Pull-To-Refresh Inventor Says There's No Need To Worry About Twitter's Patent  - <AUTHOR> http://www.cultofmac.com/156864/pull-to-refresh-inventor-says-theres-no-need-to-worry-about-twitters-patent-application/

<comment><USER2> Not sure why this was written up by CultofMac, aside from pageviews.

The inventor doesn't have control anymore, and therefore no say in how the patent will or won't be enforced. "Don't worry, it'll be fine" is meaningless.

<comment><USER3> Unless the inventor held onto "prior art" that inspired him that he could pull out as a wild card if Twitter tries to enforce the patent.

<comment><USER4> I don't know if he can do that and still be considered to have been acting "in good faith" when he participated in the patent application.

<comment><USER3> Probably not, but to whom is the good faith obligation to? Twitter or the USPTO?

Another commenter stated that he patented defensively when negotiating to be bought out by twitter. If that is the case, he probably doesn't have a good faith obligation from the time he filed the patent. The question then rests on how the patent was represented at the deal. Did Twitter pay more because they factored in the value of his patent? If so, then I reckon good faith would extend to those negotiations and he'd only be in the clear as long as he did not misrepresent the patent.

<comment><USER4> _Probably not, but to whom is the good faith obligation to? Twitter or the USPTO?_

I don't think that makes a difference to the inventor, except that the USPTO is less motivated to come after him.

Is the "defensive" use of patents explicitly codified somehow, or is there a body of precedent explicitly cited, supporting this notion? If current practice is based on precedent, then this is unfortunate. What we have basically carries the weight of law, but was hacked together by fractionally clueful bureaucrats on a substrate that predates a widespread understanding of many of the concepts involved. (Or any understanding at all, in some cases.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> IIRC Loren filed this patent "defensively" prior to the Twitter acquisition. Of course, his original intent is irrelevant now.

<comment><USER4> As a point of fact, patents weren't intended to act as munitions in a "defensive arsenal." They are so glaringly broken, it's not even funny.

<comment><USER5> Really? I don't disagree with patents, especially in the software area, being broken. I'm trying to think what else they might be meant to act as. If I was to patent a novel Widget, it would be to protect/defend it against others copying the Widget without my permission. No?

<comment><USER6> It's the other way around. The original intent of patents is to disclose the making of a device to the public domain in exchange for an exclusive royalty and eventually, after a certain amount of time, for the device to become public domain.

Since the royalty is exclusive it means that you are the only one that is allowed to profit from the patent and here comes the defendability of patents.

However if you really want to protect something then, by all means, keep it secret. Coca-Cola and Pepsi formulas are kept secret and will not be patented, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wouldn't Tweetie itself constitute Prior Art that invalidates this patent application? I believe this behavior was in the app long before the application was filed (which was just the day before Twitter announced the acquisition of the app).

<comment><USER8> Viewing the behavior might not be enough to consider the method inside to have been revealed.

But also, in the US, you have a one year grace period after public disclosure to file for a patent.

<comment><USER7> I think simply viewing this behavior would be sufficient for any competent software engineer to understand the method.

However, I was not aware of the grace period. That's the kind of thing I was looking for. Thanks. I wonder how long Tweetie had this functionality before the patent was filed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The end of the article seems to say that since people copied the feature between when it was first invented (by Loren B.) and when the patent application was filed, that counts as prior art. IANAL, but isn't that false, if the period between the invention & patent application is short enough? What is it, a year or two?

 _Edit:_ Gojomo says elsewhere in this discussion that the grace period between public disclosure & the latest you can file is one year.

</comment><comment><USER10> This article is much clearer on this point than the linkbait that was posted last time, but: This is a patent application, not a patent. When/if it is granted, the claims will not be anywhere near as broad as they are now.

</comment><comment><USER11> Don't they _have_ to patent this now that the US patent system is first-to- file? Otherwise, others would be free to patent it and start charging Twitter royalties.

<comment><USER12> The US patent system is also not supposed to grant patents that have evidence of "prior art." Should another company apply for the patent after Twitter is using it, Twitter can simply show the feature existed prior to the patent filing date.</comment></comment>


ArrayDB, a new and easy PHP ORM - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/mstdokumaci/arraydb

<comment><USER2> I am not a PHP programmer, but I noticed that most of the files does not have a php closing "?>". Or am I missing something?

<comment><AUTHOR> it's mostly not adviced: <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4410704/php- closing-tag>

<comment><USER2> oh right, that makes sense. I suppose PHP won't complain about the missing "?>". Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> good job.</comment>


How many calories you may burn standing at work versus sitting, strolling - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/06/heres-how-many-calories-you-may-burn-standing-at-work-versus-sitting-strolling/ <comment><USER2> Along these lines, I'm thinking that having larger corporate offices make the walk farther for non-handicap parking in general would be beneficial to employee health. I know that some parking lots are huge in general, but positioning entrances, and the majority of parking to effectively enforce a roughly 1/4 mile walk would help a lot.

Although it was really rough at first, I worked in an office, where the closer parking lot was always full, and in a Phoenix summer, that sucked.. but as it cooled, I had forced myself to park at the far end of the overflow lot, that was farther down the road... about 1/3 mile walk each way. My health in general improved a lot over those months working there. Although, it was a bit exhausting when I'd invariably forget my security badge in my car about once a week.

I'm also thinking it might be nice to have cities actually block off auto traffic on certain streets in favor of higher walking, opening areas to foot traffic over auto.</comment>


The stem cell scammers - <AUTHOR> http://mindhacks.com/2012/12/24/the-stem-cell-scammers/

<comment><USER2> I have a family member who has passed away from Alzheimer's, and I'd like to weigh in. When you face late-stage Alzheimer's, you (and the people around you) really have one of two mindsets, realizing that conventional, already- tested treatments aren't likely going to cure you, or ensure your survival much longer:

1\. Accept your fate; live out the remainder of your life the best you can before your loss of memory tears apart the very fabric of who you are.

2\. Try unproven, religious, traditional, etc treatments that the rest of us would consider ridiculous, and hope for the best.

I think a very valid argument could be made for #1, but not everyone weighs life with the same set of values. While it may not entirely be wise to seek in-testing treatments, it should be understandable why some would do so.

<comment><USER3> The problem with #1 is that it won't be me, alone, whose life will be rent asunder. (Dementia is part of my condition, and though it is currently well- controlled, I am aware of a steady, gradual decline, the emotions that flare up out of frustration, and more than a little irrational thinking. I've watched my family and friends go through this before, too many times.)

My current hope is that when I've gotten too stupid to live, I'll do something so spectacularly stupid that the problem is largely self-correcting (and, if all goes well, wins me a Darwin on the way out). There is no comfortable way to lose a loved one, but some are far more damaging than others. I hate even the thought that the people who care about me will still care about and be hurt by me even when I am no longer myself in any real sense. I might not chase obvious quackery, but anything that's an experimental coin toss might not be out of the question,say, this time next year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Anybody that goes to the Ukraine to have their brains infused with stem-cells is suffering from a lot more than just a fear of Alzheimers. The kind and number of complications that come to mind (assuming the treatment itself doesn't do anything at all) make it an absolute no-brainer (pun unavoidable).

And if it does something it likely isn't going to be positive. Desperate people are easy victims, if you know someone that is even considering something like this please do them a favour and talk them out of it before something bad happens.

</comment><comment><USER5> While I find it deplorable, I don't find it surprising. There have been people offering crazy treatments pretty much since the beginning of time. The risks to patients are extreme, and the risk to science is that someone will have a bad outcome that is attributed to something that didn't cause it. That said, information is developed in these programs, and scientific or not that information can inform actual scientists. It was true of prisoners being experimented on in POW camps and it will be true of these poor folks in the Ukraine.

<comment><USER6> > That said, information is developed in these programs

That would not be my null hypothesis. This kind of work strikes me as unlikely to be done in a way that has scientific utility. It's quite possible that I'm just not thinking of a similar circumstance with a useful outcome, however.

Also, the use of knowledge gained from unethical research conducted as part of Nazi war crimes is a highly divisive topic.

<comment><USER5> I was thinking more US tests on prisoners [1] not the Nazis.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems incredible that anyone would believe stem cells to be so magical that they could heal psychiatric disorder, even less psychological ones. Are there any studies -even shoddy ones- that would even suggest that?

I'm not surprised that people who are desperate for a treatment would cling at anything for a bit of hope, but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

</comment><comment><USER8> On the bright side , there are legitimate procedures that work. [http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/ontario-man-s-sight-restored- wi...](http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/ontario-man-s-sight-restored-with-help-of- stem-cells-1.1088888)</comment>


The real reason people are mocking Color... - <AUTHOR> http://www.projectidealism.com/2011/03/real-reason-people-are-mocking-color.html

<comment><USER3> Could we please stop writing about Color? As in, just drop the curtain of silence and be done with it? The less buzz there is about it, the sooner it'll be gone from popular consciousness.

But should we generate too much buzz, it may become self-sustaining :-(

Btw., perhaps the 41mln investment isn't just about providing necessary funding, but also about giving people 41 million reasons to generate even more buzz?

<comment><USER4> From my previous comment:

Everyone whose on this "are we still talking about color" thing is starting to get on my nerves. Theres still LOTS of mileage in it - more write ups, VC opinions, yada yada.

