can't do. And at the opposite ask an expert in iOS apps how the back end really works when he sends a request to their Restful API and he won't know. Same thing for someone specialized in the back end and you ask him something about React. Both are specialised in one stack.

Or you want to master specific tech/stack/field and you become specialized in one of them, or you become broader and broader and you become a full stack developer. It can be full stack dev in iOS (so maybe with some NodeJS in it to do Restful API), or as another example a full stack dev in big data (so I guess: Python Luigy, MapReduce, Spark, Redshift, Scala, Java, AWS...). At the end of day our time is limited and we can't be specialized in everything so if what we love the most to do is to use

Personally as a full stack dev, I am like a small CTO and can be one. I love to have the whole picture in my mind and to know how everything works together on a higher scale. I love all these tech around (AWS Boto, Docker, Vault, Consul, Spark, ML...) and I am like a kid who with a new toy when projects like these ones come out. I prefer to read an articles on Highscalability.com about Airbnb or Uber and do the same, rather than crunching SQL requests.

</comment><comment><USER38> Gcc and make? Server management? Interesting.

Anyway, I could never understand the meaning of this new buzzword. Can anyone explain what does a "full stack" developer mean? Is it something from the web world?

<comment><USER39> It usually just means "Javascript coder with a decade of experience in <random frontend framework that exists for 6 months> and nodejs"

<comment><USER40> Hehe. I'm currently working on a "full stack" contract as a solo developer, where the mandated stack is AngularJS on the frontend and NodeJS on the backend. I like it a lot. The only thing I'd swap on the gig is MongoDB.

Other than that, I've been programming for 35 years (started on 8-bit micros when I was eight). At the last reckoning, I've racked up over twelve different languages on four different operating systems. I've programmed IBM mainframes, DEC minicomputers, PC servers, Linux set-top boxes and smartphones.

I've caught a tan from the glow of IBM 3270's, Wyse 50's, DEC VT220's, and am currently very happy with NodeJS on my Macbook with AWS as a deployment option (which I refer to as "the mainframe").

You should be careful before labelling people.

<comment><USER39> Not labeling anyone, just the use of the buzzword - not sure why you drew that conclusion (edit: your current gig fits exactly the "lazy caricature". The irony!)

<comment><USER40> So what did you mean by the lazy caricature? A lot of developers are solely responsible for the presentation, server and DB layers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> The article should say "Full stack web developer" considering there's plenty of domains where you can be full stack without hitting any of the listed technology.

</comment><comment><USER42> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7854504](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7854504)

</comment><comment><USER43> Im a full stackoverflow developer ;)

</comment><comment><USER44> Hi, I'm a full stack developer, I can tick every box on that list, and I've been programming since I was 7, not 12 :). All this stuff can be mastered given enough time, effort and by choosing projects which broaden your technical horizons.

Coincidentally available for contract work right now...

<comment><USER10> By tick every box, do you mean every layer or every component?

<comment><USER44> Every layer, I don't think _anyone_ is an expert in _all_ of those components, but I've worked with about 80% of them.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, becoming an expert on one or two components per layer doesn't seem particularly hard, given a few years of experience. Except for a couple of layers, I'd consider myself well-versed (not an expert) in at least one component per layer, and I'm not a particularly studious person.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Best Music For Coding - <AUTHOR> http://sdtimes.com/SD_TIMES_BLOG_THE_BEST_MUSIC_FOR_CODING/By_Alex_Handy/About_APHEXTWIN_and_BOARDSOFCANADA_and_CAN_and_FLYINGLOTUS_and_MOUNTKIMBIE_and_NEGATIVLAND_and_NEU_and_PREFUSE73/61924

<comment><USER2> [http://di.fm](http://di.fm) \- for all tastes, perfect for programming.</comment>


Top Down Operator Precedence (1971) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://daesan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/top_down_operator_precedence.pdf <comment><USER2> Precedence climbing can be derived intuitively from recursive descent:

[https://www.engr.mun.ca/~theo/Misc/exp_parsing.htm#more_clim...](https://www.engr.mun.ca/~theo/Misc/exp_parsing.htm#more_climbing)

... and "Pratt Parsing and Precedence Climbing Are the Same Algorithm" 2016):

[https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2016/11/01.html](https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2016/11/01.html)

and these techniques, despite originating in the 70s, are still the state of the art in most production programming language parsers

<comment><USER3> That article "Pratt Parsing and Precedence Climbing Are the Same Algorithm" is excellent. Though Andy has a later article where he clarifies that Precedence Climbing is a special case and is more popular than general Pratt Parsing because of it's simplicity [1].

