Gay Firefox developers boycott Mozilla to protest CEO hire - line-zero http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/gay-firefox-developers-boycott-mozilla-to-protest-ceo-hire/ <comment><USER2> They _should_ be protesting the fact that he's the person responsible for JavaScript. (Hey, don't forget to tip your waitress and try the veal!)

More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust.

Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within reason, you can give money to politicians and money to foundations, but once you start giving money to specific political causes you're risking a firestorm, and rightfully so. While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat (if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if on agency contract).

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure Eich is particularly involved with Rust (anymore?) beyond having his name on some recent related press release.

<comment><USER4> Eich hasn't been involved in Rust for the three years that I've been watching the project. Whether he was involved before that, I don't know, but given the primitive and under-the-radar state of pre-2011 Rust it seems unlikely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> jack-r-abbit Meh. Prop 8 passed the people's vote with 7,001,084 Californians voting in favor of it and 6,401,482 voting against. Are we to start boycotting every company that employs one of those 7 million people?

I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.

<comment><USER5> 1\. There is a difference between voting for something and funding it.

2\. There is a difference between being employed by a company and being its CEO.

3\. These differences are significant.

<comment><USER6> I strongly disagree with #1.

<comment><USER7> Really? Because one is a private and one is a public act, and you might hope a potential CEO would understand that difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If this were any other company I don't think this would turn any heads. However, much of Mozilla's ethos and community support is built on ethical rather than capitalistic foundations. It's hard to reconcile thoughts on a company that seems to so value freedom in some areas but not in others [1].

[1] Inferring what Mozilla values based on the opinions of its CEO is not particularly _fair_ , but then again I'm not sure it's unfair either.

<comment><USER9> I think the not in "but not in others" is over-qualifying.

Saying that Mozilla does not value gay rights because of 1000 dollars, donated once, indirectly associated with Mozilla is a crazy given how much they actually spend directly on supporting the cause yearly.

I'm not saying that a care package for 1.000 dollars negates Eichs contribution. But you can't say they don't value gay rights either.

<comment><USER10> What type of person you choose to head your operations obviously reflects your ideals.

It really doesn't matter if Mr. Eich donated 1000 dollars or a million dollars, he opposes basic human rights. And apparently Mozilla is fine with that.

<comment><USER11> This is silly, almost fascist.

What next?

If a person doesn't donate to a campaign supporting gay marriage, does that mean the person is a bigot and homophobic?

<comment><USER12> How about a guy who donates to people who _are_ homophobic bigots and who make being homophobic bigots a central part of their schtick? Like this guy, who Eich donated money to (it's on OpenSecrets): [http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock- calle...](http://www.tommcclintock.com/press-releases/mcclintock-called-the- california-supreme-courts-decision-to-permit-gay-marriage-a-tra)

There's a pattern here. This issue is one that's important to Eich. I will certainly judge him on that and judge those who empower him and there's absolutely nothing _fascist_ about exercising my freedom of association.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I totally see how this could upset people. But I'm not sure how his management qualities are tied to his political opinions.

It's the same with politicans, what the fuck has an affair to do with their political views?

I 100% support gay marriage. I also understand they're upset. But I don't know if this is the right reaction.

<comment><USER14> "what the fuck has an affair to do with their political views?"

Uh, integrity? If a politician won't keep probably the most solemn vow they've ever made, to the person they were most committed to in their life, in front of all the other people they care about most, why the fuck do you think they'll keep some fucking campaign promise to you and a bunch of other faceless citizens they've never met to make your lives better, instead of taking a backhander from some lobbyist to fuck you all over instead?

And if they're not going to keep their campaign promises (yeah, yeah, no need to point out the incredible naïvety of that particular "if") then why _should_ you let them stay in a position of power that they can use to better themselves at your expense? Boot them out, get the next one in, and keep doing it until they learn the lesson that we fucking demand better.

I don't know what kind of world you _want_ to live in, but one where we've already given up and don't even try to maintain a pretense of holding our politicians to account for their honesty isn't the one I'm going for.

<comment><USER13> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_marriage)

Just saying... Making public you're in an open relationship will kill your career as a politican just as fast, wanna bet?

<comment><USER15> That's a terrible example. It would only be a career killer among people with a propensity toward intolerance. And there are plenty of places, some of which are represented by politicians with unconventional relationships, that don't care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> tolerance is a two way street. would it be OK for conservative muslims to protest a gay CEO? no. in a democracy and in a world with many differing points of view at some point you just have to tolerate each others beliefs, regardless of how much you oppose them, and just get along.

edit: and now my words are being twisted. I never said being gay was a belief. what one person thinks of a proposed law is a belief.

edit edit: tolerance is not "I am OK with the gays but will never freely associate with one of them" nor is "I am tolerant of his views on gay marriage but I hate him and will never have anything to do with him".

tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you". my sister frequently nurses racists who are very rude to her. she tolerates then as gives them as good care as she gives anyone else. that is tolerance.

welcome to democracy. people have different opinion. they have different religious beliefs and different upbringing. just get along people.

<comment><USER17> Being gay isn't a belief.

<comment><USER11> If it's not a choice or a belief, is it genetic?

<comment><USER18> In my personal experience as a gay man it's not a choice. It may or not be genetic but it's definitely innate.

<comment><USER19> If people don't choose their sex partners, why is rape a crime?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm trying to keep this in perspective with all the massively positive things that Mozilla has done over the years. I've used Firefox all the time, proclaimed the value of Mozilla to others, and even donated to Mozilla. Regardless, I'm having a hard time getting past this. I started up Firefox this morning, and almost immediately, I felt dirty. I closed it and switched over to Chromium.

I can't buy the argument that it's just his personal political opinion and that the type of inclusion that Mozilla wants to have requires a large ecosystem of diverse opinions. Perhaps on issues like income inequality, taxation, foreign policy. Hell, if this was about him being a massive gun- rights advocate, I could see myself budging on not letting it bother me like this.

Sorry, but human rights are human rights, and contributing to a effort to deny a group of people a right that everybody else enjoys based simply on their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or culture is as disgusting a human behavioral trait as it comes. It needs to rooted out from our collective human identity.

I don't necessarily want to see Eich removed. His contributions to free and open source software are incredibly significant and deserve praise. However, simply pointing out Mozilla's health care policies isn't going to cut it. Without anything more significant, an apology or something, I'm just going to see Firefox and Mozilla as tarnish under a shade of bigotry. It's not a purposeful perspective, or something I will enjoy, but I can't just let this slide away like it's nothing.

<comment><USER21> Will you boycott every company that has an employee that has belief that isn't yours? Isn't that the definition of intolerance? One of those things, I guess, can't tolerate the intolerant =).

<comment><USER20> No, that's not what I argued. I agree with the notion that there's room for honest political disagreements within a community. However, I consider equal treatment of LGBT people to be a human right, and human rights don't fall under the spectrum of honest political disagreements.

Honest political disagreement are about the _hows_ of accomplishing the humanity's goals of equal liberty and justice for all. Anti-marriage-equality advocates are about the _outcome_ of said equal liberty and justice; that is, preventing it for LGBT people and treating them as second-class citizens.

