Brave taking cryptocurrency donations "for me" without my consent - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/tomscott/status/1076160882873380870 <comment><USER2> I just dug up info on how Brave's contributions thing works and it feels like such a mess.

According to [https://brave.com/publishers/](https://brave.com/publishers/)

\- once you have accumulated $100 in contributions they email "the webmaster at your site" and the owner of your domain according to the WHOIS. I assume this is "firstname.lastname@example.com", which I sure don't have set up on my personal site.

\- you have to "check your balance frequently and transfer funds wherever you choose", which suggests that there's no way to just say "send my my balance every month" and forget about it.

This whole model totally breaks down when you remember that there's a ton of independent creators who don't have their own sites, but instead post stuff on another site. Is Brave going to realize that I'm following this particular person on YouTube, that person on Tumblr, this other person on Deviantart, etc, etc? And are they going to ping them or are they just gonna tell the people who own the site?

The page where you sign up to receive payments ([https://publishers.basicattentiontoken.org](https://publishers.basicattentiontoken.org)) makes it sound like they understand YouTube accounts and nothing else, and as a creator whos interest in pivoting to video is nonexistent, screw that, I'll stick with Patreon and it's opt-in model that just transfers money into my bank account every month as long as I have patrons.

<comment><USER3> I work at Brave on the business team. This is helpful feedback.

Brave is a startup with a small team earnestly building a new thing that combines a browser with a tipping system, with creator tools, with ad blocking... it's ambitious!

As it's a new thing, describing it can be messy sometimes. We're always working to make our language better and clearer though. Thank you for letting us know it fell short for you.

To address a point:

We know there's a lot of creators on a lot of platforms. At the moment, we've built support for creator channels in the form of web sites, Youtube channels and Twitch channels. When I joined this past summer I had the same reaction. "What about Tumblr? What about Twitter?" Each new platform takes time to write support for and we have a long list of features requests. We'll get there!

<comment><USER4> the statements from Brave people on this thread seem reasonable ; many inflammatory comments here do not seem reasonable

<comment><USER5> I disagree completely. So far, both here and on Twitter, the core complaint, that donations are solicited in the name of people who have no relationship with Brave, and from whom Brave has no consent, has been completely ignored.

The fact is the original complainant, Tom Scott, and many others, find that practice abhorrent, and the response so far has been deflection or vague promises that the Brave team want to help content creators, whether they want the "help" or not.

<comment><USER3> We just posted up a list of changes going live tomorrow that hopefully address all the concerns listed in this thread: [https://brave.com/rewards- update/](https://brave.com/rewards-update/)

Thanks for your feedback.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Brendan Eich's defense of this scheme [0] seems a bit weak to me. Do you really think the solution is to make creators opt out? What in the world makes you think it's okay to represent people who have not asked for your assistance and take donations on their behalf? Why is it their responsibility to ask you nicely not to use their name to solicit donations?

[0] [https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1076187316748615680](https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1076187316748615680)

<comment><USER7> This must be against some kind of law, I'm not sure which though.

<comment><USER8> Not at lawyer, but using a third party's persona to collect money (for whatever purpose) sounds like a blatant breach of personality rights [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights)

<comment><USER9> At the very least it should be a violation of trademark law.

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My basic objection to the "opt-out" scheme is that my browser is effectively acting as a man-in-the-middle agent, confusing both the reader and the author, and co-opting any existing compensation or donation procedure.

For example, consider [http://www.vim.org](http://www.vim.org), which hosts the text editor Vim. The author, Bram Moolenaar, makes this editor freely- available, and asks that any donations be directed to ICCF Holand, a charity that serves the Kibaale Children's Center in Uganda.

The Brave browser, as it stands now, inserts itself in the middle of this established reader/contributor relationship and now claims that it'll take your donations and administer them on Bram's behalf. The user who falls for this scheme then sees what appears to be _additional_ requests for donations (the _actual_ request). _At a minimum_, this inserted message sows confusion where there once was none. In the worst case, money that would have gone to the ICCF is now held in escrow by Brave, and may or may not be delivered, and if so, will go to Bram directly rather than to the charity he hopes to support.

This is just one example of how the browser intercepting and modifying what you see is a truly bad design (intentional or not).

<comment><USER3> Thanks for laying this out. Due to great posts like this and many others in this thread and on Twitter our eng. team is pushing up a bunch of changes tomorrow. You can read about them here: [https://brave.com/rewards- update/](https://brave.com/rewards-update/)

The bottom line is that it will be much much much clearer that unverified creators are not participating in Brave Rewards and what happens to any BAT tips a user tries to send to one. We'll also not be using any creative assets at all from unverified creators like their Youtube images. In the post we also commit to looking into whether to block attempts to tip unverified creators altogether.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd been really loving Brave and using it as my daily driver for a few months now, until that I noticed that little "Brave Ads" icon at the end of the address bar. That's when I realized their entire business model is just in the usurpation of existing Google ad revenue, dressed up with "privacy concerns" for the good PR. This sent me on a journey to find a really solid, free, Chromium based browser that is totally de-Googled, which seems absolutely impossible. I've tacitly settled on Vivaldi, but it's just impossible to really know if they are trustworthy as a company in the long run. Ultimately I feel like I can only trust a browser who's entire build process is open source at this point.

<comment><USER12> Honest question. Why not Firefox? What are your concerns with it?

<comment><USER11> I've tried over and over for decades to like Firefox, but I just don't. I can't say it's a rational decision entirely. But beyond that, I just think that Mozilla's motives can't really be trusted at face value with the amount of revenue they have these days, and their whole profile sync service. It just comes down to incentives, and any company which collects any kind of data has the incentive to profit at our expense regardless of ideology. Especially where people's salaries could depend on it.

<comment><USER13> Is Mozilla run that lean even with >$500M in revenue?

<comment><USER14> The majority of that funding seems to come from royalties ($504M of $520M) [0]. What would be the leaner way of collecting those royalties?

[0] [https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/foundation/annualreport/2016/](https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/foundation/annualreport/2016/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _they said "we'll see what we can do" and that "refunds are impossible"._

If a judge finds they've established themselves as a trustee, this argument won't fly. In fact it will make a quite spectacular and expensive thudding sound.

The trustee-beneficiary relationship arises from the situation and _does not require a contract_ to be formed. If you are the legal owner of assets "for the benefit of" someone else, congratulations, you are probably a trustee.

Why does this matter?

Because trusteeship comes with a fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duty is a heavy burden. If it's applied to Brave it will create merry havoc: a pile of money that they cannot touch, under _any_ circumstances. A pile of money that they _must_ return, if it cannot be forwarded to the intended recipient. A pile of money that cannot be mixed with anything else in any way. The requirement to put the interests of the beneficiary ahead of their own. And on and on.

It's an attempt to be clever at marketing, to create an incentive to sign up. But as a legal situation it's a swamp full of unstable turd grenades.

... of course, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Maybe Brave found a friendly jurisdiction or a quirk in trusts law that they can squeeze through. But given the history of startups wishing that law doesn't real, I kinda doubt it.

<comment><USER15> By way of disclaimer, I've watched this segment for years because I've sometimes intended to enter it myself on a similar-but-not-identical business model. But being aware of the concept of a trust, I've avoided this idea entirely and watched previous failed attempts (eg Readability) with great interest.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Edit: title was changed, I am not Tom Scott

I am not too familiar with how Brave and BAT (Brave Attention Token), so please chime in. Here's how Brave describes the BAT YouTube donations system: [https://basicattentiontoken.org/brave-expands-basic- attentio...](https://basicattentiontoken.org/brave-expands-basic-attention- token-platform-to-youtube)

From my understanding, users of the Brave Browser select which YouTubers to donate to, but they don't know whether the channels have opted in to receive donations? What does Brave do with unclaimed donations? Someone pointed out this concern in an earlier submission: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15730661](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15730661)

Furthermore, OP said that they might not be following GDPR due to collection of YouTuber data (to assign donations). IANAL, anyone know how compliant this is?

<comment><USER3> I work at Brave. Tips to un-verified publishers sit in escrow for the creator to claim.

IANAL but GDPR refers to personal data collected from users. The only "Youtuber data" being "used" here is publicly gettable data from the Youtuber's channel.

<comment><USER16> Tom Scott did not explicitly sign up for this service. Brave is not even telling users that Tom Scott is not signed up, and Brave has no automated way of contacting him to let him know that someone donated. The system is engineered to move the money towards Brave, with neither the benefactor nor the beneficiary being aware of that. How is that ethical?

<comment><USER17> I was interested in Brave after hearing it mentioned here a fair bit, for innovating new ways for creators to get paid... after this story though? Knowing they effectively scam users out of money under the pretense of it really being the creator? That's fraud as far as I'm concerned (maybe not legally, but to me it's a con, and scummy).

Interest has dropped to 0, and they go to my shitlist with all the other crytpo-scam stuff prevalent these days.