[1] "Precedence Climbing is Widely Used" [http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/03/30.html](http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/03/30.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A thread from 2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9599969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9599969)

2010: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1027417](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1027417)

</comment><comment><USER5> The only way to fly....</comment>


Where Is Real America? (Statistical Analysis) - barry-cotter https://medium.com/migration-issues/where-is-real-america-54a63a381205 <comment> barry-cotter An analysis of metro areas in the US, measuring their divergence from the metro area average on 20 measures, among them foreign born share, married share and labour force participation.</comment>


Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html <comment><USER2> It's just completely surreal driving a bicycle in car traffic. The vast majority of car drivers simply lack the moral character and should not ever be allowed to drive such dangerous machinery.

Cycle paths are optional here, and I very regularly opt out of driving on them because they are in a constant state of disarray, had snow and glass shoved on them, are too close to parking cars or end abruptly, forcing me to merge into traffic. So, being a vehicle, I drive on the street. I drive on the middle of the street, because (1) bicycles come with two (bi) wheels and naturally oscillate (2) street conditions very frequently make it necessary to use space to my left or right and (3) to make it clear that you can not overtake me in the same lane.

Car drivers regularly think this is an invitation to overtake me _extremely_ closely, basically touching. They value my life, really any life, so little compared to the nonexistent time or speed benefit they would get from overtaking me. They think they are supremely in control of a large four ton object driving at 30 mph when they couldn't park it to an inch to save their life. They think I have done them wrong, and are now trying to get back at me; it's a game to them!

I don't know what it is that makes people lose all compassion or basic rational understanding of risks and dangers once they get into a car.

<comment><USER3> You've answered your own question.

Why _would_ people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.

<comment><USER4> FreakyT, if I ever see you in the street, I'm going to run you over for getting in my way.

And it will be called an accident.

I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem, but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.

<comment><USER3> That'll teach me a lesson! Seriously though, he said that he was getting run over, he said he was being passed by in a dangerously close way. Have you ever tried to pass a cyclist on a two-lane road without a shoulder? You'll find it's extremely difficult.

<comment><USER4> Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. What could you possibly be doing that is more important than endangering someone's life? Do you understand that the cyclist has a legal right to be there, and that the reason for that legal right is safety?

<comment><USER5> The cyclist should pull over and wait until the road is clear or ride in roads with lower speed limits and less traffic. The cyclist is the one impending traffic and therefore should be the one to be inconvenienced. Also the cyclist is the one who endangered their own life by deciding to ride in the street with cars. Even though cyclists have the right to be on the road they are still expected to fallow the traffic laws including signaling turns, stopping at stop signs and lights, and not impeding traffic flow. If they fallowed the laws they wouldn't be in danger. The vast majority of bicycle/vehicle accidents happen at intersections where surprise surprise cyclists very rarely fallow the law.

<comment><USER2> Are we now in magic land? Whats up with you and the other commentators in the immediate vicinity making up laws like "impeding traffic flow"?

If you dead stop and block a lane, you are breaking the law. And I see it plenty of times every day with delivery drivers, who also treat cycle paths as extended parking spaces.

Not riding the speed limit is simply not breaking a "traffic law", and I can not the imagine the state of delusion you have to be in to think it is.

<comment><USER5> Impeding traffic flow is a law in most states and counties and is frequently referenced in accident trials definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/

You should probably at least google something before you immediately claim its made up. Oh but wait that would be using common sense

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have ridden a bike year around in Chicago for over four years. I have been hit once by a car, and once by a motorcycle. Both times I managed to walk with only scrapes and bruises.