> One of those things, I guess, can't tolerate the intolerant =).

That's not accurate. I can tolerate the intolerant. I'm not asking for their civil liberties to be taken away like Prop 8 attempted to take away from LGBT people.

All I'm stating that I'm not going to be as supportive and praise of Mozilla and Firefox as I used to be. Don't get me wrong, Mozilla is still a great organization made up of wonderful people, and the whole organization shouldn't be ruined by the actions of one member. But that this one person now is the head of the organization tarnished it significantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Gosh. I'm really upset not by the news about Eich as the new CEO, but about learning that such an idol in my life is anti-LGTB. I really hate this kind of situations.

<comment><USER23> Maybe it would be appropriate to ask him why he was against it before deciding he's anti-LGTB. I'd imagine that, being an intelligent and capable human being, he deserves the consideration of hearing his case before you knock him off the pedestal.

<comment><USER24> TFA links to his 2012 personal statement: [https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and- diversity/](https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/)

<comment><USER25> Sadly, he doesn't explain himself _at all_. He says he has no animosity, but provides no explanation for how such a thing could be done without it.

I imagine he thinks he has a sound, non-hateful reasoning behind his position which will not be taken as such if discussed. In context, I'd guess he's _probably_ wrong about it being sound and non-hateful. Often, being unwilling to discuss one's positions is part of your brain trying to tell the rest of you that you've got it wrong. Not always, obviously, but I'd say it's the way to bet.

In any case, if you're willing to make a public stand on something (and given the political finance laws he donated under, it qualifies as a public stand) then you should be willing to discuss your stand. If he's not willing to discuss it then we don't necessarily have to assume the very best.

<comment><USER26> Note that the linked-to article explicitly says he's willing to discuss this in private, and Brendan _does_ answer his mail. You're obviously under no obligation to do so, but you if you care to find out what he was thinking you could contact him and ask.

I _do_ wish he were willing to discuss this in public, though. People talking to him one on one obviously doesn't scale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I am very sorry that some people are upset with the political opinions of other people.

Now can somebody get this political bullshit off the front page of HN? Please? Nothing productive can come from a logical and reasonable conversation with people who are, by definition, very upset. Half the posts here are "hell yeah!" and the other half are baiting arguments from others who feel impassioned by the issue. Not a good topic.

<comment><USER28> This issue is uncomfortably political for HN, but I feel like I should chime in to say that HN is clearly not split down the middle about support for Eich's political position. I haven't seen a single comment defending it.

<comment><USER27> I'll happily defend the man's right to hold all sorts of inappropriate and unpopular opinions. Do we want the tech community to be some kind of PC witch hunt, where people who say or do unpopular things will be banned from employment?

If that's the case, then that's wrong -- and it hurts the tech community at large for it to be that way.

This is a witch hunt. It may be a witch hunt for good reasons, and for a cause I support (which I do), but let's get it clear: people are protesting because somebody has a job that has opinions they don't like. That's not a healthy attitude for any community and any job.

I don't care if the man's a nazi. We live in a free country where _diversity of opinion, problem-solving skills, and life experiences_ are invaluable for creative and productive team performance. This kind of thing is horrible and detestable, no matter what the man thinks in private.

If he's a criminal, fire him. If he proposes some policy that is bad for his company, fire him. If he has some personality defect that is bringing harm to Mozilla's name, fire him.

Otherwise? Leave him alone and let him do his job.

<comment><USER25> I believe they're protesting not his opinions, but his efforts to have his opinions turned into laws.

It's one thing to be against gay marriage. It's quite another to spend one's own money on outlawing it.

<comment><USER27> So let's play this through in an imaginary scenario.

Next year I decide I like my neighbor, who's running for governor in the American Nazi party. I write him a check for $500.

So now I can't work in the tech industry? Really? And this makes sense to folks?

So you're saying _thinking_ is okay, but _acting_ is not. So is there some list of things I can and can't do and expect to have a job? Or is it just made up off-the-cuff by anybody with an internet search and an axe to grind?

Do you realize how chilling this is? We're going to raise an entire generation of tech leadership who are acutely tuned never to do anything publicly that might indicate they have an opinion -- and are smart enough to hold all their real feelings inside, no matter how terrible. It's bad for those folks, it's bad for the industry, and it's bad for the rest of us. It's just bad all the way around.

We all have to vote the same way, give money to the same causes, say the same things -- or face collective group punishment. And this seems sane?

<comment><USER25> Please come up with a different scenario, because you're never going to convince me that it's wrong to try to discourage you from putting me in a concentration camp, or taking any steps to put in power someone who would.

<comment><USER27> Sure, discourage me. Come out in the public square and let's have it out. You use your powers of free speech and persuasion and convince me I'm wrong. If I feel strongly about my opinions, I'll do the same to try to persuade you that you're wrong. Democracy at work.

Start poking around to find whatever job I have and then try to get me fired? Really? That counts as "discouragement" in your book?

You realize, of course, that there are some folks with really nasty opinions out there, folks who would do all the things you mention. Folks who would bring back slavery. And so on.

I must have missed the big public outrage over these folks where we try to get them fired and otherwise interfere with their personal and work lives because of their political opinions. I also missed the part where this became acceptable behavior.

<comment><USER25> As a practical matter, the less money you have, the less you can fund your attempts to have me killed.

<comment><USER29> What about folks who think substantial U.S. carbon emission restrictions aren't a smart or effective policy and politically donate to that effect? There are likely a lot of people here who believe passionately that such inaction will lead to an uninhabitable planet. Serious, life-and-death stuff. Worth trying to get someone fired from their tech job?

<comment><USER25> I think there's a big difference that comes down to motivation. Somebody who tries to get a Nazi elected wants, at some level, for me to die. Thus, I cannot trust them to treat me well.

Similarly, somebody who tries to get a gay marriage ban passed thinks that consenting adults should be prevented from marrying, and since there are no good rational reasons to do that (it's possible that there are some, but none have ever been presented to me, and there has been opportunity) then it indicates not only a prejudice against homosexuals, but a willingness to interfere in their lives. Again, they can't be trusted to treat homosexuals well in other contexts where they might have power.

Somebody who fights against carbon emission restrictions isn't doing it because they want the planet to die. Instead, they have examined the information and come to a different conclusion. You might say it's the _wrong_ conclusion, and I'd completely agree with that, but that is ultimately a failure of brainpower rather than of motivations. They presumably have good reasons for why they act that way, which means they can be reasoned _with_. That makes it much more feasible to deal with them, and ultimately makes them much less harmful.

<comment><USER30> How about people that donate to fight the existence of polyamorous marriage licenses? Do you want to get them fired?

> there are no good rational reasons to do that

If you lived in the south bay area like I do, you'd suffer far more oppression from people with houses that oppose any and all kinds of development, than you would from the government not recognizing gay marriage (if you were gay). These people cost me thousands of dollars per year, and they make poorer people even worse off, driving them out of high-rent communities into far more dangerous areas and making them spend time and energy commuting. If some home- owner from west of El Camino that donated to the "Residents First" candidate's campaign in the Mountain View city elections became the CEO of Mozilla, how should I feel then? His cause is based in purely wicked selfishness, not some arbitrary nonsensical moral axioms or reasoning that you might call irrational.