Edit: Now that I've seen the screenshots of just how blatantly Brave pretends the creator has a profile and actively set this up, this is absolutely fraud. From further down in the comments of OPs original link: [https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076221401353207808](https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076221401353207808)

<comment><USER3> We agree the UI in that screenshot tells the wrong story. It doesn't represent what we're trying to do so we're shipping a bunch of changes tomorrow that we hope will fix things: [https://brave.com/rewards- update/](https://brave.com/rewards-update/)

We'd love another shot at winning your interest. Thanks for caring about finding new ways to get creators paid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Brave is a web browser that takes your money and claims to pay out to your favorite websites and content creators, but in most cases actually pays into a "user growth pool" that funds pyramid-shaped marketing (paying users to use the browser) and referral programs for partner content creators. How is that not fraud?

<comment><USER19> > How is that not fraud?

The answer appears to be "technically", and "sue if you think you're big enough".

<comment><USER20> I would be interested in suing them if they have a page up for me. How do I tell if they do?

<comment><USER21> It looks like an in-browser thing:

[https://ludios.org/tmp/jon_blow-fs8.png](https://ludios.org/tmp/jon_blow- fs8.png)

[https://ludios.org/tmp/jon_blow2-fs8.png](https://ludios.org/tmp/jon_blow2-fs8.png)

<comment><USER3> We're shipping changes tomorrow that will fix the problems with these overlays to make it clear unverified creators are not part of Brave Rewards and won't be receiving tips directly. You can read about them here: [https://brave.com/rewards-update/](https://brave.com/rewards-update/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> To anyone who has mistakenly "donated" to someone through this service, here's a link to the FTC complaint assistant for reporting fraud, namely "Pretending to be a representative or employee of a business". You don't have to be a lawyer to let the FTC decide whether this is misleading marketing or not.

I honestly like the BAT idea. This is not the way to implement it, and based on the responses from Eich on twitter, and the representative in this thread, it seems like they aren't going to willingly change their scheme.

[https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/](https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/)

</comment><comment><USER23> "Brave" is just a blatant protection racket, trying to strongarm people that want nothing to do with him into contracts dictated by Eich.

On the user-facing side, he's replacing ads with his own, like a cheap motel WiFi. If you trust this blatant power- and money-grab with your privacy just because you see common cause with his mission to see traditional journalism die, I won't shed a tear when we find out he's selling clickstreams to the highest bidder.

<comment><USER3> This isn't what we're going after at all. We shipped some UI that didn't make it clear that non verified creators aren't actually participating in Brave Rewards and deservedly got a lot of flack for it. We're pushing up a bunch of fixes tomorrow that will (we hope) fix this: [https://brave.com/rewards- update/](https://brave.com/rewards-update/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If anyone's wondering what got Tom Scott so upset, it was probably this page in the UI flow:

[https://twitter.com/JTremback/status/1076213808706641925](https://twitter.com/JTremback/status/1076213808706641925)

<comment><USER24> I think this is also a good representation of why its quite misleading: [https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076218351486087168](https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076218351486087168)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is the same growing pain that all the Git tip services went through. First, they accepted tips on behalf of repo maintainers on Github with the intention of letting those maintainers collect their tips later, then after a huge backlash they made it opt-in.

This cycle will repeat for any service that allows a platform to collect payments on behalf of users without asking the recipients for consent in advance.

</comment><comment><USER26> If this person doesn't want his donations, or wants people to donate to some fund against malaria, I'm sure Brave can figure out how to redirect his funds to another donation site of his choice as a feature.

Brave's attempt to find a new way to pay content creators (and, sure, insert themselves into the process) seems to be in good faith. And I'll admit that the complaints are mostly in good faith too, especially that there should be a feature to opt-out, or there should be a way to receive your funds automatically (I'm surprised and don't 100% believe that there is not).

But the complaints and arguments saying this is "fraud" seem to be in bad faith. There's no evidence that these donations are completely irretrievable from the creators they were intended to go toward. Stop emotionally throwing around the word "fraud" as if there's criminal intent here for Brave to keep every penny of donations, zero intent to ever make that money available to the intended recipients.

<comment><USER27> Let's be clear - you cannot start collecting donations on someone's behalf without their consent and expect them to be happy when they find out. Especially when the person you are donating to is a business person with their own public image that they have to maintain and especially when you act shifty about actually handing over the money. Brave might be a great group of people with fantastic intentions, but their behaviour here is identical to someone committing identity theft.

<comment><USER26> > identical to someone committing identity theft

I don't fully understand what you mean here. Are they attempting to take out loans or credit cards for their own use with this person's information, resulting in potentially ruinous consequences for this person's credit? Rhetorical question in that case, but really, I'd like to understand what you mean.

Is it in reference to your first sentence? My assumption is that people using the Brave browser or extension (I don't know how it works) would see these donation solicitations on every blog and understand that they're (Brave) collecting donations on behalf of just about anyone, not some specific person they are pretending to be, and not in any sense where these people are opting in to their platform one-at-a-time.

<comment><USER28> The UX for donations does not say anything about "on behalf". Nor does it say that the person has not requested that. Nor does it say that the money won't actually go to that person unless and until they explicitly come and claim it. Nor does it say that the person isn't even notified until the total is over $100.

As far as consequences to the person - asking for donations in and of itself affects one's reputation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Brendan Eich answers on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1076187316748615680](https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1076187316748615680)

basically he plans to keep it working the way it works now, "opt out" and all - he's confident this is a completely legal way to work

<comment><USER29> > I realize some don't like it, agree we should respect their wishes. But the > ability to paypal or western union or otherwise send to people without their > consent exists and is not illegal or unethical. Nominative fair use of > public data also legal.

There's a huge difference between sending someone money without their prior permission and creating a system to solicit money to send to someone without their prior permission.

<comment><USER30> > the ability to paypal or western union or otherwise send to people without > their consent exists

Surely the recipient has to create a PayPal or Western Union account first, which constitutes giving permission for that company to take payment on their behalf.

And in fairness, the complaint isn't even that money is being sent to people without their consent. The problem is that the money _isn 't_ actually being sent to those people at all — Brave are keeping it.

<comment><USER31> That's not how Western Union works. The recipient goes to WU and presents matching ID.

<comment><USER32> Western Union doesn't claim to be accepting donations on creators behalfs.

Western Union can refund money sent if it hasn't been collected by the recipient.

Western Union doesn't require a minimum amount of money be sent to a recipient before they collect.

Really, it is 1 & 2 together that seem to mark this clearly as fraud. 3 doesn't help either.

<comment><USER33> >>Western Union doesn't claim to be accepting donations on creators behalfs.

Strictly speaking, Brave is not doing that. The fact that the originator of the solicitation is Brave, and that the potential end-recipient may not sign up to receive the funds, is disclosed.

It's an escrow fund that would release the funds to a particular party should they choose to claim it. That's how the contribution service is marketed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so[1], and it looks like eichs tune hasn't changed much[2].

It's like, very obvious that this would be an issue.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15723512](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15723512)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15735214](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15735214)

</comment><comment><USER19> Brave is using the "opt-out" method used by tip4commit in 2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542969)

From the comments there, a lot of projects dealt with that one by acting against such an abuse of their trademarks.

</comment><comment><USER35> Hey guys I'm collecting donations for the Brave Browser to implement the BAT scheme responsibly. We've discovered some issues with it and think it needs overhauling. Please donate to

Standard Chartered Bank, Frankfurt, Germany; SWIFT/BIC Code: SCBLDEFX

IBAN: DE67512305000500136802

Beneficiary Name: SVB-Mozilla Foundation

You're helping a great project that way! (Note: You might not actually be donating to the Brave Browser directly and some of the funds may go to other projects.)

</comment><comment><USER36> It does indeed sound like a mess.

Keybase had a better idea: tie various identities to something stronger (private key). That way you can say: I'm X on reddit, Y on HN, Z on YouTube, etc. I think Brave could follow the same model, just make it seamless (or partner with Keybase).

You could take it further. Why one and not multiple owners? Imagine you have a handle H on HN and then that handle publishes 5 messages of "My public key is XYZ". Then if someone were to donate to H through the system you could split it between participants.

And you could run with that! Why even split if you could build some crypto system of control on top of that through smart contracts that lets you basically manage a small organization.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is this de-platform proof? eg, if <insert-controversial-site-or-person> \- and they got lots of complaints for triggering <whatever-major-taboo-thing> \- can the payments to gab,storm,badguy,badgirl,camgirl etc get stopped from brave or get brave stopped from taking payments all together from higher up the chain or whatever?

</comment><comment><USER38> Is there actual money involved? I have 60 BAT in my Brave account, and I didn't pay a dime to anybody. Yet, looks like I can donate them. Not sure I understand how the system works - am I supposed to eventually buy BAT tokens if I want to donate them?

<comment><USER39> It is a token issued on Ethereum blockchain and is traded on many exchanges. So yes, you can buy and sell them. Your 60 BAT are worth $8.