Its how the world works. They just raised $41m, one of the largest pre-launch rounds. Expect to hear about them. Saying "are we still talking about color" doesn't make you cool. Nobody cares if your "over it because your so hooked in to the tech scene".

If you don't want to read about it, don't click on the link.

<comment><USER3> Look, I care about great products and services. That's connected with strong competition. In this case, the company/product/service is close to becoming a celebrity thanks to very high blog & press coverage. Which artificially raises the bar to competitors, basically sky-high.

I lack any blogging experience; if I had any, I'd try to give some counter- coverage, to promote competitors.

I _regret_ not making that reasoning clear in the original post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reid Hoffman had a great line at the last Startup School to the effect of "Most mainstream web users can remember 7 +-2 web services. If this is true (and I believe it is) $500K on domain names is not a bad investment for a few reasons:

1\. Easy to say/spell. I work for a startup where I have to spell the name of the company every time I talk to someone. We are a medical company so its not a big marketing issue, but having to explain your site is Colr.com or TheColorApp.com instead of just "Color" will impede consumers.

2\. It makes you seem like a real company with the resource to own a short, properly spelled name rather than yet another creatively spelled SocNet. Talk to some non-early adopters and you'll see how important this can be.

My take is that most people are mocking the amount of money being spent on what is initially seen as a photo sharing service rather than a platform that will allow people to quickly assemble social networks of real life friends. in different contexts.

<comment><USER6> That'd be true if we weren't talking about an iPhone app that users will install without ever actually going to the web site behind it.

      1st User Experience:
      - open App Store
      - search for "Color"
      - <USER2>

      2nd - nth User Experience:
      - click the "Color" button on your iPhone

Notice how we never visit the actual site. TheColorApp.com would work just fine for them.

<comment><USER7> Only true if they planned to exit on the app alone. Maybe the plan is ambitious enough to warrant the expense.

In unrelated news: a friend of mine casually referred to her boss as a 'green' on Saturday... apparently it is the result of popular personality test that everyone in the company has to take. The result (one or more 'colors') is part of their email signature for internal correspondence.

<comment><USER5> Totally Agree. I think photo sharing is a classic "Thin Wedge" that Dixon and Wilson have written about before. Think about how powerful Color could be:

Business Networking - Go to a conference and create an ad hoc social network. You are basically automating what Fridge and Lanyrd are doing now.

Neighborhood Social Networking - Need to organize a carpool or soccer practice schedule? Moms can set up a network with their phones while sitting in the stands watching their kids play.

Same for schooling, retailing, and dozens of other opportunities where you might want to let people communicate then sell them stuff. If nothing else it might be so it is easier for advertisers to remember and more easily access the self serve ad mechanisms the founders described.

I could see all of those eventually having a traditional "Web" page though it might be assembled and interacted with very differently than a traditional soc net.

<comment><USER8> The neighborhood social networking example is not as straight forward as it sounds. The barrier to use isn't just the user experience, but the metaphor behind the application. Most regular people have a hard time learning new metaphors to interact with technology.

Do you really think that an entire group of middle-aged moms would all download an app on their smartphones to co-ordinate carpools? No! They don't want to deal with technology. Most likely they will just talk person to person (what a novel idea) or use their existing email list from the team.

Don't mean to get too personal, but this kind of thinking is one of the disadvantages from living in Silicon Valley. You become disconnected from how the majority of people live and interact with technology

<comment><USER9> Exactly. Normal people won't use technology unless it does something they can't, but need to do, or makes something significantly easier. They don't just use tech for its own sake like I do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a silly post.

Domains are still very important for a number of reasons (prestige being an obvious one). Buying the domains before announcing the round of funding probably saved them a good deal of money too.

It's a drop in the bucket if you look at the big picture.

Facebook paid $200k for their domain a few years ago. Imagine what they would have to shell out now had they decided against it back then.

<comment><USER11> There's nothing silly about it. Domains are important but for brandable terms. Color is far too common a word. It conveys nothing that could be seen as a brand.

Further, it shows that they're spending with the notion of huge scale long before there's any sign that's necessary. (It's what sunk a lot of dot bomb companies.) Yes it might be cheaper now, but it's a risky way to spend their money especially when a brandable term is both more valuable and less expensive.

<comment><USER10> tell that to apple

<comment><USER12> When do people ever say, "I bought an Apple computer"? People usually say, "I bought a Mac". Ever rarer will you see someone say, "I bought an Apple phone." (I'm talking about most laymen aka consumers)

Apple's branding value has followed from their high quality and consumer- accessible products. No amount of marketing will support a crappy product. Focusing on marketing over quality is how products die a spectacular death. Remember Kin?

<comment><USER13> but do they say "the mac store" ?

<comment><USER14> Mac bought the domain "me.com" which is awful. I love my .mac email address and _never_ use ".me" for anything. Especially because it used to belong to a failed social networking site and so is blocked at a bunch of the (govt) sites that I work!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If I got the implied timeline correct from the original Techcrunch post ([http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent- soc...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-social- interaction-with-its-mobile-photo-app-and-41-million-in-funding/)), it was:

      1. Nguyen names company 'Color' and buys color.com
      2. Sequoia hears about Color, contacts them
      3. Sequoia gives them $14 million
      4. Other investors want in, and keeps wanting in
         money until the total size of the round hits $41 million.

If the implied timeline is correct (and do correct me if I'm wrong), then the founders were more than prepared to shell out for the domain name even before the round.

And Nguyen chose the name Color as a tribute to Apple: [http://www.quora.com/Color-Labs-startup/Why-is-Color- named-C...](http://www.quora.com/Color-Labs-startup/Why-is-Color-named-Color)

 _A tribute to Apple's color logo from the Apple II. This computer changed my life when I was seven (also a reference to another company name I've used.)

My dad bought one from ComputerCraft run by Billy Ladin in Houston. He was one of the first computer resellers back in 1977. In an odd twist, I meet him in an elevator 15 years later and worked for him. He introduced me to the Web.

Working at Apple was a dream. Color's name is a tribute to Apple._

<comment><AUTHOR> Apparently the domain was registered in December: [http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired- for-...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired- for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/)

I'm not sure of the timeline as to when the various investments came in. From what I understand though, they had $14 million and then Sequoia got in: [http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/03/24/sequoia-to- co...](http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/03/24/sequoia-to-color-labs- not-since-google-have-we-seen-this/?mod=google_news_blog))

So, you'd be right, it looks like Sequoia did get in _after_ the purchase of the domain, which could indeed indicate that the domain helped them in some way.

Best rebuttal by far.

Though, one could also argue they might not have been so eager to accept Sequoia's capital if they weren't spending $500,000 on things like domain names.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Domains are an asset and very easy to justify paying for if you have the money. It's not like they just burned half a million dollars. If the company folds they can sell the name.

Also the name is vague enough to encompass any pivots. It's a great name, probably one of the best domains you could have for an app in the happiness business.

It was expensive, sure, but they have the money. And corporate accounting probably sees it as an appreciating asset anyway.

If you have $41 million I can think of few better purchases than a really great, memorable, meaningful, happiness-associated domain name.

Also it has netted them tons of free advertising. Think all the "The iPad will fail!!!!!!!" blog posts hurt Apple's bottom line? No one _really_ listens to naysayers. Pessimists are just an alternative form of advertising.

<comment><USER17> The idea that they already have a corporate accounting dept speaks to the root of the problem.

<comment><USER18> You think it's weird to have a CFO or equivalent when you have that much money to manage? I sure don't.

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure why they actually need that much money at this stage of their company's development. With that said, I certainly wouldn't turn down $41 million if someone wanted to give it to me :) However, the fact that they now need to produce returns on this large of an investment may add a whole new level of pressure to the already difficult task of launching a viable startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I always thought that people mocked Color because Color got $41 million dollars and I didn't. I mean, they didn't.

<comment><USER20> You nailed it. Who is more mockable: the start-up with a 1.0 product that accepts a ton of VC money, or the VCs who threw the ton of money at them? How many hackers with a 1.0 product wouldn't take the VC money in the same circumstances? I'm sure some might refuse to take more than they thought they deserved, but that has got to be a tiny percentage. The real question is what the VCs saw to cause them to believe that this was worth what they paid. Given that others are not seeing it in the 1.0 product, it either has to be something else that's coming, or it has to be a pretty stupid investment. Either way, if someone is to be mocked, it's not the entrepreneurs who accepted the money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you're going to spend millions on marketing it isn't crazy to pay half a million for two domain names that are easy for people to remember.

Remember when Barnes and Noble started an online bookstore and nobody knew if it was barnesnoble.com or barnesandnoble.com or barnesandnobles.com or barnesandnobles.com or barns-n-nobles.com or whatever?

You can be quite successful with a brand name that's a catchy neologism, but if I had the kind of investment they had I wouldn't feel bad about dropping that much money for a really good domain.

</comment><comment><USER22> SOME domain names matter. I believe that it was a critical element to Mint's success. But in their case it was also backed up my a phenomenal service. If Color can back up their killer domain name with a service people flock to, then their investment will have been worthwhile. If not, its a generic enough name with broad applications that is likely to find a buyer in the neighborhood of what they paid to secure it today.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think the real reason most people are mocking color is that they're turned off to large funding rounds. That's really it.