What is interesting is both of those times, I was in a bike lane with rear and front lights. When the car hit me I flew over its hood and landed several feet away. I had never heard of a car/driver being held responsible for a cycling accident. You could say I am conditioned to believe that drivers are never at fault. Once, I stood up from the fall and realized I was in working condition, I was ready to leave without calling the cops. My girlfriend had been on her bike riding behind me. She called the cops.

The driver said it was an accident. Accidents happen... I know the risks involved with riding. The cops wrote a report stating in a heavily biased manner, how I was riding too-fast for a car to notice me. Yep, me a guy on a bike with a bright flashing light, going no more than 12 MPH was in the wrong. I wasn't even mad. I felt great just to be alive.

Long story short her insurance paid for most of the damages, including a bent bike frame, ripped pants, and broken prescription glasses. But, had my lady not called the cops, I would've been left without a bike and without glasses.

</comment><comment><USER7> No, it is not. But it is also not OK to prevent cyclists to kill themselves by car. I've witnessed an accident recently when the car in front of me hit a cyclist. He was: a) riding at night without lights b) running red light c) against the traffic d) without a helmet

I'd say this guy (Stanford student, which IMHO implies some intellect) could serve as an encyclopedic definition of our Bay Area cyclist. Cyclists who do not obey stop signs are vast majority, about 50% cyclists run red lights, etc, etc, etc. If you don't want to die, stop trying.

<comment><USER8> scratch off point d. Helmets don't really do anything to protect you unless you practically fall off your bike standing still.

I've seen brains on the street from at least two low-speed bike accidents where the cyclist was wearing a helmet.

Also, it's not that all cyclists are disobeying the law. Those are just the ones you choose to see. Drivers and pedestrians alike just aren't looking.

I always obey traffic laws on my bike.

Edit: All these anecdotes are great and all, but it's not like we're going to be reading stories from all the people with brain injuries or who died. Cycling lanes and infrastructure do significantly more to make riding safer than helmets and helmet laws do.

[http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI- June...](http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI- June-13-Helmet.pdf)

[http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will- sto...](http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-stop-hyping- effectiveness-of-bike-helmets/)

[http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html](http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html)

<comment><USER9> > pedestrians alike just aren't looking

You mentioned you obey the law so you probably don't do this. Even if the law does not prohibit riding on the sidewalk, you should never ride on the sidewalk.

Just wanted to take this time to remind everyone that bicycles do not belong on the sidewalk.

<comment><USER10> I disagree. Bicycles belong on sidewalks far more than they belong on roads.

That said, perhaps it's situational. My city has large amounts of arterial roads with heavy car traffic and sparse pedestrians. The speed limit on those roads is about 60 kph (about 40 mph), and I much prefer to stay off them as a cyclist. It would be much safer if I was allowed to cycle on the sidewalk in those areas, as there's little to no foot traffic. In the city itself, different matter. There's much more foot traffic, but the speed limit is lower, so perhaps it's best there to be on the road.

<comment><USER9> One of the first things my driving instructor taught me is that you have to assert your right. A measly bicycle has as much right to be on the road as a Cadillac Escalade. At the risk of preaching to the choir, a bicycle should take up a full lane on the road unless there is a special bicycle lane.

I am not saying go crazy and ride your bicycles on freeways. This is more about city streets. That being said, I truly believe the way to have fewer cars striking cyclists is to have more cyclists assert themselves on the road.

<comment><USER8> Cycling on highways I'm pretty sure is illegal everywhere, thankfully.

I'm also an advocate of taking up a full lane, but the laws in many places (like New York) actually require you to ride to the right/shoulder where feasible. Unfortunately that's not really clearly defined, so even though you have a legal right to a full lane, cops will still give you a ticket.

Having narrowly avoided being doored a few times, I won't ride anywhere within a foot's range of a completely open car door.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I got run over from behind by an MTA bus in New York several years ago and the bus driver drove away. I called the local police precinct (non-emergency line) to report it with the bus number (the 4 digit one on the back) and they repeatedly hung up on me when I told them I was run down by a city bus who drove away.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "I got run over from behind by an MTA bus in New York several years ago and the bus driver drove away. I called the local police precinct"

What do you mean you got run over from behind? When I picture that collision the cyclist would be killed or horribly injured. Certainly not able to call the police - and if able to call anyone they would probably call an ambulance.