[https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/basic-attention- token/](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/basic-attention-token/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Stop you're crashing my BAT investments! /s

[https://screenshots.firefox.com/tqACbxJj731kH7Ri/pro.coinbas...](https://screenshots.firefox.com/tqACbxJj731kH7Ri/pro.coinbase.com)

</comment><comment><USER41> Brave jumped the shark when they chose to prioritize an ICO and "revolutionize ads" over core browser functionality. They are now ironically spinning their own flavor of making the user the product. Just say no. Uninstall.

</comment><comment><USER42> Instead of taking donations for other people, we here at ClearCoin replace all the ads you see with ads from our network that reward the user with our crypto token, and content creators can opt-in to share in the profit.

Chrome Extension: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clearcoin-the- ad-b...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clearcoin-the-ad- blocker/benncgglohdbeapbakcebdobkdbkdcba)

<comment><USER43> How is that different from Brave/BAT?

<comment><USER42> I don't think Brave has ad replacement live yet.

The main difference is that you don't have to change browsers, just install an extension.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Given that some people will give money to any basic bitcoin scam in twitter, I'm not surprised

But yeah, the whole situation is ridiculous, might be grounds for a nice lawsuit.

</comment><comment><USER45> Does this have anything to do with Brave Browser? It's not quite clear to me.

<comment><USER46> Yes. That's what it's referring to

<comment><USER45> I see thanks. I guess it wasn't clear to me because I only use them on my Android.

<comment><USER45> Thanks for all the downvotes for a normal question, kind people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> People could do something similar for open source projects: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736006](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736006)

<comment><USER19> tip4commit tried it in 2014, and it didn't go down so well: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542969)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I don't totally understand what his problem is. He doesn't want to take money that people are trying to give him? What is the problem here exactly? If he doesn't want it, why not just donate it or something?

It's not like the browser is setting up a crowd funding page for you.. it just lets you know you can pay your favorite content creators how you want instead of a huge unfair chunk going to google.

And for the record, and of you are free to send me money in any which way you can, I even accept trained pigeon courier!

<comment><USER49> > _It 's not like the browser is setting up a crowd funding page for you_

Isn't it pretty much like this? How many people would use some other way of giving a creator money if they knew that the creator isn't actually signed up for Brave's thing and they're creating additional work for them, or that the money might even be distributed to others at some point?

EDIT: some screenshots: [https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076221401353207808](https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076221401353207808) \- zero indication that's not going directly to the creator

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Why are we rewarding the current way internet advertising works?

Host your own ads and I won't block them. Until then F off.

<comment><USER49> How is a tipping function "rewarding the current way internet advertising works"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> They are not taking cryptocurrency "donations" they are taking user contributions. If the creator doesn't want them then I, as a user, have agreed that they go into the "User Growth Pool". In my opinion I don't really care if the creator has signed up or not, as a consumer I have decided I would rather pay for content using Brave's system rather then being forced to use the incrediably intrusive and malicious tracking based ad system of the traditional web ecosystem. If a creator doesn't like it they can block me from watching their content. I will not subject myself to their abuse of my data.

The real issue here is that consumers are using the same tactics creators have used since the first ads appeared on the internet, and now the content creators are upset. If they don't like the new rules then block me, some sites have already done that with Ad Blockers and paywalls.

<comment><USER52> It's no surprise that you'd ignore blatant copyright violation, misrepresentation, and abuse of personal data when you're a fan of the project.

<comment><USER51> Except its none of those things. The courts have held that not subjecting yourself to advertisements is covered under the "Fair Use Doctrine". This is why Ad Blockers, Tracking blockers, or both are not only legal, but built into every single major computing platform. This is now taking that concept and allowing me to pay for things I like.

I would love to hear how you think Ad Blocking is blatant copyright violation, or how linking to content on the internet is misrepresentation.

<comment><USER52> I think ad blocking is fine. I don't think you get to copy someone's photo of themself and distribute it on your platform without asking them first.

<comment><USER51> You mean like how if you google for Tom Scott[1] Google will pull the public profile info for a number of platforms ( twitter, youtube, instagram, wikipedia, and his own website ) and post it right there for you to read ? That is how the internet works, Google does this while displaying ads and tracking not only what you search, but what links you visit and then selling that information to advertisers via their ad-sense platform. Tom will never see any of that revenue. When I go visit Tom's content I get to say if he would like he can take some of the money I have set aside to pay for content I like and he can have it. If he doesn't want it then he doesn't need to claim it.

Every time the status quo has shifted in advertising people have claimed its illegal and a violation of copyright, but the courts have been much more nuanced. Thankfully in this kind of case you can't separate ad blocking and content discovery from what brave is doing, so if someone is going to pick a fight they will be picking the fight with Google, Microsoft and every other tech company out there not just with Brave

[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tom%20Scott](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tom%20Scott)

<comment><USER52> Google isn't impersonating Tom Scott here. Brave is.

You're the bad guys here and you can't see it because you think everyone else is Google and Facebook and tracking people. People want nothing to do with either you _or_ them. But clearly less to do with you.

I'm not surprised that the angle is "sure we're bad but people will have to go for the guys with big pockets first". At least you know you're the bad guys. That's something.

<comment><USER51> Brave is no more impersonating Tom Scott then Google is, in fact they use the same source of information and get it the same way, the only difference is in Brave, after they pull and display that information from the public place where Tom put it ( specifically how he put it there to get displayed in this fashion ) they let me decide if Tom should be able to have some of my money. Every other company that displays this information injects their ads with no ability for me to decide where the money goes or what information they pull off me as part of that process. Even more so I have no way of opting out of that. If people want nothing to do with Brave then don't use it.

The idea you think I, someone with no affiliation with either Brave, or Google, or Tom, is a bad guy because I want to support content creators is laughable. I think the idea that there is a way users can control their personal information and still support content creators is really upsetting to people who are used to being able to dictate the terms of the internet and get wealthy off the backs of users and creators. I for my part won't let random corporations take my information and sell it to anyone who wants. I know that may make some people want to label me a bad guy and I am ok with that. They can continue to participate in that economy, and creators can block my browser. As long as they allow me to freely obtain their content I will use the systems I find useful to attempt to support an open and fair internet.

<comment><USER53> Google doesn't pop up a thing asking me to donate to Tom Scott's fundraising campaign.

Brave apparently does (based on screenshots shared by others; in order to preserve my right to legal action in the future I'm very carefully never going to personally do anything that would require accepting Brave's ToS).

See my other comments in this thread for why A) that's a bad thing and B) if you work at Brave you should quit and hire a lawyer.

<comment><USER51> Neither does Brave, its really clear when you use the browser that you are allocating your funds via the BAT system not "fundraising" on behalf of a person, and its also clear what happens to your funds if the person you allocated them to doesn't want them.

Also the idea your in more legal jeopardy working at Brave, then you are working at any other company is silly. There is a distinction in corporate liability between employees and officers of a company ( its why no Thanos employees have been held liable for the fraud there). It makes me wonder what is going on when I see people participating in such strong fearmongering. Especially when you are flat out wrong on some of the basic legal principles you are discussing.

<comment><USER53> Like I said elsewhere: these kinds of schemes don't really "work". The best that happens is you get away with it for a while until you accidentally do it to someone with resources.

Are you carefully vetting every single entity whose content you show this pop- up on (regardless of what description you choose to use to spin what it is) to make sure none of them have trademarks that could be enforced against you? Because if any of them do, game over. You can hem and haw and deflect and pretend to be helping creators as much as you like, but you don't have the legal right to appropriate someone else's mark to raise money.

And if you _are_ vetting to make sure you don't pop up on anyone who has a trademark, what if that comes out in discovery when someone goes after you, and suddenly you get to answer questions about whether Brave knew that what they were doing might not be legal (as evidenced by the care they took around trademarks), did it anyway, and now it's _really_ over.

And like I said elsewhere: when the shit hits the fan, what's your personal plan for Brave deciding that all your "helpful" comments here weren't authorized and were in fact misrepresenting them, which led to the terrible misunderstandings that provoked the legal action?

I'm trying my best to help you see the ways this can go badly. I'm also very sincere in my advice of "lawyer up". I'm not your attorney and this isn't legal advice, but I think you should have both an attorney and legal advice.

The folks who've run this scheme in the past were mostly small-time, and the worst that happened was they were forced to stop or retool because they weren't worth the effort of going after properly. Brave has attracted enough attention and money to be a lucrative target for someone to eventually turn into a smoking hole in the ground. Please, for your sake, fix this or get out of it ASAP.

<comment><USER51> The courts have ruled many times using content that is in the public domain is fair use, you have no claim to trademark protection when you place your information on the internet for others to scrape ( you can however opt out, read up on the various Google News fights if you need more info ), but lets say we live in a world where Brave looses that court case, and someone decides this was all illegal. There is no liability for employees who work at the company ( even if they post on a public forum ). In fact it turns out according to the US court system that even if you as an employee _know_ you are violating copyright, and even if you send email's using your corporate account about the known violation, and even if those emails show up in discovery, you are not personally liable ( see Youtube vs Viacom )

You are wrong about this, there is lots of precedent to say this is legal, and even more to say that working at brave is not a legal liability. However I am not your lawyer, nor am I Brave's lawyer, or Tom's Lawyer. I am not at all related to anyone involved in this fight, I am just a lowly internet user who happens to think this is a good model for the future of the internet. Feel free to ignore me and continue to tell people the sky is falling.