The product: not bad. If you can actually network with it (and I have), then it's actually quite interesting.

The domain name: Not expensive compared to the money they raised.

The funding round: Not a shady play, it seems like a few big partners are just genuinely excited about the product.

So all I'm left with is that people don't like the number $41m, and now they're doing anything they can to to justify that initial judgement by tearing at an otherwise good product.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think that domain names are still extremely important, but I'm curious about the other side of the equation. Do you think that most consumers are just following links from Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. and no longer typing in words in the browser bar and appending .com? Just from shoulder surfing at my local library, it seems that many 'average' folks are still typing in keywords and adding .com to the end. For many sites this seems to bring up a (monetized) landing page with search results where they just click on a link that looks like what they want -- and if it isn't they hit the back button and try again or type different keywords in the browser bar. Based on this, it seems that having a memorable .com domain name is worth it.

Being tech-savvy, I'd never just type in keywords and append .com, but I think I'm in the minority on this one.

</comment><comment><USER25> Color may turn out to be a number of grandiose things, but let's not forget the simple problem that it solves: sharing photos that different people take at the same gathering. I mean people do this already, through Facebook and other photo services, but this takes a whole lot of hassle out of the process.

I wish more commentators would acknowledge this basic USP before waxing lyrical about implied social graphs and relationship revolutions.

Incidentally, the other day it occurred to me what a big deal the iPad's back facing camera is. Apple want you to _take_ your iPad to parties and gatherings, cause it's crowd-gathering appeal is unreal. You're more likely to do that if you can use it as a camera. At least if the party's in your own house. It basically transforms more social events into live Apple adverts.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is that just a random claim, or does he have data to back it up? I think domain names still matter a great deal. At least to Google. I have a web site that is not even among the top 10 pages of search results for it's main keyword, because the domain name sucks (I claim my site is a lot better than 99% of the search results before it).

Also I think diapers.com makes shitloads of money.

<comment><USER27> Google vs search.com?

<comment><USER26> Google vs MyGoogleApp.com?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I always wondered who it was that bought the godaddy domain suggestions in the form of my[xxx]app.com - now I know, it's all been to bloggers who wanted to waste their money to prove a point.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey trotsky, I'm totally down with people disagreeing with me, and I'd truly be interested in hearing your thoughts/opinion on why I'm wrong. But I think saying that I have "questionable intelligence" is unlikely to end up in the kind of quality discussion & debate hacker news is known for.

<comment><USER28> Did you really buy the domain names? What on earth are you going to use them for? It also seems that someone having my opinion (that domains in that form are embarrassing and not worth the small amount of money you paid) somewhat discounts your argument that domains don't matter. Clearly they do, at least to some extent. Are you honestly saying that if you had $41M in the bank you'd launch your brand with the domain myAwicklanderApp.com ? I doubt it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I did buy them, though I'm not sure what I'll do with them if anything. Maybe I'll point them to the color.xxx slide show. :)

My post was written, not from the perspective of someone that just got $41 million. But instead, how I would feel if I invested that money in a company and that's what they decided to spend it on.

<comment><USER28> Given the timing of the investment and the domain purchases it seems almost guaranteed (to me) that the investors knew they planned to buy them.

Also, I'm not sure how much of the quality discussion and debate that HN is known for you can expect on the 18th submission critical of color to hit the front page in the last few days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The real reason most people are mocking Color is because they're jealous of the amount of funding Color received. In my opinion, Color has not done anything wrong yet. If you have all that money, why not go and buy an expensive, memorable domain name?

</comment><comment><USER30> Seems like there's a basic lack of economic understanding .. when you buy a Toyota you don't throw $20K into the garbage- you walk away with capital, a large chunk of metal that plenty of other people would want besides just you. A domain name is capital too- they can leverage it in the course of business, or they can resell it recouping most or all of the cost.

As consumers we are so used to buying stuff and then wearing it all the way out- clothing, computers, soap, food. But when a business invests in capital, that capital holds value. When a textile plant closes, it liquidates its looms, it doesn't just write them off as an expense.

</comment><comment><USER31> The example of diapers.com seems like a poor one in that its one of the few domains that I actively think about when I need to place an order -- "almost out of diapers. oh yeah, I have a coupon for diapers.com somewhere". It's one of the few domain names that has probably resulted directly in a sale to me.

<comment><USER32> Diapers.com and the the very specific ones are great but can't scale. So you sell diapers and do extremely well, can you sell baby powder? You can but at some point the name is overgrown. Color is cool and ambiguous enough

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Based solely on their decision to buy an expensive domain name, the OP concludes that:

"when a problem arises, they're going to attack it with the blunt instrument of more capital, instead of the creative labor"

That's quite a stretch - regardless of whether or not you think the name is good strategy.

</comment><comment><USER34> Just imagine where they'd be today if only Cuil had the foresight to buy cool.com instead...

<comment><USER35> Then they would have had at least one asset that could have been sold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Honestly, considering the amount of startups that make clever use of TLDs for their sites, I'm sure they could've figured something a little more economical out. This does feel like a waste of money to me as well.

It reminds me of the 90s, where people would spend all this time thinking about a good name/domain name for their websites, and put only secondary thought into the quality of their site or its content.

Focus on making the product really good first, then buy the domain if you really have to, and if it's clear that your product is successful and lasting.

As a final thought, why not color.me, color.it, or color.us?

</comment><comment><USER37> So. Tired. Of hearing people complain about color. However it is manifested.

</comment><comment><USER38> Ultimately the name "color" makes for weak branding, not only because it's already so widely used for so many things (even including a pre-existing software application), but because everyone and their grandma could introduce new applications with variations of the word "color" in the name and leech off color.com's hype, and I expect color.com may have a hard time claiming trademark rights to the word. It doesn't seem like the best plan, and you can't pivot to a new brand without sacrificing your effort and investment on the old brand.

<comment><USER39> yeah, color is ubiquitous. Which is exactly why it's a great name if it's marketed well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have a hard time respecting these kinds of "opinion as fact" posts. It would have probably been better to say he wouldn't or couldn't pay that much for a domain name and just leave it at that.

To mention thefacebook.com and twitr.com as examples completely undermined his entire point. Both of those networks changed their domain name prior to their user base exploding. Coincidence? Strategy? I don't know but there must have been some reasoning behind it and it seems to be paying off for them.

</comment><comment><USER41> Everybody has an opinion. it gets tiring when it's repeated hundreds of time

I would justify the 41MM in funding as; a) a great long terms cash reserve b) instant fame and media spotlight c) zero need for marketing spend d) an ambitious vision, with slightly more chance than before the 41MM,a to come to fruition.

Sorry to go against the grain, but that's my take. If all goes down the gutter, then I hope the founding team took some money off the table (but not likely they needed it).

<comment><USER42> Wait, zero need for marketing spend?

The publicity that this move bought them only extends to the insular tech news/blogger community.

Do you really think JoeSixPack or Kerligirl13 reads TechCrunch? And even if they did, do you think they'd try out the app based on the amount raised?

I'm sometimes guilty of this type of thinking myself, but really, stop thinking like a geek when it comes to marketing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I don't think it has anything to do with the domain. Every time I see another post about Color, I become more and more convinced that the $41 million dollars were meant to trigger exactly this kind of frenzy. The usefulness of the application depends on a lot of people using it simultaneously and Color making it big without this kind of buzz was almost impossible.

</comment><comment><USER44> FWIW, of all claims, the diapers example is somewhat bogus. Diapers.com is a very successful retailer of you guessed what (and, recently acquired by Amazon, I believe).

While I obviously have no data, I would vouch that mydiapersstore.com would have way less credibility in customer eyes.

</comment><comment><USER45> Someone, I think it was TechCrunch made a really good point. The money on the domain names is not gone. They have become assets to the company and they can sell it again if they do not succeed. All the buzz around the company probably does not hurt value of the domain names either.

</comment><comment><USER46> Awesome mocking presentation of colors.xxx (SFW and doesn't have anything to do with pr0n)

[https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AbbL7nVHKW7SYWpkdGN...](https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AbbL7nVHKW7SYWpkdGN0Zmh2NGhuXzI2NGczMjlnd2Nj&hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER47> > if someone was selling diapers, and it was 1997, and they bought diapers.com > it might actually make sense. And that's just the problem. It's not 1997.

Amazon bought (the parent company of) diapers.com less than six months ago for $500M+.

</comment><comment><USER48> Its like a gamble...if you want to become ubiquitous you have to be ubiquitous. Also, to me, simplicity implies being the original (sometimes...).

Is it worth many thousands of dollars? Probably...if you have the cash.

</comment><comment><USER49> he just made a whole post about their domain name. it must be mission accomplished for the color guys.

domains don't matter because ppl don't expect you to have the most obvious of the domains. So in the situation if someone actually comes out and gets diapers.com or color.com ..then it's really an awe-factor.

their app (in functionality) failed and that is the only reason they are struggling. other than that their PR stunts (we raised huge money, we got great domains, we have great team, we have everything mobile/social/local) worked like a charm. no one can stop talking about them.

<comment><USER50> Having everyone say "you suck" isn't the kind of publicity you want. If your app sucks, you don't want it to be famous for sucking. I mean, Lotus Notes is famous, right? Are you running out to use it?