At least Eich donated against Prop. 8 because he thought it was the right thing to do. He didn't gain any personal benefit from that donation -- it was at quite direct harm to himself (to the tune of $1000). That donation is actually a positive sign of moral character, relative to most people's bland non-contributing apathy. He just has bad moral axioms or couldn't think about this matter rationally.

> Again, they can't be trusted to treat homosexuals well in other contexts > where they might have power.

I don't think you have an accurate model of how the average pious Christian that lives in California would behave (assuming that's the root cause of Eich's choices). You've come to false conclusions about what donating to anti- gay-marriage causes implies about one's personal attitude towards gay people. I'm sure there's some form of hypothetical marriage license that you wouldn't be in favor of, but that doesn't mean you're bigoted against those people. The state doesn't approve of anything but nuclear family marriage and its same-sex facsimile. I don't think that you'd be evil or couldn't be reasoned with if you believed that the state should encourage this social structure, it's just that your moral axioms or your views on what marriage is for are (probably) different than mine.

Actually, I'm just trying to be persuasive. The real reason you're wrong is that your opinion is built on your delusion that you and other people have free will, specifically, that of Eich having it. Going from the free will to no-free-will perspective, your attitude towards Eich maps to an attitude towards the universe being imperfect. So it happens to be imperfect in a way visible at the top of Mozilla. Big whoop.

<comment><USER25> Your distinction between selfless and selfish actors is interesting, because I reach the opposite conclusion. In my opinion, the most dangerous and frightening people _by far_ are those who sacrifice in order to hurt others. Most people are selfish. I can understand them and I can deal with them. If I need something from them, I just have to figure out what they would want that they value more than what I want, and arrange a trade.

I can't understand your last paragraph at all. I'm not sure that free will is even a coherent concept, let alone a real thing, but I also don't see how one can possibly live without _assuming_ it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'd like to urge everyone to consider whether it's a good idea to comment on this story. If you voice an opinion in support of Eich, obviously that's going to be a liability in the future. But voicing an opinion against him is also a liability - there is no telling how the zeitgeist might change ten or twenty years from now. I think it's best to voice no opinion at all - and I hope this comment is not misconstrued as support for any particular position.

<comment><USER32> And I would argue that fighting against marriage rights (for LGBT) is our version of Jim Crow laws. History will show that people; all people deserve equal rights and protections under the law. Desegregation took decades, and arguably still isn't completely successful, given laws that disproportionately target black communities.

And this isn't about a church refusing to marry someone because of their sexuality. This is about governmental rights and legal rights conferred to married couples.

Or on a more dour note: What happens if a homosexual couple moves to a state that bans that practice, and they choose to divorce?

That's why this stuff is important.

<comment><USER33> If it's important, shouldn't people be able to have a conversation, and fund a conversation?

The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many of us agree with that position.

Therefore, we can only see this as an attempt to ostracize and attack anyone who speaks to the opposite side. This action is chilling on speech, which is exactly what the OP was talking about. Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't mean it isn't, and won't be perceived by others that way.

I think proposition 8 was the wrong thing, promoted for bad reasons and on the wrong side of where society needs to be, but I also happen to feel that this attempt to quash any possibility of opposing free speech by ensuring to mob anyone who rises to the top having once taken a view we don't agree with as far more dangerous and harmful for our society than prop 8 could ever have been. It enforces positions without the liberty of allowing speech, and without the ability to challenge in court, as bad laws do.

<comment><USER32> > The supreme court has equated financial contribution with speech, and many > of us agree with that position.

I think this is the root issue here. SCOTUS declared by fiat that financial contribution is speech. According to our law, it is now.

The people do not see that the same way. Giving lip service is speech, while money is altogether something different. What it is, I do not know.

And it seems much more akin to "buying laws", which I think many people find something terribly wrong in our government today.

<comment><USER33> While there are situations where the exercising of speech in that manner can cause harm (e.g. very large contributions to politicians), I believe that harm is outweighed by the good. No on can outlaw me donating to the EFF, or other charitable organizations, which would most certainly happen when it suits the lawmakers' purposes, given that it is enshrined as speech and protected by the 1st amendment. Just like the first amendment protects hateful speech, it also protects beneficial and helpful speech. Perhaps you're not thinking of Buckley v. Valeo, but instead of Citizens United, that countered that speech could not be restricted because it was done by a corporation. I am not venturing into that territory here.

There is almost always some harm done by liberty, that is the pain of humanity. There is much further harm done when we restrict liberty to protect the senses. That is my opinion, and I am as surely unlikely to be swayed from it as you are yours.

<comment><USER32> I was not up on my case law regarding Buckley v. Valeo, but I do remember now after having looked it up. Unfortunately, I don't have the legal backbone to discuss case law proper. I was trying to discuss more akin to philosopher language.

After having slept on why money in politics bothers me, I think I can better explain why it does.

Normally, a vote from me counts as the same as a vote from any resident in Indiana. And I can extrapolate that to show that my vote is pretty much equal to any citizen in the US. When we add money, it changes that "1 person, 1 vote" to "1 rich person, lots of votes: 1 poor person, 1 vote"

When we distill that down, we are saying that a rich person is much more important than an average income person, or even that homeless indigent voters are worthless. That doesn't sit right with me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I understand why people could get offended about this. But as I understand it most who oppose this have a religious reason to do so. Now religion is as deeply person and important to a person as is the right to marry. So where do we draw the line on what we allow others to think, believe or support?

As a for instance my Aunty is vegan and is offended that I or any one else would ever eat meat. And I know eating meat is much less of an issue, but I support her right to oppose the eating of meat. She has would vote against my ability to eat meat. But my response would not be to attack her as a person but simply vote in the opposite direction.

On the other end I can see why a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany would have attached Hitler and the Nazi party at any chance they got.

But is there a middle ground?

<comment><USER35> Just because your religion says so doesn't mean I have to follow it. I'm not trying to make you change your religion - you can live the way you want - <AUTHOR> that is _not_ the way I want.

The appropriate middle ground is just that. You can be as religious as you want, tell me that I live in sin etc., but you don't get to force me to not be with the person I love. Similarly, I don't get to force legislation to make everyone atheist.

<comment><USER34> I think you miss the point. I am trying to get a discussion on where we draw the line on how we assert our political beliefs in everyday life.

For instance there has been talk here on the freedom of association. I support that to a degree. But not to the degree where I would want society to allow a shop keeper to only serve straight white males. But I would want a society that allows a church/temple/(name your religious building) to discriminate on not marrying people from outside of that faith.

This article got me thinking why have I drawn these lines. And wanted to open a discussion on how we decide when is it okay to limit someone's freedoms. I think the majority are saying lets try to prevent this guys ability to work for this company. Because he wants to limit who can marry who. But why is one okay and not the other? I'm not trying to take either side I'm just trying to ask why.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I think people would be much more serene if they stopped idolizing certain programmers, computer scientists and tech people in general as demigods. As influential, intelligent and wise as they may be, they are quite fallible, and their political views are very likely to be a volatile mess, like most other people.