<comment><USER53> _The courts have ruled many times using content that is in the public domain is fair use, you have no claim to trademark protection_

If you take all your legal advice from people who repost whole movies onto youtube and put "no copyright intended" in the description as if it's a magic talisman, maybe.

But in the actual world, if you use someone else's trademark to make money, you're gonna have a bad time, and part of that bad time will be learning in excruciating detail what "public domain" and "fair use" actually mean.

"Something is viewable by the public on the internet" is not "public domain". Public domain means copyright has expired on the material, or that the material was for some reason never protected by copyright (such as certain works of the federal government, in the US). "Fair use" is a defense that can be raised to claims of copyright infringement, and uses a multi-factor test. None of the factors are "but it was there on the internet for me to take".

Neither of these involve trademarks, which are a different area entirely. Using someone else's trademark for your profit is very much not "public domain" and not "fair use", and will not end well.

<comment><USER51> Your correct that in the real world things are different, in fact here are the real world court cases that in my opinion clearly define the activity of the Brave browser as not a copyright violation.

This case was about google getting money while displaying parts of copyrighted material. The court ruled it was fair use. ([https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/834877-google- books-...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/834877-google-books-ruling- on-fair-use.html))

This case ( still pending ) was about google being able to display parts of news stories without paying the authors ( the initial ruling was it was legal, but Germany was allowed to impose a "tax", current guidance is that even the tax may not be allowed and Google will be able to display the content ) [https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/12/13/technology/13reut...](https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/12/13/technology/13reuters- germany-copyright-publishers.html)

Since you referenced people who had the same idea as Brave and it was found to be illegal, would you care to reference those specific cases ?

<comment><USER53> I referenced people who've tried this before and were made to shut down or change tactics before it escalated to a court ruling.

You also keep citing copyright cases. You cited a case where the multi-factor test of fair use was met, without explaining why you think Brave would meet that test.

You have not yet provided evidence of a case ruling that all trademarks are "public domain" free for the "fair use" of anyone for any purpose, and therefore that trademarks provide no protection whatsoever. I await your attempt to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Who is me?

<comment><AUTHOR> Tom Scott, an educational YouTuber. (I am not him, the title was changed by a mod I think)

<comment><USER55> Yes—we changed the title to use language from the original text.

Use of the first person in titles refers to authors, not submitters.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah got it. Maybe the first-person part can be added to [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> that does sound brave

<comment><USER57> I suppose bravery is somewhat akin to _chutzpah_...

<comment><USER56> lol yeah, chutzpah, thinking more brave than shameless going forward with a blatantly illegal business model. Fraud is more than just frowned upon

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> People complain about paywalls, but this is literally the first Twitter link I've looked at in days and I get a rate limiting error. I don't mind paywalls, but wish micropayments we're easier. Whatever anti-user stuff Twitter has been up to (this isn't a new problem) is just atrocious.

<comment><USER59> That rate limit isn't about pay walls. It's just twitter's desire to force mobile users to use their app. Every single time a mobile user goes to a non- mobile Twitter url, they will hit that "error". Given that it's 100% reproducible, trivial to fix, and trivial to work around (hit reload. No wait needed), it's clear that they just don't want people to use their web browser on mobile devices.

<comment><USER58> Reload never seems to work for me. I give up after 1 or 2 reload tries, though.

> it's clear that they just don't want people to use their web browser on > mobile devices.

Which is clearly user hostile.

Reddit does a similar thing whwre they artificially delay showing thebpage and then block a quarter of it with a banner asking you to use the mobile app.

<comment><USER59> Oh, not the button it offers to try again. That button is junk. Hit reload on your browser. That works every time, at least in my experience.

<comment><USER60> The try again button works reliably for me on Firefox Mobile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Venmo has been doing this forever: [https://help.venmo.com/hc/en- us/articles/217532047-I-paid-a-...](https://help.venmo.com/hc/en- us/articles/217532047-I-paid-a-New-User-)

<comment><USER62> Venmo lets you easily recover the money though, and probably automatically returns it after a while.

Paypal does the same, and automatically returns the money to the sender if it's not claimed for a while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> No way is this going to fly under GDPR. Whatever genius had this idea needs to be held accountable legally for a massive breach of trust. Opt out isn't going to fly in 2018. Collecting money on the behalf of individuals is fine IF they opt in to the service. I imagine this service would have exploded in popularity and been perfectly legal if it was opt in but now.. Yeah.. heads should roll.

</comment><comment><USER64> How would it work otherwise? How would we automate consent from the relevant webmaster, website owner, etc? It seems like we wouldn't be able to successful communicate with the principal in many or most cases.

I've thought of something vaguely similar – documenting website behavior and optimization opportunities without the involvement of publishers. It would be nice to have a known online resource/repository for this, kind of like the security vulnerability communication website that I can't remember at the moment.

<comment><USER65> It wouldn't. Nobody owes you automated consent or anything.</comment></comment>


A JavaScript H.264 decoder - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mbebenita/Broadway <comment><USER2> Apparently this can actually get decent frame rates. Although I suspect they are using the patched version of the JS interpreter mentioned on github.

<http://yfrog.com/nmng0z>

Still not sure how this is meant to actually be useful though. The problem with H.264 isn't availability of implementations, it's being non-free and heavily patented.

I can kind of see a use for this if you are a big content provider with a bunch of cash and want to distribute video to Firefox users without transcoding but it still seems pretty derpy.

<comment><USER3> > Although I suspect they are using the patched version of the JS interpreter > mentioned on github.

We are using standard Firefox, no special patches. However, we used the Firefox nightly, not current stable. The decoder runs much faster in nightly, due to JS engine improvements that landed over the last few months, and are not yet in stable.

> Still not sure how this is meant to actually be useful though. The problem > with H.264 isn't availability of implementations, it's being non-free and > heavily patented.

First thing, this at least gives you another option. That is, if we get this codec to run as fast as a native one, then we now have the choice of either the browser __or __the video website providing the decoder (and properly licensing the decoder, if they are in a country that has pure software patents). More options are never a bad thing.

But I think the real potential in this approach is something entirely different. The opportunity is that __you can download arbitrary decoders __. So instead of the current world we live in, where you have a few decoders installed, you can have custom ones for different websites. Imagine a website that has cartoon videos or anime etc. - in principle, they could use a custom codec that is heavily optimized for that kind of content, as opposed to being forced to use stock decoders.

Also, it prevents being frozen in time: If you can download decoders from the web, you can improve them constantly while making sure your users have the proper decoder (since you ship it to them yourself), which you can't do if you rely on stock preinstalled decoders.

<comment><USER4> > if we get this codec to run as fast as a native one

Native ones have chunks written in hand-tuned assembly language, offload parts to specialized hardware, and other such tricks not available to ECMAScript. I'm not even sure why "as fast" is being considered a possibility.

<comment><USER3> I agree in general that native decoders can be faster - they can in principle do anything a JS decoder can, and in addition the things you mention. However,

1\. JS can also use hardware acceleration through WebGL. We have not done this yet, but will. 2\. JS has some proposed extensions, WebCL and Intel's RiverTrail, which let it utilize SIMD and other computing hardware. We will investigate using those too.

With those two things, we believe JS performance will be very good. How close it will be to native code, though, is hard to say at this point in time.

However, there is one big advantage a JS decoder would have, that native code does not: A JS decoder can be downloaded and run securely. As a consequence, you can continually improve your decoder in JS and your users will run the latest, most optimized version, while standard native decoders are typically upgraded much, much less frequently. Also worth noting is the potential to ship specialized decoders, as I mentioned in another comment, imagine an anime website that ships a video decoder heavily optimized for that specific type of content. That could be much more efficient than a stock native decoder.

Finally, it's worth noting that the decoder we compiled from C, Android's H.264 decoder, does not have any substantial amount of handwritten assembly. I had assumed like you said, that real-world decoders would have such things, and am curious why it doesn't. If anyone reading knows the answer I'd be very interested in that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Any one know what the legal implications of using a free decoder for a patented compression format are? Products like flash make it seem free as Adobe pays a flat rate to the patent holders for decoding mp3, h.264, etc. alleviating their users from having to worry about royalties. But would using this decoder, though free and open source, be infringing a patent?

note: I realize it's not production code. I'm asking more about the concept.

<comment><USER6> Use and distribution of implementations requires a license (though, curiously, x264 seems to get a pass), so using the decoder will require a license as with using a closed-source one.

<comment><USER7> _(though, curiously, x264 seems to get a pass)_

If x264 does, so does VLC, mplayer, ffmpeg, gstreamer, and dozens of other applications that use video and audio decoders in Linux. Fortunately quite a lot of the world is not the United States, and today VLC is the world's second most popular media player and has never paid one cent in patent licensing fees.