I'm not doubting you, just confused by the way you've stated it.

<comment><USER8> Sure. I was cycling down 21st in Astoria and staying to the right. I passed a bus that was picking up a line of passengers and still had about 5-6 more to go as I was passing it. I was already about 3/4 of the block away from the stop when the bus ran me over.

Basically the bus immediately pulled out after picking up the last passenger and was going way too fast not looking ahead. I got hit from behind on the front-right side of the bus and fell to the right and ended up in the bus' right front wheelwell which I rolled out of before it ran me over completely. My bike took more damage than I did -- I was lucky.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this is problem that's endemic in the UK too. Our love of the motor vehicle, and design of the city to meet the needs of the motorist just leaves little to no room to make cycling a safe activity.

Just take London UK for example, last week one person died and another was critically injured cycling in the city

[http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-crushed-by- lor...](http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-crushed-by-lorry-by- oxford-circus-was-just-inches-from-death-8925865.html)

[http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/cyclist_killed_on...](http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/cyclist_killed_on_mile_end_road_named_as_hospital_porter_brian_holt_1_2978792)

[https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=de&msa=0&msid=207...](https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=de&msa=0&msid=207305429162328382245.00049de451f464602f536&z=11)

If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.

<comment><USER12> Yes, definitely a big problem in the UK too. Although I think support for cycling is perhaps more cross-party than in the US, at least in the political elite. Both the Conservative PM and Mayor of London are nominally pro-bike, also The Times (centre-right paper for those from outside the UK) ran a major campaign on cycle safety, after one of their journalists was killed:

[http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196](http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196)

Although certainly their freedom to do something serious about the issue is restricted by the anti-metropolitan, anti-liberal vroom vroom demographic.

> If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike > like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.

On that topic, this mini-documentary is worthwhile looking at:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's pretty amazing how quickly tribalism emerges in cases like this. As societies, we seem to require very little difference before it's ok not to give a damn about people being killed. A disagreement about the most efficient form of transportation escalates in a moment into life and death.

</comment><comment><USER13> The author makes all of the relevant points. When I first moved to SV, I bought a nice bike and rode it around for awhile. Then I started to notice the utter lack of attention to cyclists, even those such as myself who rode with a helmet and obeyed all of the traffic laws. You're just invisible.

Now in SF, I see the same problem with drivers but I also see cyclists acting generally like assholes, ignoring traffic laws and yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way as they run red lights. That sort of behavior costs cyclists, collectively, a lot of empathy points even if most individuals don't behave that way.

<comment><USER14> When you have an environment that only assholes will tolerate, only assholes will inhabit it.

Can you imagine grandmas and schools kids riding their bikes in urban traffic?

<comment><USER13> No argument on the environment, and no I can't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >So here's my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere...

Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan.

I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.

<comment><USER16> The problem is that "I didn't see the cyclist" becomes a catch-all excuse that law-enforcement takes at face value. This leads to an implicit (though not acknowledged or stated) assumption that a driver cannot be at fault in a driver/cyclist _ahem_ interaction.

I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions, I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident. In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.

<comment><USER15> I'm pretty sure if the cops knew someone was texting when he hit a cyclist he would get charged with something serious. But I'm not sure how you'd go about proving that's the case in the absence of witnesses. It's not unreasonable to take "I didn't see the cyclist" at face value if you don't have any evidence to the contrary - that's just a presumption of innocence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why are so many comments here raising the straw-man argument of a cyclist flagrantly disregarding all traffic laws and common sense? No one is suggesting that the driver should be at fault in such cases.

</comment><comment><USER18> This article is a string of anecdotes presented as a trend. Where's the hard data?

In any case, the truth is, accidents _do_ happen. What would throwing the teenager in the article (who was in an accident with a cyclist) in jail accomplish? Should getting in an accident be a life-ending event?