If it's any consolation, there has yet to be a cult tech figure who is a neo- Nazi/white nationalist or anything of the sort. Or am I wrong?

The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions. Otherwise you'd probably be unable to enjoy anything made before the 20th century.

<comment><USER36> > The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the > artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions.

In what way does that make the world a better place?

Why should we celebrate an artist who does shitty things when there is almost certainly someone equally as talented who does not?

<comment><USER37> Let me know when you're going to start boycotting Picasso paintings.

<comment><USER38> Why would I need to boycott something I have no use for in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't support gay-marriage either ... I've said it before and I'll repeat it again (if necessary). My religious beliefs hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I choose to follow my religion because it's something I feel deeply about. Asking me to compromise my religious beliefs or be called homophobic (I'm not), full of hatred (I'm not) or even biased (I'm not) just isn't fair.

I've got friends that live an alternative life-style, and I can discuss this sanely with them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends and we certainly don't agree on whether their lifestyle can be aligned with my religious beliefs, but we also don't make it the focal point of our relationship.

I've never said I was against the various domestic partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks and other benefits to committed partners. I'm simply not willing to use the word marriage to describe the relationship.

So when I see all the commotion about a measly $1000 donation to support proposition 8 in CA, I wonder why anyone is actually wasting their time on a protest. I don't think that Eich is filled with hatred ... I suspect he barely thinks about it at all. But why is it okay when the hatred is directed at him? Why are people so consumed by the issue that they give up vast amounts of their time and energy?

I can live without hating ... can you?

P.S. I'll admit that there are probably things and people in the world that are worth hating.

<comment><USER40> You mentioned a key part of your moral defense:

        I've never said I was against the various domestic
        partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks
        and other benefits to committed partners.

That's where you and Eich differ. By donating to the Prop-8 campaign, he was directly supporting state-sponsored discrimination. It goes past personal beliefs when you take steps to strip others of their rights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Oh cuil, it's apparently time for the entitled mob to direct its groupthink towards tearing down one of the rare worthwhile software companies.

<comment><USER17> Sorry, can you explain exactly where the bar is set to determine how 'worthwhile' a software company has to be before we turn a blind eye to their having a homophobic CEO?

<comment><USER42> I am for gay marraige. Eich is against it. These facts don't necessarily make me a homophile or Eich a homophobe. We have differing views on what marraige means.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Solidarity with all developers planning to protest

</comment><comment><USER44> Why does rarebit pulling their app represent a lack if respect for personal beliefs? Why is it ok for Eich to do what he will but not ok for others to act in response to that? That's bullshit.

Actions have consequences. __Actions have consequences. __

</comment><comment><USER45> I don't get why his personal views have anything to do with the business. This is an absurd non-issue.

</comment><comment><USER46> Is sad. Just when i was going to learn JS.

<comment><USER47> What the heck does this have to do with JS?

<comment><USER48> He invented Javascript.

<comment><USER47> I know that part, but boycotting the language he created over 10 years ago & doesn't actively develop is a stretch is more what I was getting at.

<comment><USER48> I think he was being a bit facetious.

<comment><USER46> I wasn't :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19>
        s/LGBT-friendly/orthodox/
        s/hateful/heretical/

And we thought we were over the sloppy thinking habits that lead to forceful suppression of unpopular viewpoints...

</comment><comment><USER49> There's a common wrong argument against this sort of boycott, but its comparably common rebuttal is subtly wrong as well.

 _common wrong argument_ : This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.

 _subtly wrong rebuttal_ : The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that speech.

While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", _gays are privileged under the law_. This means that you are especially vulnerable to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:

"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.' Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged class—excuse me, a _protected_ class—is not in any way a social consequence, but rather a _political_ one."

To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich donated _against_ of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously _oppose_ gay marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a lawsuit would have _no chance of success_. In contrast, in the real reality we actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.

In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a boycott or protests, but they would be _incomparably weaker_ because non-gays are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences" of a boycott are supported by _the full power of the US Federal Government_. For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.

[1]: [Technology, communism, and the Brown Scare]([http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technol...](http://unqualified- reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html))

<comment><USER25> Non-gays are absolutely a protected class. Sexual orientation is what's protected, not a _particular_ orientation.

A business that discriminates against straight people is just as liable under the law as a business that discriminates against gay people. (This is not, as I understand it, currently illegal under federal law. Many states outlaw it, though.)

The problem is that you see Prop 8 as symmetrical, but it is not. Prop 8 is an attempt to remove rights from a group of people. Opposing prop 8 is not an attempt to remove rights from other people, but rather to grant them to everyone.

The proper analogy would be a hypothetical Prop 88 which seeks to ban straight marriage while allowing gay marriage. Ignoring the complete impossibility of such a thing ever going anywhere, donating money to support the passage of such a proposition would rightfully attract a great deal of negative attention.

<comment><USER49> _Sexual orientation is what 's protected_

Right—same with race, creed, and gender. That's the theory, at least. How fearful do you expect, say, the Super Bowl–winning Seattle Seahawks are of a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination on the grounds that its defensive squad is biased against non-blacks?

[http://fantasyfootballwarehouse.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/...](http://fantasyfootballwarehouse.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/07/seahawks.jpg?260551)

In practice, the treatment of "underrepresented" minorities vs. "overrepresented" groups is almost completely asymmetric.

 _Prop 8 is an attempt to remove rights from a group of people._

You can't remove a right that doesn't exist. Even if you're generally sympathetic to gay rights (as I am), the idea that the framers of the California state constitution intended to protect the right of two men (or two women) to marry each other is risible.

 _The proper analogy would be a hypothetical Prop 88 which seeks to ban straight marriage while allowing gay marriage._

You're assuming that gay marriage and straight marriage are equally valid relationships. This may be true, but the whole point of Prop. 8 was an explicit rejection of this premise. By positing a symmetry between gay and straight marriage, you're simply begging the question.

<comment><USER25> It's not "begging the question", it's simple logic.

If Elsa can marry Joe, but Steve cannot marry Joe, and this is purely because Elsa is a woman and Steve is a man, then you're prohibiting Steve from doing something purely because of his sex. Such discrimination based on a person's sex is wrong.

Really, sexual orientation is a red herring in this debate, but people can't properly break the situation down. Bans on "gay marriage" take rights away from everyone, not just homosexuals; although I may never exercise my right to marry a man, I should still have that right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> What Brendan Eich does with his own money on his own time is none of my concern. His opposition to Google Dart is my concern and I wish he would lighten up about that.

</comment><comment><USER50> Now I am the one regretting the donation I gave to the Mozilla Foundation last year.

</comment><comment><USER21> So, do Gay Firefox developers boycott Javascript too?

<comment><USER44> Yes, they prefer ECMAscript.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> What he did is support the disagreement that what is now considered a "right" by an increasingly liberal society was indeed a "right". What is wrong with this? Liberals and gays need to realize that they are often bigots against religion. Those believing the Bible's teachings have a different set of moral standards. I find it ironic that this man is called immoral by liberals and that gays are dubbed the immoral ones by believers in God.