But of course, yes, being open source does not magically exempt you from patent laws in countries with insane, broken patent laws. In practice, if you want to make a large-scale commercial application that will be distributed in the US that uses x264, you will probably need to pay for an MPEG-LA license. They're quite cheap, though: 0 cents per unit up to 100k units, 20 cents per unit after that until 5 million, and 10 cents per unit after that.

Largely, the question of whether a distro contains any particular piece of software is whether the people who run the repositories are willing to host it. This applies both to possibly-patented software, but also to libraries like DeCSS (necessary to play DVDs) that violate the laws in some countries, but not others.

<comment><USER6> You're right, of course. While I believe that the MPEG-LA's enforcement practices are _not_ non-discrimatory as it's claimed to be, that's a different discussion, and it wasn't appropriate to single x264 out that way.

I apologize.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Running on a macbook pro with i5 dual core 2.4 ghz, it uses 1 core at 100% in firefox and manages:

1.7 fps

It's cool, but I don't see any real world applications. Anyone got any ideas?

<comment><USER9> I think it's more of an (impressive) mental exercise - if the code can be made straightforward enough to run on javascript, the future applications can only grow from there.

<comment> robert-boehnke It's the Android encoder written in c++ cross compiled to JavaScript, not much of a mental exercise. Not to say it's not cool :)

<comment><USER10> They have a hand-coded javascript version in progress too:

<https://github.com/mbebenita/Broadway/tree/master/Play>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's the BadassJS perspective on all of this very impressive stuff! [http://badassjs.com/post/12035631618/broadway- an-h-264-decod...](http://badassjs.com/post/12035631618/broadway- an-h-264-decoder-in-javascript-running-at)

</comment><comment><USER12> Wow. 45 fps in a Firefox nightly, 20 fps in Chromium. Pretty impressive for JS.

<comment><USER13> Give it another try. We made a few small improvements that turned out to be quite significant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Funny hobby project.

<comment><USER15> ... said the dinosaur to the first mammal, re: size, fur, and all that hobby fluff.

<comment><USER14> You just can't compare a JS library for h.264 decoding with ditto made in C. The latter is usable while the former is practically useless even for an extreme case of f.e. online, browser-based video editing. What is the point you are trying to make?</comment></comment></comment>


Design Patterns in Dynamic Programming - slides by Peter Norvig - <AUTHOR> http://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/index.htm Cryptic, but full of ideas <comment><AUTHOR> Cryptic, but full of ideas.</comment>


Corruption in textbook-adoption proceedings: 'Judging Books by Their Covers' - <AUTHOR> http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm <comment><USER2> I remember that chapter from _Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_ quite well. One of my favorite passages is the following, which is the source of the title of the chapter:

      We came to a certain book, part of a set of three supplementary books published by
      the same company, and they asked me what I thought about it.

      I said, "The book depository didn't send me that book, but the other two were nice."

      Someone tried repeating the question: "What do you think about that book?"

      "I said they didn't send me that one, so I don't have any judgment on it."

      The man from the book depository was there, and he said, "Excuse me; I can explain
      that. I didn't send it to you because that book hadn't been completed yet.
      There's a rule that you have to have every entry in by a certain time, and the
      publisher was a few days late with it. So it was sent to us with just the covers,
      and it's blank in between. The company sent a note excusing themselves and
      hoping they could have their set of three books considered, even though the third
      one would be late."

      It turned out that the blank book had a rating by some of the other members! They
      couldn't believe it was blank, because [the book] had a rating. In fact, the
      rating for the missing book was a little bit higher than for the two others. The
      fact that there was nothing in the book had nothing to do with the rating.

</comment><comment><USER3> My guess is that some day students will use e-readers to view books that are created under the Creative Commons license. When will that day come? Not soon enough...

Two things are required for this to happen:

1)There has to be a Mark Shuttleworth of text book collaboration.

2)e-readers need to have color, be 8x10 and some what cheap.

Part II is basically done. Any successful founders want to do part 1?

<comment><USER4> The big problem is getting people with credentials to write the books. School systems have to worry about that sort of stuff, and usually these people want a good chunk of $$$ to participate in the long process of creating a textbook.</comment></comment>


An End to Parking? - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/01/future-parking-self-driving-cars <comment><USER2> > WHAT WOULD A CITY look like if it suddenly needed 90 percent less parking?

...Amsterdam?

> Take New York City, where there are roughly 102,000 public parking spaces > below 60th Street—taking up roughly 18.4 million square feet, a space equal > to about half of Central Park.

> "San Francisco is going bananas for new housing, and Manhattan is always > looking for space, and here we have this sitting in front of us," Samaras > says. "That's what autonomous vehicles can do."

You don't actually ned autonomous cars to do this. Just _get rid of the parking_ (or, start charging market rate for it, and use the money to fund transit).

There is an MTA trunk line on almost every avenue, and I'd argue that the ones without subway lines, as well as the major crosstown streets, should be turned into Portland Transit Malls. Enough with being nice to people that drive personal cars into Manhattan.

<comment><USER3> I'll pick on Seattle, as that's where I'm currently living.

To bus to my office, I have a 30 minute bus ride on one of the rapidride busses, then transfer to a king county metro bus. The second bus takes between 0 and 30 minutes to arrive, normally gets stuck in traffic on the route it takes, and arrives near my office in 10 to 30 minutes. This is assuming neither bus is full and picks people up at either stop.

On the best day, I'm on a bus for 40 minutes. On the worst, 90. That's 1.5-3 hours a day dealing with a commute.

Alternatively, if I drive, I leave when I want to and normally arrive in 15-20 minutes. On a good day I save an hour a day driving, and on a bad one almost 2 hours.

I'm all for public transit, when it works efficiently. We currently do not have a rail system that reaches the majority of our population (its being planned though). I can't justify the additional time for my commute, because I'd always have to plan for the worst.

The bright side is sound transit is working on a proposal to expand their existing light rail. I'm all for efficient, timely, and reliable public transportation. I live 4 miles from work. It shouldn't take up to 90 minutes for me to get there.

<comment><USER4> > I live 4 miles from work. It shouldn't take up to 90 minutes for me to get > there.

That should be 20-30 min by bicycle :) is that an option?

<comment><USER5> In Seattle you're going to get pretty wet biking to work a significant percentage of the time. Depending on your job that might be an issue. (Or it might not at all. Before I worked from home I used to bike to work and shower there; it was great.)

Also though, not everyone is able or wants to power their own transportation, and although I think biking is great, I this choosing not to is also perfectly reasonable and should also be respected.

<comment><USER6> The weather isn't that much different to Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

But in both cities, buses have the exclusive use of some road space. This ensures a reliable journey time.

<comment><USER5> They (or Amsterdam at least) also have amazing bike lanes everywhere. I actually lived and commuted by bike in Ghent, Belgium for a few months, which is very similar. I did indeed get soaked on the way to work fairly frequently, but was able to shower there. I also felt very safe doing so, as bike lanes are _everywhere_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I never liked vast seas of parking or sprawl. It's not my thing; I like compactness. I prefer safe, crime free, walkable mass transit centered communities. I think it's more aesthetic, is better use of land, it's a healthier way to live, to experience the place you grow and die in.

But, I loathe people telling people how things should be and what should better. Things will change organically, just as they organically changed from sodden cow and horse manure filled roads to paved, car filled roads. So too will cars acquiesce to something else. But stop, stop the condescension and promulgation that all that is car is bad. When something better comes along, people will choose the better thing.

For good or bad, in the US, China, Japan, Europe and Africa, people choose cars when they're useful. Cars aren't foisted onto them. Yes, choices in development matter, but that's an altogether different topic.

Back to aesthetics, while I would enjoy fewer cars and parking spaces, I do not look forward to buildings built closer together like in the middle ages. They're nice when you're taking a stroll, but they are impractical for emergencies, when people need to evacuate, when emergency vehicles need access. I prefer wide streets even in the absence of cars [ever experience mid rises banging against each other in an earthquake?]

<comment><USER8> Maybe you don't know it but cities are designed. There are urban planners who decide who to organise an area, public governements decide what land is open to what kind of buildings, etc.

So decisions are taken about how to organise cities, and it's been this way for centuries.

See how Haussmann transformed Paris in the 19th century for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris)

<comment><USER9> More topically, parking is built because city planners and local and state laws require it. It isn't optional, developers can't choose to organically build less over time, it isn't a matter of choice, and it won't acquiesce into anything else.

And the predominance of parking everywhere in America didn't just happen. It was mandated by law.

First world cities with low parking requirements have much less than 5% as much parking as American cities do. Because that is what people will build voluntarily and pay for.

<comment><USER7> By organically I meant people petition, change laws pass ordinances etc at their pace.

Speaking of low parking slot cities, ever enjoy having sidewalks and pavement taken up by parked cars. Slots or not, people park their cars.

<comment><USER9> Tokyo requires that car owners prove they have a reserved parking stall before allowing them to register a vehicle. That takes care of sidewalk parking.

But the easiest way to eliminate sidewalk parking is to install meters on the street spaces. Then the local authorities will promptly tow sidewalk parkers for meter evasion. The problem only crops up where parking is mandated and free.