With this kind of publicity, you've got an uphill battle to convince people to use it - assuming you can improve it. Which the OP argues you COULD do if you diverted your PR money into actually working on the app.

I don't think there's much of an "awe-factor" in domain names. I heard the guy who made Instapaper interviewed, and he said that his domain and app name don't even make sense for his app; it was a domain he'd originally registered for a different idea. But nobody cares because they like the app.

I think the OP's point is valid: they could have easily come up with a short, memorable name, gotten it cheap, and hired 3 more developers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Color.com was bought for about 1/80th of the money raised. The name color.com will most likely keep its value so it's not wasted money, or not 100% wasted.

p.s. the URL of the color.com basher is idealprojectgroup.com

</comment><comment><USER51> This assumes that there's no plans for a web-based view on the platform. To twist this round, imagine having to visit 'myfacebookapp.com'.

</comment><comment><USER39> color.com / colour.com are pretty much the best names for an app called Color. Imagine them going big, and sitting at "mycolorapp" (amazing creativity from someone who criticizes that exact point)..</comment>


Show HN: Tech Education. Done Right. For Free - <AUTHOR> https://hackerbayuniversity.com/ <comment><USER2> I am almost sure "in fact" is always two words.</comment>


Don't Blame Politics for the Crisis at American Colleges - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/140320/dont-blame-politics-crisis-american-colleges <comment><USER2> I'd love to see legit speakers come give talks about conservative philosophies such as those of Jeremy Bentham or Edmund Burke or other more modern conservative philosophers (though those are pretty hard to find nowadays). There's quite a few valid philosophies that could support the view that the immigration executive order is actually a good thing. The problem is that, when you invite a demagogue instead, by definition, you're not going to provide any new piece of information to the attendants, but only to appeal to their desires and prejudice rather then their rational. And frankly, that kind of appeal is dangerous to a person. As an example, someone who's a Debby downer and constantly reminds you of the worse case scenarios of everything will in fact eventually get to you, even if you don't want it too. You'd had been best to silence that person from the start, and make sure none of his message even gets processed by your brain.

<comment><USER3> Can you tell me who is not "legit"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Personally I think the backlash against colleges is overblown. Articles like this talk about conservatism as if it were just another view on the correct way to slice a pizza. But often the ideas in question are those that specifically challenge the rights of a group of people to exist or have opportunities to succeed. Certainly it can go too far. Certainly, administrators shouldn't run universities by mob rule. But on the other end, why should I stand there and smile politely while someone comes to my campus and launches a propaganda campaign and recruiting drive for ideas that challenge my way of life and in some cases my life entirely? And you know what? Fuck Andrew Calhoun and Cecil Rhodes, and all these great namesakes of many campus halls and public works, who spent much of their lives institutionalizing oppression. It is easy to ignore the "bad" in favor of the good when the "bad" wasn't trying to create a future where people that look like you are under someone else's boot.

<comment><USER5> Personally I think the backlash against colleges is just starting. Diversity of opinion should be encouraged, not stomped out because you feel "challenged".

With diversity of opinions comes unsavoury or misguided opinions. Then debate occurs and some people might change their minds, but either way both sides growing in the process. Shaming and other ad hominem attacks are lazy, even the ancient Greeks understood this.

> why should I stand there and smile politely while someone comes to my campus > and launches a propaganda campaign and recruiting drive for ideas that > challenge my way of life

It's a bit self-centred, no? And also ironic, that campuses are so dominated by left ideologies that different ideas have to come from outside, and then are rejected by the uniform group think on campus.

Safe spaces are disingenuous and counterproductive for preparing students for the real world. After college, nobody will protect you, unless you live at your parents. Especially if you've travelled, you know this. If you don't push the boundaries, you don't grow.

<comment><USER6> I think you've missed the point of safe spaces.

These are places for people to figure out who they are outside of that "protection" that parents and the rest have put over these people their whole lives until this point.

The reason people go a little crazy in college is because they're forced to confront the idea they've never had the autonomy to be themselves before. They're exposed to people who lead lives that they had no idea were a possibility, let alone something they might want to become.

And the reason the left is practically universal in higher education the same reason why the left side of the spectrum is represented pretty much universally across every other government in the developed world: Education forces you to consider things larger than yourself and your little tribe.

You want the students in the "real world" to consider things the same way you do, but when they reject your opinions, it's not because they're brainwashed.

It's because you've not presented an effective argument.

When they show up in masses to shout down your ideology, I'm curious why you don't question your approach.

But no, it's the children that are wrong, isn't it Principal?

<comment><USER5> > It's because you've not presented an effective argument.

Um, no, in fact one of the points you might learn from talking to different people is that most of them are irrational in some way or another. It's part of the human condition.

> And the reason the left is practically universal in higher education the > same reason why the left side of the spectrum is represented pretty much > universally across every other government in the developed world: Education > forces you to consider things larger than yourself and your little tribe.

I don't buy this for a second. Like the article says, many of the staff are openly left, and have been since the 70s. And look, you assume I'm right leaning. I've always considered myself left or maybe centrist. But since college, that has definitely weakened, as I've travelled and worked with people of all political orientations. So yeah, the kids are wrong, and I am/was one of them - but it's not their fault. I'm agreeing with the article.

<comment><USER6> You don't buy that education forces you to consider things outside yourself and your tribe?

Even after you say you used to believe it, but as you've left education, it speaks to you less and less?

<comment><USER5> Yeah. At college, people are either left or pretend to be cause it's better than constantly looked down uppon. And the alure of the left is that you think your policies are helping most people or the people who need it the most. Well meaning but well off leftists can come up with some terribly misguided thinking. It's too easy to live in a bubble, and the world isn't black and white.

To put it in programming terms, you have to go speak to your customers to know their use-cases, even unintentional ones. Otherwise, you might implement the wrong features.

<comment><USER6> I find the differences between the left and right are that the right tends to tell what everyone else to change in order to fit in the with the group.

Whereas the left tends to ask the group to accept the differences in outsiders they work with.

This fits better with the reality of working with a large group of people from all over the world for short projects, you often don't have the time or political ability to make your collaborators conform, so you expect your group to make do.

<comment><USER3> Interesting that you say the right "tells", where as the left "ask". What do you base that on?

> accept the differences in outsiders they work with

unless you are a conservative in a mainly left environment, where goes tolerance then?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Https://github.com/Nerds/NerdPursuit - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Nerds/NerdPursuit

<comment><USER2> Does github provide rest api's to browse a repo? like list all files in one dir in a repo, or get the content of an actual file etc

<comment><USER3> Doesn't look like it at first glance: <http://develop.github.com/p/repo.html>

Edit: At second glance, it has at least some of that: <http://develop.github.com/p/commits.html></comment></comment>


A dive into freeCodeCamp stargazers - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@preview/a-dive-into-freecodecamp-stargazers-667fdebfa111 <comment><USER2> I'm the guy who created freeCodeCamp. This article has some nice visualizations and insights, but gets one important thing wrong. Read it, but also read my response to it [https://medium.com/@quincylarson/i-love-your- graphs-and-anal...](https://medium.com/@quincylarson/i-love-your-graphs-and- analysis-but-youve-got-one-thing-wrong-ba881b6a31db)

</comment><comment><USER3> awesome article! I didn't know all that stuff about freecodecamp, very interesting analysis!

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow so that's how FCC got most of their ~300,000 stars</comment>


Ask HN: Is anyone else being forced to move to Facebook timeline? - <AUTHOR>

I've been resisting timeline since it's introduction, and have never agreed to it being on my profile.
Today I logged in and saw a message "You now have timeline. Preview it before others see it beginning August 14".
Does anyone know if Facebook can move me to timeline without my explicit consent? <comment><USER2> I switched nearly a year ago. I'm shocked that they have waited this long to force-switch everyone over to it.

Out of curiosity, why are you opposed to timeline?

<comment><AUTHOR> The layout is painful to use (I've seen friend's accounts)

And I really hate the "inline" ads.

<comment><USER2> Agreed on the ads, for sure. But ads are to be expected with FB no matter what and they're annoying in general anyways.

One thing I like about timeline is the discovery when looking at someone else's. It makes it a little easier to grasp what that person is all about in a relatively short amount of time. It's also pretty cool that you can add in significant life events that occurred well before FB (or even the web) existed.

<comment><AUTHOR> > It's also pretty cool that you can add in significant life events that > occurred well before FB (or even the web) existed.

It's amazing we're so willingly giving the details of our 'significant life events' to an advertising company, without any thought to what it means in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why do so many people care about the layout of their Facebook profile?

<comment><AUTHOR> Because my use case of Facebook is get in, check stuff and get out as fast as I can.

The Timeline seems to be designed in such a way to make it really hard to quickly scan for information, therefore sucking you in for more and more time. It's not surprising, Facebook want everyone to spend more time on the site, it's just a pain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes, my friends and I have been getting forced over since August 4th. I was August 5th, so it seems like a gradual forced rollout.

</comment><comment><USER5> I changed as soon as I could. Ads don't bother me as I have Adblock Plus installed, and I hate missing out on new features.

</comment><comment><USER6> It happened to me too. And yes, I guess it can move you to anything without your explicit consent.