Can't Liberals see that Believers hold themselves to a different set of standards? It is not often personal (though unfortunately for some religious extremists it is). The only hate that is being displayed here is by the anti- religious groups and individuals.

Think of it like this. A girl is invited to a friend's birthday party. She does not attend because her father forbids her to go and won't driver her there either. She tries to explain it to her friend, but here friend hates her now because can not come. Is this fair to the girl?

Some of you will say that this case is more like the girl paying someone to disrupt the party. Again, if the girl's father was responsible as God is for believer's convictions, then should the girl be hated anyway? I suppose if you think that the girl's father only existed in her own mind (was a phantasy) then you would think this.

Still does not seem fair? Well what if it came out later that the girl planning the party was going to do something harmful to the guests. By disrupting the party, the girl who looked cruel now in hindsight looks like a hero. This knowledge of the devious girl's plan is akin to the belief and knowledge that religious people have in God.

God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how do atheists know they are really correct? how do religious people? At least the religious people have a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.

So who are the real bigots here? From each side's perspective, it is the other. My hope is that each side will respect (not agree with) the others reasons and not show hatred toward the other. If a gay person donates to a fund pushing gay marriage, don't show hate toward them, if a religious person donates to the opposition, the same applies. This is almost sportsmanship in a way. Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness, help them up and continue the competition.

<comment><USER40>
        The only hate that is being displayed here is by the
        anti-religious groups and individuals.

Aren't you forgetting the people trying to implement state-sponsored discrimination.

        God cannot be proven or dis-proven via science. So how
        do atheists know they are really correct? how do
        religious people? At least the religious people have
        a basis that does not rely on unexplained things. A God
        and a creation are certainly a more plausible and simple
        explanation to our existence then any offered by atheists.

Insane presuppositions aside. The existence of God has nothing to do with equal rights under state laws. Prop 8 wasn't a referendum on whether or not God exists, it was a vote by a 'tyrannical majority' to strip the rights of the minority.

        So who are the real bigots here?

The people who try to deny rights to others.

        Play hard against the opposition, but when they fall
        down (when they are in need of help), show them kindness,
        help them up and continue the competition.

Or just don't actively work to harm other people, that will go much further.</comment></comment>


What Bryan Cranston taught me at 4:00am - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@kentf/what-bryan-cranston-taught-me-at-4-00am-b03e8cec29fc

<comment><USER2> Cranston is the best. He is a fantastic role model for consistently showing up and putting in work, and if he's only a quarter as nice as he's been described, he'd be a fine drinking companion any day.</comment>


Ask HN: Why do so many startups invest so little in design? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Because in the beginning, design is not as important as validation and user experience. Classic example: Stripe. If you look at recent submissions on HN about them, a lot of comments have been about their awesome design. But Stripe became so huge because they made it so simple to accept payments online and focussed heavily on being developer friendly. I remember their tagline used to be "payments for developers". At that time, their design was ok not as shiny as they are now. But it didn't matter initially.

So yea, as long as you are solving a real problem for your users and making their life easy, they don't care. A different example: Craigslist. Still the same as ever.

Hardly a company or product fails just because of bad design. That is why too much investment on design upfront is not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's expensive for the very early stages. Sometimes it also messes with validation.

The biggest problems are so big that customers are willing to pay for an ugly, hacky interface because it's better than what they have.

If the selling point is that something is nicer looking than the competition, it's possible that it's the wrong problem to solve.

UX design can pay off, but usually UX kicks in around the stage where the users need a tutorial. In the very early stages, the features are often too crude and lacking to benefit from UX.

<comment><USER4> I used to think this but I'm not so sure now. Some people are simply unable to look past extremely ugly interfaces. Some people feel less able to trust applications or web sites that lack good design. I think the answer to the original question is cost. Design can cost more than the coder.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, after writing that I realized that design is a lot more expensive. You can still get a decent coder who doesn't care about his work, but you can't get a decent designer who doesn't care.

It's important that the designers really understand the user journey, and that's not really something you can buy for just $5,000.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because design is still a luxury skill set. We need it to become a slight more available in the market.

</comment><comment><USER6> What's your story? Sounds like you have firsthand experience.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have seen this first hand many times. Many startups won't spend a dime on design. A $5k design budget is unthinkable. They are being pennywise and pound foolish IMO.

</comment><comment><USER8> What makes you think they do?</comment>


Tech investors plowing money into future farms - <AUTHOR> http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2025258312_agtechfuturexml.html

<comment><USER2> I am a software engineer, and a I live on a small hobby farm where we trying to sustainably raise our own food.

My concern with the startup world getting into agriculture is that unless small-scale agriculture becomes pervasive, then we are also dependent on the transportation infrastructure to ship food around the world. Suddenly we live in a more complex system with more moving parts (literally). It has more potential for failure.

I disagree 100% with the people who say that only large scale operations have the potential to feed the world. It just isn't true, as any of us who produce tons of food on small plots of land can show you.

But getting millions or billions of people to start growing food instead of lawns. That is a challenge.

I hope there are some startups thinking about efficient small-scale operations. I just haven't heard of/from them.

<comment><USER3> > growing food instead of lawns.

I've occasionally attempted to grow vegetables in my yard. They won't even sprout.

My apple tree is over 10 years old and still is little more than a stick with a few leaves.

<comment><USER2> Learning to produce food takes more time and energy than people realize. Every piece of land has a different mix of nutrients in the soil, water, sun, wind, insects, you name it. It takes most new folks a few years of work just to figure out how to use their own soil properly, and you often need to build up the proper nutrients to make it work, via composting, growing some cover crops to replenish nitrogen, or good old animal poo.

As far as fruit trees go, how they were planted has a lot to do with their success, as a poor root system will create a poor tree. Likewise, a few years of bad trimming will create a tree that spends more energy on wood production and not fruit production.

Frankly, I could type a lot of random stuff that needs to be thought about, but the truth is that growing food takes research, learning, and practice. We have spent years learning about gardening and homesteading, finding the right land and home for ourselves, and working it to start producing for our family. Years. And we still feel like raw beginners. It is not as simple as just throwing a few seeds in a garden box and watering them, although that is a good start.

To bring this back to startups, one very helpful product may simply be a training program to help people through the learning process and guide them on how to figure things out for their own land.

<comment><USER4> Does hydroponics simplify this process?

<comment><USER5> No. Hydroponics is generally _worse_ for beginners.

Having something planted in an outside soil plot generally means that you have more leeway for making mistakes. You can be a little over or underwatered and things won't die. You can miss the nutrient mix a bit, and things will still grow even if they aren't optimal. You generally don't have to worry about micronutrients and the like until you've been growing in the same plot for some number of years.

Hydroponics tends to be higher maintenance. You may have to water every day. You may have to feed and fertilize more often. You probably have to be more vigilant about pests and disease since you probably don't get help from the local environment.

<comment><USER6> Hydroponics would seem to be more amenable to automation though. So much of it (including the plants) can be standardized and monitored.