<comment><USER19> I don't know - but I do know that if no one goes to jail for reckless driving, people will continue to drive recklessly. And it's not just bicyclists who die from reckless driving - lots of motorists die as well. And yet, hardly anyone is prosecuted, and people continue to drive tired, distracted or otherwise incapacitated. And people die. And society seems to consider it the price of doing business.

Presumably when we start to care, we'll start to prosecute, and people will be a lot more careful behind the wheel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality".

I mean, over a hundred kids have been killed by gun rampages in schools over the past several years and nothing has changed. Oh wait, no MORE guns have been made legal and available, not less.

So basically the American public becomes trained to be desensitized to deaths, cyclists, schoolkids, drunk driving, etc.

<comment><USER21> _The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality"._

I get where you're coming from, and I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I really think there's something else going on in this case.

If a driver kills a pedestrian or a person driving another car, there are consequences; if a driver kills a cyclist, there are effectively none. That contrast isn't explained by a "you are on your own" mentality.

<comment><USER22> > If a driver kills a pedestrian

The situation isn't a whole hell of a lot better for walkers vs. bike riders. "I just didn't see him" still works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I see problems like this as "points-in-time". There _will_ eventually be a technology based solution to these sorts of things. Early warning systems, collision detection, even just pervasiveness of go-pro cameras as the price point brings it into "standard equipment" territory (thus allowing distinction between negligence and accident).

That doesn't help people who are currently being run over. I ride a motorcycle occasionally and I know that I'm accepting a significantly higher chance of injury or death by riding it. I would love to improve those odds but I don't look to the criminal justice system for it.

</comment><comment><USER24> I grew up cycling in London. Came from a family of cyclists and motorbikers. My uncles taught me one rule, which has saved me on numerous occasions (on a bike and in a car):

"Ride like you're invisible. Drivers don't see you when you're on a bike"

And it's so true.

</comment><comment><USER25> Whenever I read a piece like this I'm always reminded of this BBC piece on why motorists hate cyclists. There's a good evolutionary reason for doing so, and it's worth understanding.

[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really- hate...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate- cyclists/1)

I respect cyclists as a motorist; as a pedestrian I hate them. They have nearly hit me and my dog many times, riding on the sidewalk at high speeds, at night without lights. When reminded that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal (except for young children), they flip you off.

A lot of cyclists want to have it both ways--being watched out for on the road, and riding like maniacs on the sidewalk. and That just isn't fair, and until cyclists start obeying the law, we're going to see this kind of stuff happening. It's not right, but when you read that article, you'll understand why. Perhaps most importantly, it's because police spend most of their time in cars so their sympathies are there.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm glad that people are cycling and that this article pleads with everyone to follow the rules of the road, but beyond that, it's still pretty sensational.

Even with the best of intentions, discipline and strict follow-through, accidents still happen. I'm aware of more than a handful of people that have been involved in an accident where they or another person have died and no criminal charges followed.

I would think that in most cases where a vehicle and a bicycle are involved, the risk of death to the cyclist is more likely due to the size difference between the two (the author hints to the same thing). This is something that motorcyclists have been aware of and dealing with for some time.

In places like Minneapolis, there exist tons of specially created bike paths that allow for bicyclists to travel throughout the city without risk of colliding with motor vehicles. The road is a dangerous place, regardless of transportation method and I'd much rather avoid it if not surrounded by technology designed to survive in it.

</comment><comment><USER27> Are there any statistics what happens to drivers at fault that kill another car driver?

What would be the "best" outcome in these cases? Do you want to throw someone in jail for making an unintentional mistake? Should there just be a civil lawsuit where either the driver or the insurance pays to the victim's family?

I don't have an answer to that, just asking for opinions.

<comment><USER28> At the very least, loss of driving privileges pending classwork and retesting should be required.

If a death is accidental then that lessens the severity, but it's still pretty high. If we're going to let you drive a two-ton hunk of metal in close proximity to squishy humans, then you bear a substantial responsibility to have the capability to do this safely.

Unfortunately, this attitude is anathema in the US. Personally, I think we should raise the driving age, _greatly_ raise driving test standards, and require regular re-testing at an interval of a couple of years. I got my license at the age of 16 by passing a test that a half-blind monkey would have no trouble with, and that was the last time that anyone ever officially inspected my driving. It's insane.