<comment><AUTHOR> I figured there was a change in the terms of service that required explicit consent.... damn, I guess not.

<comment><USER6> Probably. I don't even care about Facebook anymore. It is just an XMPP server for me.

<comment><USER7> I love the idea of Facebook being "just an XMPP server". Even though I knew they use XMPP for Facebook chat, I never thought about it that way.

<comment><USER6> I needed a way to use Facebook Chat without seeing the news feed. Because, I would always impulsively and uncontrollably click on some link and then start going through people's profiles as a chain reaction. I now just use Pidgin to connect their XMPP server (group chat doesn't work though, they use their own proprietary implementation for that).

<comment><USER8> The messenger application should do it no? It is available for desktop and smartphones

<comment><USER6> If I'm not mistaken, the desktop app was Windows-only. I'm using Linux on my desktop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just verified, not happening with every account (at least not yet over here).

</comment><comment><USER10> I haven't been hit yet.

</comment><comment><USER11> Yup, I got hit too.</comment>


Rewarding Disobedience - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/mit-media-lab/rewarding-disobedience-ae194d9f0785#.uhmzpb5k3 <comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR, though it's pretty short: MIT's Joi Ito announces a new prize to encourage creative, constructive social disobedience.</comment>


How To Succeed - <AUTHOR> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-to-succeed.html <comment><USER2> He talks a lot about luck, but I think the better your skills, the less luck you need.

I've noticed that the great writers don't talk about luck, but they DO talk about writing a lot before they got published. I just looked up Stephen King and he started avidly writing at 12, started sending to magazines at 16, and got published when he was 20. That's a lot of writing. Source: <http://www.horrorking.com/interview9.html>

But for us normal people who aren't giants, luck will be needed to find just the right conditions to get published.

I do think this somewhat applies to programming as well, especially game programming. You can't just jump in and have your first game be an overnight success. You need to practice for a while, write some mediocre games, and then finally get your stride and start turning out gold. Luck is still needed, though.

Minecraft is a good example. It was a relatively unknown game. Then one day it got published in a magazine, the internet got ahold of it, and it blew up. It was still exactly the same game as the previous week, but now it was popular and famous and selling like hotcakes. Not that it wasn't a good game... But without luck (getting published in a magazine) it wasn't going anywhere.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely agree, in the case of Minecraft luck was important.

With fat tails anything can happen, partly because luck, most of the explanations are just hindsight bias.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This piece particurarly reflects the tech startup world:

"You can quit if you want to. Or you can stick with it until you get lucky.

The are no easy answers. No quickie fixes. No direct paths to success.

No one is forcing you to do this. You have to love it, and to believe in yourself. Even when you fail.

Especially when you fail.

If you aren't failing, you aren't trying hard enough.

And if you aren't trying hard, it's going to take a lot longer to get lucky." Everyone say ROVIO and a hundred others.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's about publishing, but a lot of the advice makes sense to me. That industry too, is made up of a lot of big hits and a long tail.</comment>


Ask HN: Where is a Recording of 11/16's SOPA Hearing? - <AUTHOR>

Where can I watch the archived recording of today's SOPA hearing? <comment><USER2> Sorry, you will have to wait 2 months for it to be released on DVD.</comment>


Try JavaScript macro expansion using Sweet.js in the browser - <AUTHOR> http://voila.github.com/sweet.js/

<comment><USER2> I get a

        TypeError: Cannot call method 'getValue' of undefined

on the last example. Running Chrome on OS X.

<comment><USER3> The last couple of examples appear to be offset by one (with a middle example apparently missing), and thus the last one tries to run nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone should implement CoffeeScript as macros. That would get everyone's attention.

<comment><USER5> No, that would get all the CoffeeScripters attention. I believe it is slated though.

I much prefer raw javascript + macros. In my opinion it kind of negates some of point of coffeescript since you can implement the few key syntax improvements.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that's a good point, but if you got all the CoffeeScripters' attention and then showed them that CoffeeScript is just one _possible_ improved syntax...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >> man sed

Here are the best macros the world's got to offer. Not as good as C macros, but still nice.

</comment><comment><USER7> that's not the direction language and programmers should follow

<comment><USER8> What exactly do you mean? Macros seem like a good way to solve many of JavaScript's syntactic shortcomings while maintaining backwards-compatibility.

Now, macros do have some shortcomings. I've used Racket (a variant of Scheme) a fair bit, and I'm now very wary of using macros too much. However, when they _are_ useful, I've found they're _very_ useful: writing the same program in a language without macros would often be extremely awkward.

Of course, if you're willing to entertain radical changes to your language, you can get many of the benefits of macros with a minimalist syntax, laziness and a simple mechanism for controlling how statements get evaluated. Which ultimately just amounts to Haskell. And I've even found good use cases for macros in Haskell, albeit far less than in any other language.

<comment><USER7> I see at least two problems:

\- debugging such code is a nightmare(node.js itself makes it hard enough)

\- static analysis of such code is not possible.. yet?

JS and programmers should target Java-like experience imo, static analysis, code assist, dependency check - all of it performed on-the-fly. We won't get it by creating yet another layer above main language, because IDE vendors simply can't cope.

<comment><USER5> Javascript is a dynamic language. And especially one that is difficult to do static analysis on. We get much more out of macros than we would with some attempts at static analysis, when it comes to programmer productivity in the end.

<comment><USER7> problem of static analysis in JS code is difficult, yet it's worth to solve,

coolness of JS and safety of static analysis, that would be great

macros are just lame workaround:)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Think Twice Before Downgrading to a Free GitHub Account - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jaredsinclair.com/post/183676881105/think-twice-before-downgrading-to-a-free-github <comment><USER2> For what it's worth, protected branches are pretty clearly listed as a "Github Pro" feature in their pricing page.

I agree that it'd be nice if they warned you about features you're using that will be turned off, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that people requesting downgrades understand which features are in which plan.

Maybe this could be suggested to GitHub's Paperclips project, to avoid future confusion?

<comment><USER3> Agreed. But there were a lot of people celebrating GitHub's recent free account changes who were saying you no longer needed the pro account; this is a good reminder that you may need the pro account after all and do that check.

<comment><USER4> Downgrading an account for free should always be treated the same as upgrading an account for money. You gotta consider what you gain and lose in doing so before pulling the trigger without looking first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Did someone really just write a blog post on not downgrading an account without knowing what you're doing? Yes, you should not do that. You also shouldn't buy something without knowing what you're paying for, shouldn't vote for something you don't know what it is, you shouldn't eat stuff which might be poisonous but don't know for sure, you shouldn't cross a street without looking, gosh you certainly shouldn't drive a car with closed eyes not knowing where you're driving. Let's remind everyone of these things regularly, as this stuff is apparently not obvious anymore in 2019.

<comment><USER6> > shouldn't vote for something you don't know what it is

Isn't the whole point of democracy "a large enough volume of ignorance will average out to something sensible"? :P

<comment> barry-cotter No, it isn't. The hope is that the ignorance averages out and the informed and motivated voters are the decisive factors. In practice democracy works better than if that model was correct because while voters have preferences that they will happily profess that reliably lead to bad outcomes they reliably vote out parties that are in power when things go badly. Politicians have an incentive to do things that will get them re-elected so gross economic mismanagement is not the order of the day, mostly.

<comment><USER7> > they reliably vote out parties that are in power when things go badly.

That's not at all the case, and even to the extent it is it is frustrated in separation of powers systems like the US, where the faction voted out will often be the one _least_ responsible for the problems, since three are multiple factions in power at any given time a day the ignorance leads to blaming the wrong one.

<comment> barry-cotter What I wrote was too strong, you're right. If there's a huge fuckup the part[y|ies] in power are very likely to be voted out, the smaller the mess the less likely they are to be voted out, and that's complicated by the tendency to want to throw the bums out when the incumbent government has been in power a long time. I agree entirely that fixed legislative terms and term limits are stupid ideas, along with separating the legislature and the executive. Parliamentary systems are better than presidential ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> FWIW, Branch protection looks like it's a free feature on Gitlab [0]

[0] [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/protected_branches.h...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/protected_branches.html)

<comment><USER9> That's right, it's available in both free (SaaS) and core( self hosted) tiers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If your account is downgraded automatically, Github will extort you for access to your private repositories. You don't get the option to just set them to public and stay on the free tier, Github simply forces you to pay up to get them back or lose them permanently.

Found this out when my old student account lapsed after I left college. Luckily, they screwed up and unlocked my private repos when attempting to charge me (there was no credit card on my Github account and never was -- nice work, Github) and I was able to pull my private repos and move everything to Gitlab.

Zero regrets. Extortion is never acceptable, _especially_ when it's policy.

<comment><USER11> I assume this is distant history.

Free accounts are now allowed unlimited numbers of private repos with limited collaboration.

But I would also not classify as removing access when you stop paying as extortion. You know when your account is paid up to. You would therefore know when you'd have featureful access to. It's not their fault you can't plan ahead is it?

<comment><USER12> It was a student account. It was not "paid up to" because it was a student account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm seeing people here chastising the OP for not fully knowing what he was getting into. But in all the excitement about the new free plan with private repos in January, GitHub failed to highlight other differences between the new free plan and the rebranded Pro plan.