While it probably doesn't make sense for everyone to have their own, manually maintained hydroponic garden, it might make sense to have large-scale, but local, highly automated gardens that produce food for the surrounding community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like an easily overlooked and underestimated sector of the world. Most software and tech development happens in cities and away from rural areas and farm-towns. And agriculture doesn't exactly have a reputation for easy profits. There's probably a lot of opportunity for tech and software developers that understand the needs and challenges of the industry.

</comment><comment><USER8> I predict within 30 years, it will be popular to own a backyard swarm of small robots that will tend a garden during the growing season. Pesticides will not be needed because the robots will hunt the bugs. Big backyards will become an important feature when buying a house. It will be cheaper AND more convenient than going to the store to buy your produce. Big ag and silicon valley will be bummed because the best home farming software will be open source and free.

<comment><USER9> Let's hope those robots can fend off transgenic outcrossing. Anything that could conceivably disrupt Monsanto's monopolistic greed over food would be a boon for local and organic farmers [1].

[1]: The World According to Monsanto, a _must watch_ documentary [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article says farming is the oldest industry. I thought that moniker belonged to ...another profession.

In all seriousness, it is great to see venture capital attention to agriculture. Agriculture is the original tech industry that disrupted the way people lived. There was food before there was agriculture and it is much more open to tech adoption than most urbanites realize.

<comment><USER11> Indeed. Aside from the other profession you might have in mind, people were certainly hunting and fishing and gathering and making pots and baskets and boats and war a long long time before they started farming.

Farming is an old profession, but not even close to the oldest.

<comment><USER12> It said farming is the oldest _industry_. Maybe that is more true?</comment></comment></comment>


Plastics pile up as coronavirus hits Asia recyclers - <AUTHOR> https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Environment/Plastics-pile-up-as-coronavirus-hits-Asia-recyclers <comment><USER2> 8 MILLION tonns of plastic waste EVERY YEAR are dropped in the OCEAN!

man this is scary

<comment><USER3> Most of it is trash from undeveloped countries with poor trash service.

People just dump the trash and local rivers wash it downstream.

This can be solved not by changing how plastic is used but simply by pressuring those governments to implement trash collection.

<comment><USER4> > _This can be solved not by changing how plastic is used but simply by > pressuring those governments to implement trash collection._

Or both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> tedk-42 Sad reality of our times.

We're eating out less but our plastic household waste/recycling has more than doubled due to all the plastic we get through food deliveries.

The market forces for better recyclable/biodegradable packaging just aren't there as plastic is so cheap to produce.

<comment><USER5> It could be worse. At least plastics are relatively inert, unlike other forms of waste.

<comment><USER6> My understanding is that the plastic breaks down, is then ingested by small fish, then is concentrated up the food chain. Chemicals that are present or collect in the plastic then accumulate in the fish that we or other wildlife eat. Additionally there are chemicals which affect reproduction in some species (negatively). So. Yeah it could be worse. It still sucks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Asian recyclers at work [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeDY3I841q0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeDY3I841q0)

</comment><comment><USER8> Would it be so hard to use less packaging on foods, especially snacks? It's ridiculous, why does a brownie need 3 layers of packaging?

I only drink carbonated water, so I use one plastic bottle that's always with me lol (I do throw them away after a week or so as they get dirty), but it would be nice if more people did that. Not really possible for soft drinks though.

<comment> 52-6F-62 Ever consider a Soda Stream or similar device?

I received one as a gift and it's _great_. You just have reusable bottles (they do expire as the plastic begins to break down, but they last several years), and reusable CO2 canisters that you return for a refund when you need a refill.

You can also buy syrups to use with them if you like pop flavours rather than mixing with juices or citrus.

<comment><USER9> After having a soda stream for almost 10 years, someone left a CO2 tank on my property. It's a 10 lb canister, which will supposedly last me literal years at the rate I drink carbonated water, and costs about as much to refill as a soda stream cylinder. Along with a CO2 regular, you can hook this up to a "carbonator" adapter and refill regular bottles.

Might be worth looking into if you are drinking a lot of carbonated water- Soda stream is fine, but I find the bottles to be kind of ugly, even the upgraded ones they offer. The soda stream itself is taller than will fit under my cabinets so we had it in a conspicuous spot that made it stand out in my kitchen. Now I keep this stuff hidden away in the basement and just refill a 6 pack at a time of Pelligrino type bottles. I also brew beer and while I haven't started kegging yet, I can use this stuff for that as well. I find this page to be a good simplified explanation of the parts involved: [https://tasteofartisan.com/how-to-make-carbonated- water/](https://tasteofartisan.com/how-to-make-carbonated-water/)

<comment> 52-6F-62 Yours sounds like definitely the way to go. I live in a downtown condo with next to no storage space, so the Soda Stream is a godsend for now. And mine fits under my cabinet at least!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Self employment tax? [US] - <AUTHOR>

I'm reviewing what my CPA sent me.. it looks like individuals (contractors) get fucked with self employment tax in the US. Is there a way around this? I netted less than 100k and my effective tax rate is almost 40% according to self-employment tax + income tax <comment><USER2> It comes with much more liberal SEP-IRA rules (25% of gross, not capped at $5,500) and deductions (health insurance purchases are deductible for self- employed), leave alone the commonly known things, such as deductions for transportation, entertainment, etc. so you have way more ways to minimize the taxable portion of the income.

</comment><comment><USER3> Create an LLC and elect to file as S-corp status for tax purposes. You pay yourself a fair salary (so that IRS will be content) and the rest can be considered pass through income taxed only at your income bracket.

For example, say you earned 300k last year. A fair salary for a developer might be 70k. You pay income tax and self employment tax on the 70k but only income tax on the remaining 230k.

I am not your lawyer or accountant so take the above advice with caution.

</comment><comment><USER4> If somebody operates as your EOR (Employer of Record) your self employment tax goes away! You also get taxes deducted out of each pay check allowing for a much easier budgeting situation. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

<comment><USER5> "Self-employment tax" is a euphemism for having to pay both the employer and the employee portions of the payroll tax. There is no separate tax levied on the self-employed.

The OP would need to find someone to both become their employer of record AND pay the employer portion of their payroll taxes.</comment></comment>


Turn Hacker News' headlines & comments into ambient histograms - <AUTHOR> http://elzr.com/posts/backbars-on-social-link-sites

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry, but I don't understand what it's a histogram of.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, sorry! Such an oversight! (You get so involved in a project you think it's all natural...)

The histograms are:

For Reddit, they are of a headline's votes, of a headline's number of comments, and of a comment's votes.

For Delicious, they are of the numbers of users that have bookmarked a link, or applied a tag.

For Digg, of a headline's diggs, of a headline's number of comments, and of a comment's diggs.

For Hacker News, of a headline's upvotes, of a headline's number of comments, and of a comment's upvotes.

For StackOverflow, of a question's views, of an answer's votes, of the number of users that have applied a tag, of a user's reputation score.

It's hopefully all obvious once you install the script.

Adding larger versions of the screenshots in a sec..

<comment><USER3> A histogram shows a distribution of values. This just looks like a bar graph. Still useful, but I don't see how it's a histogram.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, I see, I didn't even know there was a difference, thanks for pointing it out. I've always like the word "bar graph" more (it's more transparent), so bar graphs they are now!