But this will never happen, because a large segment of the US population would tread that sort of thing as an attack on their rights. People generally _vastly_ overestimate their own skill behind the wheel and take the idea of regular testing as a slight against them.

I have to go through a skills check every two years in order to keep legally flying airplanes, even though the only person I'm ever likely to kill there is myself and my passenger if I have one. But I'm allowed to drive a car that could easily kill a dozen people or more if driven negligently, even though I haven't been tested on my skills in almost two decades.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Perhaps the physical disparity between these two modes of transport makes them so incompatible they just shouldn't be sharing the same space at all. Unfortunately cities just haven't been built with this in mind, so making the adjustment seems near impossible at this point.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's no surprise the author of this piece is from San Francisco. SF is a particularly dangerous city to cycle in, at least for commuters. Riding on the main drags of Market street, Mission, and others is exceedingly dangerous, since drivers are reckless and you're competing with MUNI buses, streetcars, and in packed cycling lanes.

I'm originally from Portland, which is a cyclist's heaven for a major city, but there's still too much competition with cars. I've also spent time in small towns like Davis, which is probably the cycling capital of the States. The only solution I can see for really safe cycling is to create cycling-only lanes that don't compete with cars and pedestrians.

</comment><comment><USER31> For those questioning whether having and enforcing laws that protect cyclists may help:

In Germany, drivers are obligated to look back over their shoulder when they make a right-turn to make sure they don't run over a cyclist. This law is being actively taught, checked during the driver test, and enforced.

In Poland, a similar law was passed only 2 years ago. Driving a bicycle in Poland is considered more dangerous than driving one in Germany - cycle trip guides (that run through both countries) specifically mention that one should be much more careful around crossings and cars turning right in Poland.

Berlin, where I live, is quite close to Poland, so there are often polish drivers around. I'm careful in general, because there are enough inattentive German drivers... but once they've seen me because they've overtaken me, they will make sure not to run me over. Polish drivers, on the other hand, expect that the cyclist will give way in certain situations (i.e. they make a right turn across a bike lane) - because they have learned it that way in driving school and it works this way in their home country. Luckily, it always worked out, but I had several very close encounters with Polish drivers.

So, yes, having and enforcing laws to protect cyclists do help and increase safety.

(I may add that I don't hold a grudge against Polish people - in fact, most I've met are more easy going and less grumpy than the average German :-) I'm glad they passed this law recently and I'm sure the situation will improve in the long term).

<comment><USER32> How about enforcing laws against cyclists that constantly break traffic laws?

<comment><USER33> Sounds like road envy to me. I know plenty of cyclist that have fines over here.

And read this, as it suggests sticking to the rules may be more dangerous for cyclists.

[http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists- mos...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most- accidents)

<comment><USER32> The rules of the road are the rules of the road and--unless otherwise specified--are to be followed by cyclists and drivers. Period. No exceptions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I don't understand how people can ride bicycles on public roads along side cars and trucks. The average driver is highly incompetent. Most people don't get proper training how to drive. A lot of people are very distracted with talking on cell phones or eating while driving. Heavy objects moving at high speeds can be very dangerous.

<comment><USER35> I don't understand how people can walk on public sidewalks along bicyclists that ignore all traffic rules and drive wherever they like. The average cyclist is highly incompetent. Most people don't get any training at all. A lot of people are very distracted with talking on cell phones or listening to music with headphones while cycling. Bicycles moving at high speeds can be very dangerous to pedestrians that are walking on sidewalks.

<comment><USER36> I would imagine that it's related to how getting run over by a bicycle tends to be somewhat less fatal that getting run over by a car.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This was so weird to read as a Dutchman. In the Netherlands the automobile driver is (almost) always at fault.

</comment><comment><USER38> Story 1

I was on my motorcycle on the left lane in a city when a car way ahead of me just plowed into a bicycle riding on the side of the road ahead of it as if it wasn't there. The car driver was dreaming or sleeping- I don't know. The bicycle rider, an elderly person, almost went through the windshield. Me and some others stopped to help. Luckily he survived.