We can blame the end user all we want, but GitHub could have prevented all of this.

</comment><comment><USER14> OP: Thanks for writing this up. I emailed your post as a downgrade UX bug report to GitHub Support. Hopefully they agree and fix it.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hosting private repositories on GitHub pages is another feature only available with the Pro plan. Figured this one out a few days after canceling my subscription.

<comment><USER13> I figured it out on the day my subscription lapsed, and someone created their own repository using my domain in their CNAME file. I had to wait until GitHub banned the user until I could set up the domain with GitHub Pages again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > I live in mortal fear of making a dumb mistake and losing irreplaceable > source code.

Then store backups of your repositories somewhere else than GitHub.

<comment><USER17> Exactly. Git and github aren't backup tools. I always feel like github (and others) added to the git workflow things that are bolted on top of it and tie you to their platform.

<comment><USER18> Slightly offtopic, I have always considered a strange failure of git that branches are second class citizen in git, not worthy of the same versioning mechanisms as files. It is not unreasonable to expect a versioning system to be able to track the history of branches. And if I don't want to loose a file, just because it was deleted some time in the past, surely I also don't want to loose a branchjust because it was deleted. I don't buy the 'I want to be able to hide f-ups' argument.

<comment><USER19> Doesn't the reflog serve that purpose though? Branches are just labels for a commit, and all commits (and names) are visible in the reflog.

<comment><USER18> Come the next garbage collect, the file changes in a deleted branch are forgotten. If I don't want to loose changes, garbage collect shouldn't be a thing, because there is no garbage, just history.

<comment><USER20> As I recall the GC will only touch things that have been deleted for some time (a month?), that's a long time to correct accidental deletions.

Garbage is created every time you amend or rebase. What is the value of keeping around commits that are unreachable through any branch, containing typos in the commit messages?

It seems to me that source control can really bring out the hoarder in people, a fear of throwing away anything because you might need it later. I prefer it when the commits in a repo tell a story, but keeping everything that didn't end up on the master branch... why?

<comment><USER18> > As I recall the GC will only touch things that have been deleted for some > time (a month?), that's a long time to correct accidental deletions.

That is what I mean by second class citizen. The same logic doesn't apply to deleted files in a branch. If I delete a file it may not be accidental at all, and still I expect it to be accessible and not be considered 'orphaned', 'garbage' or similar. Why doesn't git throw away everything that is older than 90 days? (the default for gc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I downgraded too, and noticed GitHub Pages stopped working (the content is still there, but they don't rebuild - although they did for a little while after downgrading). It is clearly marked as a Pro feature, I just hadn't considered that the free private repos would be more restricted.

It's not a big deal to me, I'll probably just make the repos public.

<comment><USER22> I have a free GitHub account and also have GitHub Pages for my blog, which is developed in one of my public repos.

Do you mean some specific additional features for GitHub Pages, such as a vanity URL, or building from private repos?

<comment><USER21> Just private repos. When you look at the GH pages section it says "Make this repo public to enable GH Pages" or something. Your existing site still serves, but it doesn't build anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> To some it might seem weird, but in cases like this having even your repository configuration in Configuration management makes sense, for example using Terraform[0]. Of course you have a chicken-egg problem for that first repo that actually contains your CI code. But if you just apply common sense that problem doesn't really exist.

With repositories it is just so easy for little configuration drift to slip in. A branch you forgot to protect. A user/group that should no longer have write permissions, etc.

[0] [https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/github/r/branch_prot...](https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/github/r/branch_protection.html) [https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/type/vcs- index.html](https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/type/vcs-index.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> I think it's stupid that GitHub stores (meta-) data in a place that's not governed by git. Everything should be in git.

<comment><USER25> Are you suggesting that GitHub should fork git to add new features?

<comment><USER26> Not needed. They already know how to use special repo branches for special things. See e.g. gh-pages and yourproject.wiki.git. They could _trivially_ have yourproject.issues.git etc, except that not doing that gives them a competitive moat making it harder to migrate away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> honestly though... how many everyday devs actually use something like this?

<comment><USER4> If you have a job where you arent allowed to commit directly to master / development branches this is probably how they enforce it. It keeps juniors from pushing bad code without peer review. It forces developers into doing PRs instead. Protected branches are the first thing we setup when we make a new repository at work once we hit the "getting good enough for production and autobuilds" stage of development.

<comment><USER28> > It keeps juniors from pushing bad code without peer review.

It keeps _all developers_ from pushing _code_ without peer review.

(In my experience, it's just as often senior devs pushing broken code because "this was a simple change, why does it need review?" and it in fact being broken. Furthermore, doing PRs is not solely to "check for mistakes", they are also used for knowledge sharing, among other reasons)

<comment><USER4> > It keeps all developers from pushing code without peer review.

This is true, I don't know why I went with juniors.

<comment><USER29> Because junior is a state of mind not an age

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Gitlab has private repos for free and the service is imho on par with github

<comment><USER4> As does BitBucket which I prefer just because it matches what I use at work. I also keep a GitLab for backup type reasons.

<comment><USER31> Also Bitbucket supports mercurial repositories, which is a shame has so little support on the other big platforms.

<comment><USER32> Git won though. I'm not especially a fan of git, but at this point advocating for mercurial is tilting at windmills.

<comment><USER31> Git won in the same sense that chrome won or windows won, there's value in having alternatives and I would like to have the option of mercurial in more settings.

I am not advocating for use of git or mercurial, use whatever suits your needs! But I think having a platform like bitbucket support alternatives to git is a big plus for developer freedom to chose.

<comment><USER4> I think another interesting VCS is probably Fossil. It's very self-capable and self-contained. I wish it were a little more commonly used, but git or mercurial is where it's at I suppose. I keep meaning to use mercurial more, maybe I should for my BitBucket projects, it's not like it makes much difference since JetBrains IDE's handle the under the hood version control commands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There is less risk without protected branches than you think, especially if you catch and contain the problem early.

GitHub allows you to restore branches and commits are restorable from the ref log.

</comment><comment><USER34> There is a more serious impact of downgrading if you were hosting a static website from a private repository on github with a pro account. Apparently that's not supported with free account. My personal website went down as soon as I downgraded to free. I didn't mind making the repo public, so it was an easy fix, but may not be same for others.

</comment><comment><USER35> Jared is right that we should alert users about this before they downgrade. We'll add some UI for this.

[https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1109880047207235589?s...](https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1109880047207235589?s=21)

</comment><comment><USER36> Using gitlab and bitbucket for my personal repos on their free tiers have solved a lot of problems for me. Also, a lot of features are way ahead of github on these 2 platforms including CI/CD, Code reviews, and other tooling.

</comment><comment><USER37> I am so glad I read this before downgrading.

Sorry to hear!

</comment><comment><USER38> Does this mean free accounts cannot have private repositories?

<comment><USER39> They can have private repos - it's just branch protection rules which are no go.

<comment><USER40> I think private repos are also limited to just a few (3, IIRC) contributors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> What? What is he doing that it makes him fear code loss?

<comment><USER42> git push --force

It doesn't actually delete the commits, but you can't find them anymore if you don't remember the hash of the former head commit of the branch

<comment><USER43> `git reflog` is your friend; provided not too many operations have since passed.</comment></comment></comment>


Twitter closing Vine - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@vine/important-news-about-vine-909c5f4ae7a7#.x5w73v2lv <comment><USER2> Established discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12806324](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12806324)

</comment><comment><USER3> Eh, they still have Fabric and Twitter TV. Everything will be fine.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but are the big content creators on Vine going to be able to make that transition? It's a very specific format which people have tailored their skills for. I don't follow it that closely but has there been a big downturn in activity? It seems like there's a glut of content every time I check in on it.

Edit: Not sure why you mentioned Fabric, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this.

<comment><USER5> He was been ironic. Twitter is clearly doomed, and killing a good app is only one more mistake, I guess. They could at least sell it, make some money and downsize their team.</comment></comment></comment>


Kim Jong-il's North Korean Photoshop funeral - <AUTHOR> http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/29/the-altered-reality-of-kim-jong-ils-photoshop-funeral/ <comment><USER2> asinine fluff.

NK imprisons millions of people. Now why is the minor cosmetic alteration of a photo such big news?

<comment><USER3> I agree that the story is perhaps less important than an in-depth account of the DPRK's human rights abuses would have been, but I have serious doubts that _millions_ of people are persistently imprisoned. What is your source?

<comment><USER4> WP claims "150,000 to 200,000" political prisoners. Given a population of 24 million, of which over 1 million are in the army, and given the high mortality rate in political prison camps, I agree with you that it's very unlikely that the number is in the millions.

Excepting if you consider the whole country a prison.</comment></comment></comment>


How Myanmar forces burned, looted and killed in a remote village - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-rakhine-events/ <comment><USER2> Excellent journalism, as always. I have been following the case of the two imprisoned journalists; I hope for their release.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a Burmese Buddhist and strongly against both the arrest of reporters and killing unarmed people of any race/religion. But there is a hidden agenda behind such article.

It used the word "Buddhist" many many times, such as Buddhist village, Buddhist neighbors, Buddhist community. The conflict is much more complicated than religious and those Buddhists mentioned are in fact local "Arakan" people.