<comment><USER4> i like it

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really nice =)

Check it on <http://news.ycombinator.com/best>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It works on MetaFilter now! Also, comment backbars are now more accurate. Download the latest script for these changes <http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/51281>

</comment><comment><USER6> Minor thing - it seems to have messed up the comment threading. Check it:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/hitesh/3618708763/>

edit: here it is with 4 comments. check out the whacked-out indentation of the comments -- the nesting is all off:

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/hitesh/3618714801/>

<comment><AUTHOR> They are somewhat off indeed. This ironically only seems to happen in this particular comment thread. I'll look into it right away, sorry and thanks for the bug report!

<comment><USER6> oh not a problem. seems to be ok on digg & reddit so far and now that I get it, its kinda nice to have ..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Are all the histograms based on popularity, diggs, upvotes, etc? The thumbnails are too tiny to make out and they link to the site, not a larger picture.</comment>


ES6, ES7, and beyond - <AUTHOR> http://v8project.blogspot.com/2016/04/es6-es7-and-beyond.html <comment><USER2> (TC39 and Mozilla member here.)

FWIW, this:

        For these reasons, the V8 team, along with TC39 committee members from Mozilla and Microsoft, strongly support denoting proper tail calls by special syntax.

is misrepresentative of the state of consensus and frankly premature. In particular, while I won't try to speak for all of my colleagues (we do not pre-determine an official Mozilla position in advance of standards discussion) I don't _think_ it's the case that any of the Mozilla representatives "strongly support" syntactic tail calls, and I personally have reservations. It hasn't gotten beyond being an area of open exploration.

All that said, I'm interested to see where the explorations go, and I'm looking forward to subsequent discussions.

<comment><USER3> I would really be interested to know why we need a special syntax for tail calls. (genuinely curious)

I'm from Lua originally and we've had tail calls forever... why would you point them out? It should be obvious:

return wat()

<comment><USER4> I'm not on TC39, but I sit next to and work closely with people who are, and my understanding (confirmed by this article) is that the primary concern is about stack traces of existing code, specifically code with function calls in tail position.

With implicit tail call elimination, those stack traces will change in non- trivial ways that could affect debugging processes or break existing tools.

I've also heard some concerns about implementation difficulties, but I know at least one major engine has implemented PTC as specified in ES2015 without issue. I think (and hope) these concerns are secondary to the discussion about stack traces and backwards compatibility.

tl;dr: as with almost every "why is it like that" question about JavaScript, the answer is "because backwards compatibility".

(I also started with Lua and have adjusted to JS over the years; they have more in common than many people realize!)

<comment><USER5> I'm not particularly in the loop on this, though I have talked about it (idley) with a member of TC39, but my understanding is that implementation difficulties are a big part of it. SpiderMonkey and Edge both are having difficulties implementing it without hurting the performance of average code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > String.prototype.padStart() / String.prototype.padEnd()

Finally left-pad module's functionality will be integrated into core! Souns awesome. /s

<comment><USER7> I would really like if Unicode properties were implemented. I'd also like to see a RegExp escape function. String padding sees common enough usage that it should be added.

<comment><USER8> Unicode properties are behind an experimental flag: --harmony-regexp-property

<comment><USER7> Good to know!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So in looking at the Kangax tables when the next Safari comes out, it looks like all major desktop browsers will have support of the big ticket ES6 features (arrow functions, destructuring, default params, Map/Set/WeakMap, Proxies). Unless you're doing JSX, type annotations, or upcoming stuff (async/await, decorators, object spread, class properties) you can drop transpiling from your dev workflow and only do it for prod.

<comment><USER10> I thought IE11 and earlier have none of these features right? And you can't run Edge on windows 7 right? And aren't more than 50% of windows sill Windows 7? And in't windows still 90% of the market?

I was thinking these features are still 5+ years away unless you are prepared to actually ask your users to switch to Chrome.

<comment><USER11> Transformation of most ES6 features into functionally identical, backwards- compatible ES5 is trivial, and automated tools exist to do that, so you absolutely _can_ use them today.

For example, default arguments are purely syntactic sugar for `if (arg === undefined) { arg = x; }` in the first line of a function. Still, I'd much rather _write_ ES6's declarative `function foo(arg=x) { }` syntax rather than imperatively implement it in ES5 each time I need it.

<comment><USER12> > I need it.

Need is a strong word.

<comment><USER11> In this case, "need" refers to the "if (x === undefined) { x = y }" pattern. Which is absolutely a need when implementing functions with variable arity.

If I need that pattern, I'd rather write it declaratively than imperatively. :)

<comment><USER12> Variable arity is exactly the thing to which I refer. It isn't needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> PLEASE don't do the awkward .mjs thing. I and prob most devs will simply not respect it.

<comment><USER14> .es sounds good to me.

Seems like a good fit for _EcmaScript_. It might even help finally renaming the language, so that tech recruiters confuse it with something else ;)

<comment><USER15> That would be incorrect though, there are other implementations of the ES specification that are not JavaScript (UnityScript for example).

Although it's a cute suggestion.

<comment><USER16> WAT? UnityScript is not an implementation of ES AFAICT. It's entirely made up by Unity and has almost nothing in common with JavaScript/EMCAScript

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > [http://tc39.github.io/proposal-string-pad-start- > end/](http://tc39.github.io/proposal-string-pad-start-end/)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I find it hilarious that this is a proposal. Someone on TC39 has a sense of humor.

Edit: Apparently this was proposed long before left-pad broke the internet.

<comment><USER18> Not to be a wet blanket, but this proposal predates padLeftGate by a lot:

[https://github.com/tc39/proposal-string-pad-start- end/commit...](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-string-pad-start- end/commit/5e370dc4731aa12c88def15a0b2acc78952c9677)

[http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?do=revisions&id=strawman...](http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?do=revisions&id=strawman%3Astring_padding)

<comment><USER17> Good catch, I stand corrected.

<comment><USER2> Still, I wouldn't say _nobody_ cracked a smile at the last TC39 meeting... ;P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is there already a proposal for (optional) type safety? So we can assimilate the typescript fans?

</comment><comment><USER20> What happened to the year-based naming convention? I thought we switched to ES2015 and ES2016?

<comment><USER21> I still don't understand why it's been renamed to ES2015. Reminds me of the Windows98 days. Gives software an air of "out-of-date"-ness for no reason. Just give it a version number and be done. Javascript versions don't need branding.

<comment><USER22> I'd think there are plenty of reasons to give software an air of "out-of- date"-ness. In this particular example, its a stigma to browser developers if it takes them until 2023 to implement ES2015.

It's a common thing in language standards to version by the year the standard was ratified, especially for ANSI languages such as C and C++, but there's a long history of it in language design including the ur-example off the top of my head of ALGOL68.

As for Windows 98. Would you seriously with a straight face want to admit to using a version of Windows that is old enough to vote? If anything, it's too bad they stopped that pattern with XP as it would have been a lot easier to shame people for still using Windows 2001 in 2015.

<comment><USER23> MySQL still hasn't implemented "with statements" and I miss them frequently when working with MySQL. The fact that "with statements" were added to the SQL standard in 1999 doesn't seem to bother anybody though, and MySQL continues to gain popularity.