<comment><USER7> Leys see how that works out on counties with corruption endemic at low levels of enforcement.

<comment><USER9> Mexico City had no parking meters six years ago and a serious sidewalk parking problem. As the new meters go into neighborhoods, the local parking cops (on bicycles with a trailer full of Denver boots) detain illegal parkers.

It works absolutely great. The neighborhood has new cash to spend on improvements and there's legal space to park in for a price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The problem I see with shared cars is that people like to forget stuff in their cars. Cellphones, ID bages, food, wallets, bags...

When I park my car at my workplace and I notice my badge fell out of my pants (or I forgot it), no problem, I can head back to the car and get my badge. If I take a cab I can always phone the cab central and have them ask the driver to look for the item (of course, this requires honest cab drivers and it will cost me a huge amount of money if the cab driver is already on the other end of the city by the time I notice). No way at all to do so with an autonomous car.

Also, a shift to autonomous cars would prevent another very common use case: after work I might want to do something else before driving home, like going to sports training. So now I'd have to carry my gun and ammo (or my sport gear, or ...) all the time around with me instead of leaving the stuff in my car.

Also, my own car still is freedom: public transport, even in Germany, shuts down after 2200 and restarts only at 0500, and if you're outside the city you rarely have time intervals for buses and trains lower than 20min - often it's more like 40min, 60min or even 120min. With a shared car system, I'd have to wait totally unpredictable amounts of time until a shared car is free, and there's nothing I hate more than waiting.

Getting people off individual cars would require absolutely massive investment in public transport. Might work out in cities, but in rural areas there's no way you can get people to abandon their cars.

<comment> shawn-furyan > So now I'd have to carry my gun and ammo (or my sport gear, or ...)

Of course there are all kinds of little assumptions in our daily lives that would suddenly change and have to be addressed. In this case though, do you really need 170 sq. feet to store whatever you are carrying with you? Opening parking lots to development will generate enough value to provide a couple 12x18x72 inch lockers for each space removed. That still clears up over 98% of the square footage currently being taken up by parking spaces, and it would obviate the need to use cars for personal storage.

It might even lower theft since a big component of theft from automobiles is that a thief can look into a bunch of cars and only break in when something valuable enough is identified. And since lockers could be located inside where the people are, it would probably opportunities for would be thieves to have alone time with valuables.

> people like to forget stuff in their cars

If cars begin to be produced primarily for the purpose of transporting a single different person over and over again all day (with a smaller number of multi-passenger vehicles being produced for the relatively rare case of multi- passenger rides), then I imagine that eventually they would evolve a design that makes it more obvious when you drop things you are carrying. Currently cars[1] have all kinds of nooks and crannies for your wallet to fall into, because it's not that big a problem in most cases when you do that. But it would be fairly trivial to add a little fiber glass hip that sits flush with the seat. You would have to relocate the seat adjustment controls, but a lot of vehicles have already centralized those controls on the main console, and ridesharing vehicles would actually see enough benefit to consider such a change.

[1] this includes taxis because taxis fleets are made up of essentially consumer vehicles. This makes sense, because you always have at least 2 people in a taxi, so you can't really comfortably make it that much smaller. But if there were fleets of rideshared self-driving cars everywhere, most cars would only need to carry a single person, and you can drastically reduce the size of a one-person car without sacrificing comfort.

Edit: added third paragraph and the accompanying footnote

<comment><USER11> > with a smaller number of multi-passenger vehicles being produced for the > relatively rare case of multi-passenger rides

You clearly have no children. Most people do though. Multi-passenger rides are hardly rare. Going to work is not the only thing people use a car for.

<comment><USER12> Any child old enough for a school bus is also old enough for a self-driving taxi (age 8 or less). So that's most school/sports/activity runs out of the picture. And if you live in a city, your kindergarten and primary schools is generally 10 minutes' walk away or less.

But yes, there will be self-driving taxis of all sizes, just like there are ubers and rental cars of all sizes now.

<comment><USER10> > Any child old enough for a school bus is also old enough for a self-driving > taxi (age 8 or less). So that's most school/sports/activity runs out of the > picture. And if you live in a city, your kindergarten and primary schools is > generally 10 minutes' walk away or less.

Thank God I won't ever become a teacher. I can already imagine kids saying "I forgot my homework in my taxi and couldn't call it back in time"...

<comment><USER13> How is that any different from "I forgot my homework on the bus, and it left immediately after it dropped me off."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What about car sharing schemes such as Car2Go, Zipcar, etc, where you pay just for the amount of time you use the car? Unlike autonomous cars, these are available now and proven to be successful.

Here in Rome Car2Go have over 600 cars, so you are usually no more than 5 minutes walk from one. You can also leave it anywhere in the 'home zone', rather than having to find a specific car sharing parking space. There is also another service run by the city that has a similar number of cars. The prices are quite high, but if you just need it for odd trips (i.e. not commuting every day) it's still going to be cheaper than owning a car, and a lot easier than having to deal with public transport.

</comment><comment><USER11> These autonomous cars are hardly a full solution.

Or do you expect parents to attach car seats each time they call one up? And where do you put the car seats the rest of the time? Cary them along with you?

It would be nice if the cars came with them built in, but I don't think it's possible to make a seat that can accommodate every size child.

<comment><USER15> Why would it be so hard to drop the car seat requirement? Taxis are exempt from them, the security benefits are questionable already (more so once you factor that an autonomous car would probably have a different cabin and safety features), buses and trains don't need them...

Not to mention that a society that gets away from being car centric would also grant more independency to children from their parents. In Japan, kids are used to go to school by themselves at age 5. In Berlin I see kids seemlingly from elementary school going around alone in the U-Bahn. Looks like parents not having to be kids' chauffeurs would be a net gain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Yeah? Go to a place like China or India where there is no place to park your car. Nowadays almost everyone in the world have a car so we need place to park. If you don't want to own a car it is your problem. The new generation is losing independence FAST....

<comment><USER17> > Nowadays almost everyone in the world have a car

In Helsinki, less than half of households have cars. In many areas of central Helsinki, more than 60% are carless. I'd be surprised if car ownership was significantly more popular in other European cities. If there's good public transit and the city is walkable, a car is a waste of money for most people.

<comment><USER18> Random data point: There were 342 cars registered per 1000 citizens in Berlin in 2014 [0]. Same in other (large) cities I have lived in in Europe.

Typically, using the public transport in Berlin will be much quicker than taking the car.

[0] Sorry, article in German (and BZ..): [http://www.bz- berlin.de/berlin/immer-mehr-autobesitzer-aber-...](http://www.bz- berlin.de/berlin/immer-mehr-autobesitzer-aber-weniger-fahrer)</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook is Getting Old - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/facebook-older-trend-twitter-tumblr/

<comment><USER3> Wow Kevin sure does like Facebook:

[http://www.dailydot.com/authors/kevin- morris/](http://www.dailydot.com/authors/kevin-morris/)

And the problem with that graph/article is that it fails to consider the size of the user bases. Facebook is so huge that its demographic breakdown mirrors that of the real world. Whilst all the other sites have a fraction of the user base so obviously their graph will skew more towards the type of site they have.

Maybe there should be a graph of how many 0-20 year olds there are on Facebook versus the other sites.

<comment><USER4> As the Kevin in question I would like to point out this article was written by someone who is very much not me.

<comment><USER5> Apparently the article in question was written by a fellow named Tim Sampson.

[http://www.dailydot.com/authors/tim- sampson/](http://www.dailydot.com/authors/tim-sampson/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The PRISM/NSA blowout was the last straw to break this camel's back. I've been growing dissatisfied with the constant urge to check Facebook/Twitter/G+ all the time, I've also been irked by how my _very personal_ information, posts, and communications were being used to make money _for Facebook_.

There were many things I've said to people through Facebook that I actually wouldn't like to have data-mined (no matter who's doing it, Facebook, AdAgencyX, or the NSA).

While my Google searches, email, and other "free" services are still used in a similar capacity - I'm also working to switch off of those.

Leaving Facebook has been the best thing I've done so far. I feel lighter and less heavy with the urge to check it ALL the time.

<comment><USER7> I feel the same way - lighter, unencumbered. I left Facebook almost a year ago and haven't been back. My main reason was privacy concerns, but I also felt empty after checking it many times a day. It was a great decision, and more people in my social circle have left since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think this is a bit misleading. We're drawing the conclusion from age based metrics that if a lot of young people use a service, relative to older adults, it must be "hip" or "new."

Consider Disney.com. Nothing new or hip about it. I'd bet >80% of the users are under 30.

I think this is a fairly incorrect assumption, and it feels like it's being used to justify an opinion about Facebook here by undermining how "cool" and "hip" it is.

Just come out and say what you want to say. Facebook sucks, and there's definitely nothing new about it anymore. I'll do you a favor and not try to trick you into agreeing with my opinion by making misleading correlations between it and objective data. If you disagree with me, awesome, you've found something of value in Facebook. That's great for you. I hate it. We're different! :)

<comment><USER9> I think cool and hip is 16-25 year olds, not 10 year olds.