See following NY Times article, not to defend the killing or anything but to show the matter is much more complicated than it seems. The western medias have been entirely one-sided and barely listen to the other side of the story of local Arakan.

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/world/asia/rohingya- my...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/world/asia/rohingya-myanmar- camps.html)

<comment><USER4> Excuse my ignorance - but does Buddhism have a concept of "holy war" like in Christianity, Judaism and Islam? If so - are they using religious justification for the killings or is the killing purely ethnical?

I don't want to spark arguments - so feel free to just post some reading material as a reply if you'd prefer to and I'll read it.

<comment><USER5> Buddhism has a fairly explicit prohibition against killing or even working for companies in the business (i.e. gunsmith.)

This goes even as far as not executing serial killers.

So this is unprecedented, which is part of why many are so shocked.

<comment><USER6> Almost all religions have prohibitions against killing; almost all adherents ignore religious rules whenever they would require acting against their immediate self-interest.

Buddhists are no exception. Sad as it may be, such atrocities are not unprecedented and have accompanied Buddhism throughout its history; just as they have accompanied any other faith.

If you are interested, the book "Buddhist Warfare" collects a few interesting essays on the topic: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195394844](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195394844)

<comment><USER5> Yes there are those who distort religion, but many religions have war ingrained in their identities, their foundations. Their gods, as described in the ancient texts, sanctioned and blessed war. The Abrahamic faiths are perfect examples of this.

Buddhism, from it's source, is different in that its first espouser categorically denounced violence against all living things, which makes any Buddhist warfare a shocking example of human ills. The Buddha even goes as far as to denounce just retribution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Related interview with a monk in Myanmar:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEBaAiy5b4&t=1m17s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvEBaAiy5b4&t=1m17s)

<comment><USER8> According to Wikipedia, Ashin Wirathu is "the spiritual leader of the anti- Muslim movement in Burma".

Calling this "interview with a monk" is like calling an interview with Donald Trump "interview with a politician". Correct, but perhaps not very helpful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I understand informing myself of the world events, for sake of a better education and world citizen.

But what is there I can do from the Midwest US? There's not too damn much I can do. Post it on Facebook? It'll be drowned out the 80% other party political issues of the week. Give them money? I can't guarantee it'll get to the right place (or me deemed terrorist).

Feels bitterweet honestly. Horrible situation, and there's absolutely nothing I can do that has any positive effective change.

<comment><USER10> I totally get your frustration. One thing you could do is to write to your elected officials, and urge them to press for American and international sanctions agains Myanmar.

<comment><USER9> Too true, I could write to my congresscritters. However, here in Indiana, we're pretty heavily gerrymandered. It's republicans, and r-leaning democrats.

I've written to them before regarding tech issues (net neutrality) that had direct bearing on us. I received either nothing or a form letter. Maybe it did have an impact, but it sure didn't feel like it to me.</comment></comment></comment>


Voyage into the World of Serverless – with a 135-year-old Shipping Company - <AUTHOR> https://read.iopipe.com/voyage-into-the-world-of-serverless-computing-with-a-135-year-old-shipping-company-4a8380b90bf3 <comment><USER2> These are always great reads. Its good to see larger companies becoming more flexible from their old architectures and embracing the new tech. Serverless and Lambda are invaluable for us!</comment>


Pixel Pushers - <AUTHOR> http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2015/4/14/fall-of-the-designer-part-ii-pixel-pushers

<comment><USER2> Well written deconstruction of the current issues in computer interaction / visual design and everything related. A much needed discussion.</comment>


Thorium Core Cloud Desktop - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thorium/thorium-core-cloud-desktop Thorium Core is a commercial distribution of ReactOS, the Open Source Windows compatible operating system, targeted for cloud computing. <comment><USER2> This is silly. It's an XP-era clone. The only people that are hanging on to XP are people that are trapped in an echo chamber of folks that don't want to upgrade, or are encumbered by some legacy LOB application.

There's no way that a shop looking for funding via kickstarter can match the feature development of Microsoft. If you want to disrupt Microsoft, it's sure as shit not going to come from a clone of their 11 year old OS which is 4 versions back now.

<comment><USER3> I don't think the point is to disrupt Microsoft. There are people who think XP was a fine OS, and are building a new OS that takes its good parts, and likely adds other good parts that did not exist in the original.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was totally hoping someone was using kickstarter to launch home nuclear power generation using thorium. That I would have funded immediately...

<comment><USER5> OK, sure, a Thorium reactor project would be worth funding, surely. But a /home/ thorium reactor? That's not exactly an HOA friendly endeavour, is it?

<comment><USER4> Fine, fine, kill my dream of powering my neighborhood and giving FPL the boot. However, if you lived in the woods, why not... ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I didn't pay too much attention but it isn't clear to me whether they're planning to go their own ways or develop in such a manner that they can cooperate with & contribute back to ReactOS. I'd like to see ReactOS grow.

<comment><USER6> Exactly, the ReactOS project itself needs more funding, not sure if this helps.

At least it appears that the 2 people at the kickstarter project are part of the ReactOS team ([http://www.reactos.org/wiki/People_of_ReactOS](http://www.reactos.org/wiki/People_of_ReactOS) ) but the page at the kickstarter project appears to be written in a hurry. Wording like "Thorium core is an _attempt_ to build" doesn't exactly garner a lot of trust in getting the work done.

I am not seeing the use case. Access to ReactOS from the cloud? Sorry, but that's very vague, they are going to copy remote desktop as well? It would help if ReactOS itself was stable already. It's a great piece of engineering. Amazing what they have done so far, but -at least during my limited testing- when playing with it in a virtual machine it never survived a stable session longer as a few hours. Bringing that to the cloud just means another layer of complexity and thus possible failure.

It is also not clear to me if the kickstarter project is actually connected to the ReactOS project and what the other contributors think about it. I would at least have expected a page at the ReactOS project about this if it was part of the rest. So far I have not seen a page on the ReactOS site about this and that would help for building trust in the kickstarter project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't see how this is connected to "cloud computing" in ANY way.

People just throw in the "cloud" word anywhere, don't they?

<comment><USER8> It's a remote Windows desktop, running on a remote server and provided as SaaS.

While I agree that _cloud_ is overused in general, it seems appropriate in this case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I get that a lot of companies still rely on Windows, but aren't we slowly edging away from really needing it? Especially when more and more software is being written in platform-agnostic languages like Java?

I feel like a company willing to migrate to something like ReactOS could just as easily migrate over to some *nix variant. The only Windows-only thing that I can think of being essential would be Office (that might be the big one though).

<comment><USER3> > I get that a lot of companies still rely on Windows, but aren't we slowly > edging away from really needing it?

But it's not Windows. It's a new OS that borrows a lot from an older version of Windows as far as design goes, and hopefully brings something new to the table.

And I don't really see how "needing it" or not matters. People use an OS they like, or an OS that has the features they enjoy, or an OS that is compatible with the software they use, or whatever.

> Especially when more and more software is being written in platform-agnostic > languages like Java?

Really? Software has always been written in a variety of platform-agnostic languages. C and C++, to name a couple. But I see a recent trend of ignoring and dismissing portability beyond a select few favorite platforms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are several problems I see with this.

Firstly, from their literature I am guessing they want to be grabbing on to people who want to continue using XP style services after Microsoft cuts support for XP next year, however I feel they will most definitely miss the boat with this one, 4 months is not a big migration window let-alone for development of the product.

Secondly, their core offering is support. A lot can be said about Microsoft's customer service, however I will never fault the support contracts they offer to businesses. I honestly cannot see how they intend to match that.

<comment><USER11> I've never seen MS a support contract add anything valuable for anybody. It may be diffrent at the US, but at Brazil they are worse than worthless.

<comment><USER12> I second that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is the worst Kickstarter project I've ever seen

</comment><comment><USER14> I was expecting some new type of physical server powered by Thorium :(.

ReactOS is still in alpha stages and I can't see a difference between the ReactOS I first saw in 2006 and the current one, it still is extremely limited when it comes to running advanced windows applications.

Also Windows cloud computers aren't that expensive, a Windows cloud on EC2 costs only a few cents more than a Linux one plus you can also use Azure.

It seems pointless to me.

</comment><comment><USER15> Save yourself some trouble, just mail your Kickstarter contribution directly to Microsoft's lawyers. :(

</comment><comment><USER16> I was hoping for some sort of Thorium reactor on kickstarter...sigh maybe next christmas.

</comment><comment><USER17> why do we need a windows clone?

<comment><USER18> Because Linux is stil crap, Windows 8 became crap, and NSA backdors were found!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Windows only? How deep in bed with the NSA are these guys?

<comment><USER3> How does wanting to make a Windows-like OS have anything at all to do with the NSA?</comment></comment>


Passenger Pigeon Comeback - <AUTHOR> http://longnow.org/revive/what-we-do/passenger-pigeon/ <comment><USER2> Slightly OT: If you ever happen to be in Oklahoma City, the American Pigeon Museum[0] is a nice diversion - larger than you'd think, and lots of interesting tidbits to be had, including history on the passenger pigeon. I saw it in passing on an unrelated trip, but it turned into the best story to tell from OKC.