Story 2

When I grew up I was on my bicycle all the time. I was one of the cyclists you may see disobeying traffic rules but I never did it in any dangerous way, to myself or to traffic around me. I had zero encounters involving cars though I did have a few scary falls involving myself doing stupid stuff. This is over years of riding every day.

The point I am trying to make here is that treating a bicycle like a car is stupid. It's almost as stupid as saying pedestrians should walk on the road, stop at stop signs, change lanes when they want to turn, and stop at traffic lights. Bicycles sit somewhere between pedestrians and motorized traffic, they're not one and they're not the other.

These days I am very careful about where and how I ride my bicycle. This is because I don't have that sixth sense anymore of what's going on around me as I don't ride as much and I also don't live in the same place. New riders in a new environment should be very very careful. I will often prefer to ride on an empty sidewalk to riding on the road as the odds of getting mowed down are much lower (but watch out for cars zooming out of driveways). As a driver I give plenty of room to cyclists, if I can I move out of their lane, because I know that a bicycle may simply move into my path at any point and I know how hard it is for a cyclist to hold a line perfectly over a length of time.

Adding another thought here: It seems car drivers these days are more isolated from what goes on around them for various reasons. I see this even in myself as my car is better insulated and there are more distractions (GPS, phone, etc). This is yet another problem in sharing the road.

<comment><USER8> > New riders in a new environment should be very very careful.

Very. I narrowly avoided getting creamed by one of my neighbors who wasn't looking where they were driving about a week after moving here. Unfortunately I tried to hop a 6-inch-plus curb to avoid getting hit and wound up going over the bars and skinning my hands and arms pretty badly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> If there was ever a title to draw you into reading the article.. this is it.

</comment><comment><USER33> Hmmm. The final suggestion of sticking exactly to the letter of the law isn't in my opinion what makes me safe.

I break the rules. I stay out of the road of cars as much as I can. I believe this makes me safer.

[http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists- mos...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most- accidents)

This article shows that women have far more accidents than men, and it is suggested that it is because they don't break the rules as much.

</comment><comment><USER40> From my local Chicago experience and we got Divvy recently, woohoo ! cyclists are the one who are reckless and endangering other traffic participants.

Obviously not all, but essentially driving bicycle is simply activity for which traffic laws were not made, it is hard to stop and go on the bicycle etc. Having cyclists whiz by you while you drive is often unexpected.

So there. Until we get something like Bogota, Colombia, these things will happen.

Did I mention we have Divvy in Chicago :)

</comment><comment><USER41> I cycle occasionally and pretty much 1 journey in 10 I'm either hit by or have a scary near-miss with a car driver.

</comment><comment><USER42> TL;DR — No.

<comment><USER17> You must not have read the article, because that's definitely not the TL;DR. Sentences like this tell a very different story:

> We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver > was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.

That sure sounds to me like society has _de facto_ decided "It's OK to kill cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize afterward."

<comment><USER15> Or society has _de facto_ decided there's no point in sending someone to jail for a legitimate accident.

<comment><USER17> So you're saying that 100% of collisions between cars and bikes are either the cyclist's fault or "legitimate accidents", and 0% are the motorist's fault?

<comment><USER15> There's a big difference between civil liability and criminal culpability. If you're not drunk or driving recklessly, and you have no criminal intent, hitting someone isn't _illegal_ even if you're 100% at fault. Nor should it be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Legally it's OK to kill cyclists.

Lobbyists who work for car companies, write the law on road safety.</comment>


Post mortem of the glif, the kickstarter funded iphone stand - <AUTHOR> http://www.therussiansusedapencil.com/post/2794775825/idea-to-market-in-5-months-making-the-glif

<comment><USER2> Interesting to hear that they went through 10 iterations with a 3D on-demand printer before even posting to Kickstarter to pay for injection molding. Among the advice the pair of entrepreneurs give is (1) to make pricing tiers easy to understand, and (2) build a relationship with a niche blogger for coverage in the future.

<comment><USER3> _"... Interesting to hear that they went through 10 iterations with a 3D on- demand printer before even posting to Kickstarter ..."_

10 iterations isn't that many compared computer code in software.</comment></comment>