<comment><USER8> Potentially. So we agree there's nothing hip about Disney.com? I was trying to provide a counter example to the general thesis of the article.

The reason it really doesn't hold at all, in general, is because many websites (and particularly their contents, not necessarily the sites themselves) cater to different interests, and it's really not a surprise that people in different age groups have different interests. It's also certainly not surprising that Reddit caters to the interests of younger people more than Facebook does.

<comment><USER9> I think the point is that younger people tend to be early adopters of a new platform. It's probably easier to get middle aged people to start using a platform popular with 20somethings than the other way around.

So if one wanted to create something to rival facebook, create a place that suits the needs of the younger generation better than facebook does, the rest will eventually follow.

Even reddit seems to have a healthy following amongst "older" people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Teens are still using Facebook. It's become a utility to stay in contact. It might be 'cool' to say you're not using it, but the reality (read: data) shows that they use it more than ever.

</comment><comment><USER11> Hmm. The more interesting point is that nearly half of the Hacker News community is under 24.

<comment><USER12> If the data source is doubleclick, how does it even know who's on HN?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm surprised to see how young deviantART users are considering the quality of its content. Since 2006, this site has been my goto location for anything graphic-related: drawings, web designs, pictures, Photoshop brushes and actions... Maybe 0-24 years old is the period when you're the most creative?

About Facebook: it's a website where you _build_ your network, especially with family and close friends. Although I don't visit it anymore, I know my friends and family use it solely to follow each other's lives ('What have you been up to?'), while sharing theirs as well. It's not a one-time visit. You follow the evolution of your relations' lives, especially the major events of a lifetime: marriage and children. Facebook is the network where people go to develop and share their _real_ identity (whether it's a good decision or not). The more you use it, the more you feel connected to it (and compelled to make a contribution). That's why most Facebook users who joined it at the age of 25-35 are now in their mid-life, because Facebook is the only online network they're part of.

<comment><USER9> That's just counting signups. Not necessarily who the active/popular users are. There's a lot of spam,junk and stolen work on deviantart, the site just makes efforts to showcase the good stuff.

If you weighted it based on artist popularity you might get a different picture.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> My parents are on FB, LinkedIn, and tumblr. If they show up on Reddit, I'm quitting the internet.

<comment><USER14> Your parents are probably thinking: _mission accomplished_

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Emails are getting old. That doesn't mean anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think email has been relegated to formal correspondence only. Don't kids just, uh, tweet at each other?

Soon email will become like the telephone. These days I don't call anybody unless I need an ambulance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I agree that it's old now, and not as trendy as other things, Facebook has become so widely used that being old isn't an issue. For me it's become a social tool, just like email has become a communications tool. It's not going away, nor do I need it to be replaced by something trendy.

</comment><comment><USER17> The Problem with Facebook right now, at least for me is that it is getting very boring. Nothing seems happens on it. Only very few posts appear and I think it is because they only show you your "closest friends" or people you have stalked etc or I don't know what parameters they use. Even if I sort by "more recent" only very few posts appear. I have over 950 friends. I used to wake up in the morning and login into facebook just to see what my FB friends did over the night or what happened with my friends in other continents. Now it takes me 5 minutes to be up to date. Besides, everytime I login I have to read again the same old posts (Even from the they day before). I don't know why facebook judges that I have too see that same post again and again everytime I login. WTF Facebook.

<comment><AUTHOR> Click on Sort->Most Recent; Top right corner of newsfeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's the point of this article? Sometimes it isn't about being cool, it's about being really useful to a ton of people. Driving a car isn't "hip" or "cool" (unless you're driving a Tesla) but it sure as hell eases the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Facebook's mission isn't to be a "cool hangout" place, it's to make the world more open and connected. If they developed their product in such a way that it was only used by younger folk then they'd be excluding 75% of the population which is not connecting the world.

I'm really sick of these articles.

<comment><USER19> The point is that Facebook originally gained it's popularity because it was a "cool hangout". Like the author, I was in college when Facebook first came out. Being restricted to college kids, it wasn't about "being really useful to a ton of people". They developed their product in exactly the way you say they shouldn't.

Of course, that was a long time ago, so this article is obviously far too late. That all changed the day they allowed non-college-students in.

<comment><USER18> I don't think anybody would have heard of them today if they hadn't developed their product that way.

<comment><USER19> That's exactly the point - sometimes it _is_ about being cool and _not_ about being really useful to a ton of people, evidenced by Facebook's early days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Reminds me of that old saying, "Every empire carries within it the seeds of its own destruction."

People usually refer to network effects as positive, but eventually it becomes negative. Facebook, Eternal September, etc.

</comment><comment><USER21> I think mixing of people from different social circle is going to happen to any social network which aims to be the default communication tool for the whole of earth. What I am pissed off more about Facebook is the loads of advertisements which keep showing up in my feed. That I find to be unacceptable. There have got to be other business models.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think there is something to the idea of generational mixing on Facebook causing a loss of value. A friend today posted a picture of a cat with its tail in the air where the "view" looked like Jesus. His mother then promptly commented how not funny it was. Facebook with your parents on it is a different world than it used to be.

<comment> k-mcgrady Most people I know wouldn't add their parents or older relatives. Personally I've only added a few family members (mostly so I can use Facebook Messages with them), added them to a list, and only explicitly publish to that list. Most of my content is published to friends except family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Ive used facebook about 6 months after launch...and in the beginning it was an cool...but now its boring. Its like there was a party and all the cool people went home, and the only people still around are old people, families, and marketers...and the weird kid from high school

<comment><USER24> > _the only people still around are old people, families, and marketers...and > the weird kid from high school_ //

Which one are you? ;0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wrong title. Facebook IS old. For a lot of us. Teens are still on there heavily, but the transition to mobile is bigger than ever. Teens are heavily on mobile, rarely on a browser.

FB is also full of maybe 200M+ fake accounts (if we're saying 1.1B total) - <USER2> created a few accounts for testing purposes, research, etc. and added well over 100 users per account = 99% fake.

What's strange is how FB is still the premier social network when the life cycle of these things is usually shorter... They have a big user base so that helps, but something is just around the corner. They'll still be around, but teens, kids, etc. will transition. Such as the state of the Internets

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "FB is also full of maybe 200M+ fake accounts"

Source?

<comment><USER25> Official source: FB's SEC Form 10-Q ([http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001193125123...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512325997/d371464d10q.htm#tx371464_14))

Double or triple that number for reality, plus add a year since that report. Also common sense when you have 10 accounts with 100 users each, all fake :)

Edit: It's closer to 12-18% of all accounts (incl. 5-6% duplicate accounts)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It would be interesting to see the age data for services like SnapChat and Instagram (maybe this was included in FB's age range).

<comment><USER25> Assumption: 15 - 22 age range would be the majority of users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think Bob Lefsetz already wrote this article.

<comment><USER28> He did: [http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2013/06/02/f...](http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2013/06/02/facebook- is-for-old-people/)

He's worth following, particularly if you're interested in Things Media, and you like his stream-of-consciousness style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Would love to know the methodology used to gather and verify the data for each site?

</comment><comment><USER29> facebook _has gotten_ old.</comment>


The state of JavaScript modules - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/webpack/the-state-of-javascript-modules-4636d1774358 <comment><USER2> "Most frontend developers still remember the dark days of JavaScript dependency management."

As opposed to now, where even the smallest "app" has hundreds if not thousands of dependencies for the most basic of functionality ('need to iterate an array, better bring lodash'), often there being multiple copies of the same dependency due to conflicting versions?

<comment><USER3> You beat me to the punch: I really don't remember "you would copy and paste a library into a vendor folder, rely on global variables, try to concat everything in the right order and still would had to deal with namespace issues" as being all that big of a problem! It was (is!) simple enough, and it mostly worked; if you were trying to deploy something to a customer site where they already accidentally had two different old versions of jQuery loaded in the page, sure, that could be problematic... but deploying stuff to customer sites is always problematic one way or the other.

(I accept this is something of a rose-tinted over-simplification, but a paragraph titled "An ancient fear" probably deserves some slightly flippant commentary.)

<comment><USER4> I do remember that being a huge pain in the back, as in:

\- You have to maintain a full list of your files, in order, to include them in your html page (in dev mode) and concat (for prod mode)

\- If you want to know on what other module a given module depends on, you have to hunt every call in the source code

\- You can never remove a dependency on an external lib as you can never be sure it's not used somewhere

\- Upgrading a lib was a pain

Compared to every other language, it was a huge pain point. It's not by chance that so many people started to work on implementing modules for JS, there was a real need.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> git-pull I support innovation and people who like to code and build great things. And am happy to see JS is getting these features. I even see a downvoted comment to "just use amdefine". Well that solution worked fine for me, then 5 years of amazing hop scotch between build tools and libraries happened.

And while some report benefits and advancement, I have to tell you, the amount of tools you have to pull in these days just get some single page interaction going... Just stop. And we need to draw a line between "progress" for the language and its libraries vs introducing features without discipline. The more features a language has, the harder it will be for open source and industry to develop consensus on what's idiomatic.