[0] [http://www.theamericanpigeonmuseum.org/](http://www.theamericanpigeonmuseum.org/)

</comment><comment><USER3> The Passenger Pigeon lived in an environment where flocks were found everywhere. An individual pigeon could safely "wander off" and find a new flock. Once the population level descended below a critical level, the species was doomed. In order to bring them back, you would need to breed them by the millions before releasing them.

A more practical worry is the Rusty Blackbird, which has declined fast in recent decades and may be headed the way of the Passenger Pigeon.

<comment><USER4> That's commonly cited as fact, but the truth is we don't know that they required large flocks to survive (deforestation is another possibility). Charles Mann points out in his book _1491_ that e.g. DeSoto didn't report large groups, and hypothesizes that the enormous flocks of the 1800s are an aberration due to wide-scale crop production.

<comment><USER5> Another theory is that the decline of Native Americans led to the boom in the numbers of passenger pigeons (since many Eastern Tribes considered them a primary food source). However, the nesting habits and mating rituals of birds in general are complex and subject to change (such as purple martins traditionally living under cliffs and in caves to now living almost entirely in man made boxes). It may have been true that passenger pigeons did not travel in large flocks when DeSoto was exploring the Mississippi in the 16th Century, but events between then and the extinction of the species may have altered their behavior.

However, if the species is brought back, there is always the chance their behavior may change again (as it may have before) and large flocks may not be a requirement for their survival anymore. That trait was likely passed on through shared behavior and likely would not affect newborn pigeons with no existing relatives. Also the fact that there have been huge advancements in genetics and breeding of animals since the attempts of saving them in the early 20th century.

<comment><USER6> I think the most amazing change of habitat for a bird is the Rock Dove [1], otherwise known as the pigeon that you find in cities everywhere. Their original habitat was rocky cliffs and coastlines.

[1][https://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandle...](https://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/name/r/rockdove/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is an RFC for IP via carrier pigeon [0]

[0] [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149)

<comment><USER5> Carrier pigeons, unlike passenger pigeons (which derive their name from the huge sky-darkening flocks they created, making them look like "passengers") are not a species, just a domesticated rock pigeon trained to travel between defined points.

Carrier pigeons are still pretty neat though. Cher Ami ("dear friend")[1] saved the lives of thousands during The Great War and was highly respected by both American and French soldiers.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If I had to, I would stake money on a Woolly Mammoth* being brought back in my lifetime. I'm 43.

* This includes an elephant/mammoth hybrid/chimera.

</comment><comment><USER8> Please don't bring that asshole bird back to life.

<comment><USER9> I am curious why people are so fixated on reviving extinct species (or saving species on their way out) except as an academic exercise.

<comment><USER5> I hope your question is more from the lack of knowing or curiosity than not seeing that many of these species are only extinct or on the brink of extinction because humanity could not be bothered to be a little considerate while modernizing. I'm all for progress, but when we trample on other humans or other species just to save a little time or money, it's kind of saddening. I always thought that because we have the ability to care about the survival of species other than our own that it contributes to what makes us "human." Some animals may care in way because certain species are an important food source, but we've come to care about animals for reasons beyond that.

The extinction of the passenger pigeon was no accident or even carelessness. People literally hunted them at an industrial scale with large nets at their nesting sites (many ended up as canned food for the military or railroad workers). The passenger pigeon is not even closely related to the sometimes reviled rock pigeon that inhabits Europe and as a non-native invasive species in North America. Instead, it is a close relative of the North American mourning dove. I assume that is why this commenter[0] has a "knee-jerk" dislike of the passenger pigeon with no explanation given.

Passenger pigeons were perhaps the most numerous bird to ever exist and yes, while they did primarily eat seeds, so do many other living species including the European house sparrow brought to North America around 150 years ago. House sparrows and other species have mostly filled the niche that the native passenger pigeon once inhabited. I mean house sparrows are so numerous in North America that most people do not even realize there are a couple dozen native species of sparrows here that are only distantly related[1][2]. Unlike their distant European relative, these native sparrows tend to be prettier and less numerous due to being territorial in breeding pairs all year round, though some sparrow species[1] will flock together during migration.

This might sound like something made up, but the house sparrow, along with the European Starling were brought over to North America by some guy that wanted all the birds of Shakespeare's plays to inhabit the New World. Ironically, both species are now in decline throughout the Old World while they dominate and displace species that rely on nest boxes and nest cavities in the New World. The movement in the past 50 years to put up nest boxes for blue birds, purple martins and other native species in North America was at least partially motivated by trying to shore up their populations as many were threatened in the past.

Another species that met a tragic demise that could have been saved was the ivory billed woodpecker[3] in the early 1900s. The ivory billed was the largest woodpecker in North America (about the size of a crow), with the still living pilated woodpecker a close second (both resemble Woody the Woodpecker). Efforts were made to have its last refuge made a protected forest, but ended up going nowhere as elected officials considered the wood in the forests to be more worth while. There's been unverified sightings by people that claim the ivory-billed still exists in remote locations in the Southern United States. It's more likely those that claim to have seen it really saw a pilated woodpecker, as no images or recordings have been made by those that claimed to have seen it.

There was also a lesser known parrot[4] that lived in the temperate Eastern/Southern United States that died out around the same time as the two mentioned above. The Carolina Parakeet lived as far north as Ohio and was the only native parrot in the continental United States. Reasons for its extinction are a bit more complicated, though it has been partially attributed to deforestation and the spread of the European honey bee in North America as they competed for nesting cavities in trees (random fun fact that honey bees are not native to the New World).

Many birds are considered a prime indicator of the health of the environment around them as well, due to wide variety of foods they eat and the elaborate nesting/mating rituals some go through that can be disturbed when things are thrown out of balance.

I'm only in my late 20s, but I've always had an interest in birds and studying them is sort of a hobby of mine. They're one of the few animals in the wild you can see on a daily basis and many of them are as intelligent as primates (such as crows/ravens/rooks, certain parrots and jays). I can pull up other references for anyone interested on where I found the info above, but it takes a bit of time. A good starting point is the Cornell Ornithology site linked below though[1].

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8255389](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8255389)

[1] [http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/white- crowned_sparrow/id](http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/white- crowned_sparrow/id)

[2] [http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/White- throated_Sparrow/id](http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/White- throated_Sparrow/id)

[3] [http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ivory- billed_Woodpecker/i...](http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ivory- billed_Woodpecker/id)

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

<comment><USER9> > humanity could not be bothered to be a little considerate while modernizing

Why should we? I place higher value on the progress of mankind than I do on the survival of any one non-human species.

<comment><USER10> Sounds hard-hearted. But I have to agree. The accidental landscape of species inhabiting the Earth during the time humans came to civilization was instructive, handy at times, but not significant beyond that. Thousands of species have come and gone in geologic history; we don't feel that is especially tragic so why these modern ones?

<comment><USER5> Because unlike those previous species, we (as a species) were at best, at least partially responsible for their demise? That's the difference between the extinction of the dinosaurs and the previously mentioned species. Reviving species such as the passenger pigeon is probably viewed by those in the project (aside from science reasons) as a way to make amends for our ancestors' shortcomings.

I mean just 100 years ago, people actually thought it was chic to place an entire stuffed bird on a hat and call it fashion (google search will pull up some creepy results I'd rather not find and link). Thankfully that fell out of style (but long after many species suffered great losses) and the Migatory Bird Act[1] was passed.

I tend to think that humanity has at least some obligation to be a decent caretaker of the planet and to care for those (human and other sentient beings) that are victims of circumstances outside of their control. That doesn't mean we should all turn into hunter-gatherers and live with leaves covering us, but we should at least be somewhat concerned with the consequences of our actions for future generations.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_19...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918)

<comment><USER9> You still haven't explained why we should be "caretakers" for dying species. You argument now sounds like "we can, so we should".

<comment><USER5> I don't really see a good reason why I should spend 30 or so minutes replying to your comments that show little interest in continuing the discussion. If you showed the interest of wanting to have a real dialogue, sure, but it's not fair to me to waste my time when you only seem to show minimal interest in continuing it.

If those on the other side of the argument can't put forth posts that try to meet the guidelines for good discussion[1][2], why should I keep wasting my time? I enjoy good debate (even if I disagree with the other side), but this is all just me pouring out my limited time for someone to just spend a minimal amount of time on a subject/reply they don't seem to really care about.

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

[2] [http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

<comment><USER10> So its 'caring' that is the litmus test? The issue here is, many of us don't care, while you do. Its not a question of bad faith, we just don't agree at all.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


On Digital Healthcare - <AUTHOR> http://ondigitalhealthcare.com/

<comment><USER2> Concise, thought-provoking articles. IMO healthcare here in the US is ripe for disruption (regardless of how it's paid for). Maybe the rest of the world too?

<comment><USER3> Probably faster in the rest of the world than the US as there are often less regulations

<comment><USER4> One of the things that people objecting to the US adopting healthcare policies that are successful in the rest of the developed world often cite is the desire to keep the US from being _as regulated_ as other developed countries in healthcare.

The idea that the US is _more_ regulated than "the rest of the world" in healthcare seems only to be generally held if you exclude the rest of the developed world from consideration; Third World healthcare may be more ripe for disruption, but disruptive business seem to not target places where there is merely low barrier to disruption, but also places where there is money to be made by disruption.</comment></comment></comment>