Want to know another language feature? Being stable.

I swear, it's like the language reinvents itself every year. Give me some sort of promise when you'll leave the standard alone, _then_ I'll wait for the community to form best practices / libraries to catch up. After the dust settles, I'll invest time reading up on the standard.

Ain't trying to jab javascript. Love the language, community is top tier, but everything these days from build tools to libraries seems like a moving target.

<comment><USER5> JS is backward compatible. So it got that too from Java other than the funky name. So it's stable. jQuery? Works. Good old document.getElementById? Works. And thanks to the standardization efforts of vendors (and countless volunteers, who created feature matrices and feature tests and polyfills, and so on), now using those is easy, because you can look up what's supported, what will be supported, and what is deprecated. (So for a single page interaction you don't need tools. Case in point, last week I coded up a HTML form with a simple <script> tag. I got so nostalgic I almost wanted to watch a video of FrontPage 97.)

But if you want to minify your code, and bundle it, and use SCSS/LESS/SASS and compile that to CSS, and if you don't want to execute the various tools manually every time, then you need tools. And yes, since these are pretty simple tools, it's easy to reinvent them, to try out a new mix of them. Gulp vs grunt? Yeah, grunt's config was horrible. But people still like magical config files, so we are back with them with webpack. And people want to use better state management, and shadow DOM, and so on, but they still like to view their sites in browsers, not just through TC39 glasses, so they use babel, but that itself evolved over the years. And so on.

And WebAssembly. And TypeScript. Because static typing is really helpful. And isomorphic whatever. And tools for that. And tools for development. (Nodemon, hot code replacement, unit testing, code coverage, e2e testing, and so on.)

And even though everything is a moving target, the good bits are still doing pretty well. (Yarn is pretty good thanks to the lockfile, but obviously npm is doing well. Webpack lives on but AngularCLI actually works so no need to handcraft webpack config; and gulp works too, if you want to get simple.)

And you don't need to wait for others to tell you what's best. Look at your visitors/users, think about their needs, and look at what tools can help you serve them best. Are you making sites for blind people? Use/support tools that are thinking about WAI-ARIA/semantic markup. If you deal with mobile users? Optimize for speed, service workers, write non-chatty [REST] APIs, push content to CDNs, and think about PRPL ( [https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/p...](https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/performance/prpl- pattern/) ). If you serve big enterprises, use tools that provide IE4.01 compatibility, and so on.

<comment><USER6> I generally agree, just a small nitpick:

> Are you making sites for blind people? Use/support tools that are thinking > about WAI-ARIA/semantic markup.

I think developers should always have accessibility in their mind. People (or organizations they work for) may choose to use IE8 and yes, it makes sense to draw a line somewhere regards to supporting browsers. They can decide if an upgrade effort is worth to use your application. However people do not choose to have less abilities and it's possible that they can't do anything to change that. I'm not a dictator who says everyone must use _all_ the accessibility best-practices but usually there's a small effort which can be made with huge gains.

<comment><USER5> Absolutely. But that's still a trade off (between using a tool that might be better in some other sense, but then you might not have time to add ARIA tags, or reshape the markup a bit). And usually it's not an explicit requirement. So it's up to the developer/team.

And I agree with doing the minimum. There was a great site that shows sites as they "look" like to a screen reader, but I can't find it now. (But it was very much like WAVE [http://wave.webaim.org](http://wave.webaim.org) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just like when Meteor was the hottest kid on the block, ES6 came along and pulled the rug out from under me.

Now that I'm finally used to ES6, here comes some other frankenstein with more flesh bolted on.

At what point will Javascript relax and stop reinventing itself and what works? When will stability become a core goal for the Javascript thought- leaders?

I haven't worked with .NET and C# for years but I bet I could feel right at home today. I couldn't say the same for Javascript.

<comment><USER8> Before ~2015: "JavaScript is a terrible language!"

After ~2016: "Stop improving JavaScript, I can't keep up!"

(Not a personal attack, just general sentiment I've observed)

<comment><USER9> > After ~2016: "Stop improving JavaScript, I can't keep up!"

The bad parts are still here that's the problem. The language didn't improve so much that it got new features. But var, ==, type coercion and co still exist.

<comment> aaron-lebo So use a linter which disallows var and some of the worst usages and and use libraries which make up where it's lacking.

It's the price of improving the language + backwards compatibility.

<comment><USER9> A linter never fixed the runtime behavior of a language, this is beside the point. The point is the assumption that Javascript is a better language today.

<comment> aaron-lebo You mentioned var, let exists to fix those issues, hence the language just in that one area is better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> All of the top level comments are complaining...

How many of those people have written at least 10k+ lines of JavaScript?

These changes are hard, but they are undeniably improving the language.

And as many others have stated repeatedly, it is not necessary to chase the bleeding edge. For example, I just learned React for the first time a few weeks ago, and I'm glad I waited (I haven't started using Redux yet either). I'm also still using browserify instead of webpack. And so on.

</comment><comment><USER11> I recently started working on a JavaScript thingy and I'm really glad for two things:

1\. These package managers and build systems and all that are fairly replacable in terms of implementation. They all just give you some namespace management, but the actual JS code is usually the same or very similar.

2\. I'm using vanilla JavaScript, so even though I have to reinvent the wheel from time to time, I don't have to support outdated APIs, bother people with further dependencies, and save bandwidth. And given that I'm lucky enough not having to worry about backwards compatibility, I can leverage all the Maps, Sets, UintxArrays and other modern JavaScript goodness that was previously delegated to libraries.

</comment><comment><USER12> The work done by Guy Bedford and others in building SystemJS [1] is great. SystemJS is a practical implementation of the whatwg loader specification proposal [2]. Using SystemJS you can use es modules in node.js and the browser right now. On nodejs it provides an escape hatch via System._nodeRequire to fallback to node.js' require from within an es module if you really have to.

The one thing that I really miss is that most (all?) JS module implementations really seem to be focused on static compile workflows. Sure, for deployments you want that, for development JS as a very dynamic language would offer much better support for live programming systems if the module systems would play along nicely. One reason why I personally was excited to see that the loader proposal initially considered custom locate/fetch/define behavior added via hooks but more recent discussions about bringing it forward seem to dismiss that. I think for great tooling a module system that supports both deployment as well as development needs is necessary and would really add to the JS ecosystem.

[1] [https://github.com/systemjs/systemjs](https://github.com/systemjs/systemjs) [2] [https://github.com/whatwg/loader](https://github.com/whatwg/loader)

<comment><USER13> > The one thing that I really miss is that most (all?) JS module > implementations really seem to be focused on static compile workflows.

That's what baffles me coming from Java and C#; I can have dynamically loaded modules with strongly typed interfaces in these ecosystems, but not in any JS module system.

<comment><USER14> require() is dynamic and import() will be too. What are you talking about?

JavaScript is not a typed language (yet?) so it's like expecting pigs to fly.

<comment><USER13> With "dynamic", I mean "pulled in at runtime" vs. "pulled in at compile time". See [http://2ality.com/2017/01/import- operator.html](http://2ality.com/2017/01/import-operator.html)

<comment><USER15> Isn't that exactly what `import()` is?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Something I think is not explicit enough: you can _import whatever from 'whatever'_ independently of whenever that package is updated or not. What you cannot do is require() an exported package.

This is great and in no way the same as Python 3; with this old packages are compatible with newer ones, it is newer ones the ones that will not be compatible with older ones (not ideal, but still acceptable IMO).

</comment><comment><USER17> One has to admit that exporting to / importing from global namespace, as in the old days, is for a typical/small project way easier and simpler than to deal with conflicting module systems and mediocre dependency/build tooling. JS module/dependency/build ecosystem is sick and fragmented and The solution is in the cold.

<comment><USER14> I've been doing that recently with Web Extensions. It's not "easier". After a handful of files I just end up implementing rollup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Serious question: what benefit does this (.mjs) have over the current way of doing things?

<comment><USER15> It enables you to not package modules that your app's not using, preventing the dreaded "shipping x MB to your users".

<comment><USER18> But can't you just do some "tree shaking" with something like Rollup, so it only sends the code you use?

<comment><USER15> You can only do so _thanks to_ the new module system. From the Rollup website [1]:

> Since this approach is based on explicit import and export statements, it is > vastly more effective than simply running an automated minifier to detect > unused variables in the compiled output code.

[1] [https://rollupjs.org/#tree-shaking](https://rollupjs.org/#tree-shaking)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is web assembly going to fix any of these?

</comment><comment><USER20> So... Still a nightmare of competing solutions.

<comment><USER21> Some lessons are hard learned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> KotlinJS, please add google closure support and save us from the madness of javascript tooling, modules, etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> Given the fact that few npm package authors understand the node.js event loop, pick your modules very carefully.

</comment><comment><USER24> Don't know what to say really, I just dislike JS no matter how hard I tried, it's a chaos to say the least, other languages, such as C, C++, Java, PHP are way more cleaner and reliable to me. Also it's so easy to be burnt out by those JS new advancements...enough is enough</comment>