<comment><USER22> I've been Team PostgreSQL for a long time in the FLOSS DB Wars, so take this with a grain of salt, but that MySQL hasn't managed to implement "ancient" standards certainly has bothered me over the years and there are certainly plenty of other people on Team PostgreSQL that have been pointing this stuff out for in some cases decades. So yes, shame on MySQL for failing SQL99 (and heck, shame on them for failing SQL86 in their basic [lack of] ACID compliance in their default DB storage for far too many years).

So yes, this certainly feeds my point that standards years can be useful to point out the quirky failings of software by potentially adding to their shame. It's 2016, are you using an SQL-1986-compliant database?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> >Although additional standardization work is needed to specify advanced dynamic module-loading APIs, Chromium support for module script tags is already in development.

Of all the future developments in V8, this is what I'm looking forward to the most. It's the last key component tying most code to transpilers.

</comment><comment><USER25> Seems that there's no mention of async functions and no browser support apart from Edge. Are there any concerns about it's availability in ES7 at this point?

<comment><USER18> ES7/ES2016 does not/will not include async functions. It will likely make it into ES8/ES2017, though.

[http://www.2ality.com/2016/01/ecmascript-2016.html](http://www.2ality.com/2016/01/ecmascript-2016.html)

<comment><USER26> THAT is truly disappointing. Of all the new features, async/await is possibly the most critical for improving readability of code.

It's even more of a step forward than Promises was.

<comment><USER27> It's not really that big of an issue for it to still be in the standards track, async/await can be emulated using ES6 generators - in fact, if you target ES6 with the TypeScript compiler it will just implement a generator for you to handle the async stuff. I'm not certain if babel or any of the other transpilers do it yet, but it's not that much of a challenge.

Of course, it will be nice to not need transpilers and I know a lot of people were hoping ES7 might be the end of it - but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Hopefully, though, more standards will be amenable to shims like this, so at least we can get them _now_ while waiting on browser support. (That said, I hate web apps, this stuff drives me mad. I'll stick with GTK and WPF).

<comment><USER26> I've been using the Babel transpiler to get async/await, and the code is _so_ nice. Showed it to a JavaScript-hater and he gushed over it for 10 minutes -- then repeated the same comments to his boss (my client), which was awesome. :)

But I'm hearing that both the Babel and TypeScript implementations leave a lot to be desired with performance. Not so bad that it gave my use case a problem, but I use NodeJS, in part, for performance.

I'm also targeting browsers (and hybrid apps) with some code, and I've recently jumped from Babel/ES6 to TypeScript, so I can get the support via generators, but again I'm hearing of performance issues.

Getting first class optimized browser support is where I'll feel it's truly awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The two reasons for tail calls are loops and CPS. Nobody is championing the idea that we need traces for each loop iteration. I would somewhat understand the CPS argument except that the event loop already destroys a huge amount of meaningful stack traces anyway (while not identical, it is somewhat similar). I don't see anyone insisting on stack traces there either.

Why do we need explicit tail calls with stack traces?

<comment><USER29> That's an argument in favor of explicit tail call syntax. If there are only two main use-cases (loops and CPS), then why not annotate those two use-cases and leave everything else untouched?

The problem with implicit tail call syntax is that suddenly stack traces will be elided from debugging info when you really just wanted a normal function call that happened to be in tail position. These are really hard-to-track-down bugs, since the stack frame that is elided is precisely the one that made the tail call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Unreadable in mobile safari. Way to go.

<comment><USER31> The gutters are a little small on my iPhone, but I can see all the text. Want to send a screenshot to seththompson [at] google [dot] com? I'll see how much I can fix.</comment></comment>


Java is Dead; Long Live Python - <AUTHOR> http://cafe.elharo.com/programming/java-is-dead-long-live-python/

<comment><USER2> I read an article on slashdot about eight years ago (antitrust trial era after the first major ruling against) that Microsoft was dead. This reminds me of that. I'd like to believe but this guy make a poor case.

Java is everywhere, and the VM is high performance. Its library range is the best, except for C in some settings. The operating system wars are long over and the language ones are becoming irrelevant - it's about VMs now and JVM is a strong contender. One of the links off here: <http://www.malhar.net/sriram/kilim/> show it nuking erlang under high loads for similar concurency patterns.

I wish it were dead. I've moved myself out of the core development team at work in order to avoid dealing with the frustrating lethargy of developing with it. What development I now do is tooling which I do entirely in python, using django, web2py and base libraries when I need web stuff. Python allows me to prorgam with all the power of the unix platform even though my C is weak and unpracticed.

But Java still has outright strengths. When support issues come up for the main product our java source code is very readable, the team thrives in spite of being distributed, the product is stable, those customers who need library compatibility with us can get it with Java. Some of the python libraries are in the lead across the board, but others are weak. Nothing in the python world comes close to cayanne for combining simplicity and power for object relational modeling (most of the offerings are less powerful and more difficult to install, sqlalchemy is extremely inaccessible).

I'm expecting the classy rollout of Python 3 to kill off the other mainstream scripting languages. But it still has large flaws. Twisted is magnificent, but if you need to do threading python stinks even more than standard java. Also, the 'self' problem and syntactic separations that prevent you from creating functions inline point to a weaknses in the settlement. I think iolanguage is the next step in the right direction. There are some areas I don't think even that could challenge Java though - java wins when you have teams working on a project.

<comment><USER3> You misunderstand the technical meaning of the jargon term _dead_. In a discussion like this one _dead_ means _in stasis_.

It certainly does not mean "dead" as in "not being used". Such a term -- let's call it "the True Death" -- would be nigh-useless in a discussion of computer languages, because very few successful languages reach that state. The code doesn't rot. COBOL lives. FORTRAN most definitely lives. Lisp is older than everything and it is _very_ much alive. Pascal might be an exception: You really never hear of anyone writing new Pascal code. Perhaps it is approaching the True Death. Or perhaps some of the more obscure assembly languages of decades past are Truly Dead. But I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. There are people writing Atari 2600 assembly language right now. Maybe even more than there were in 1982.

The discussion is complicated by the evolution of languages and the desire to rehabilitate old trademarks. Applesoft BASIC is far closer to the True Death than "Basic" is, because Microsoft stole the name and applied it to a rather different creature. "Lisp" cannot die, but you could point to one of the thousand dead dialects of Lisp and call that dialect a "Truly Dead language". Eventually you get trapped in a pointless semantic debate, like the one you flirt with here: If the JVM is alive but Java is dead, is Java alive?

At any rate, now that we've established what we mean: Yeah, Java is arguably "dead". It has reached an equilibrium where anything you might do to change the design creates more problems than it solves: It breaks back compatibility, or it creates an impenetrably complex monster that only a relatively small number of people can understand. It's also very easy to argue that Microsoft Windows "died" around the release of Windows XP: Since then, the company has devoted uncounted thousands of programmer-hours to create an OS that much of the market has concluded is no improvement over XP. That's what static equilibrium looks like.

But this doesn't mean that we won't have Java and Windows to complain about for years and years, if not decades and decades. In software the dead do not truly die. They just stalk the earth as vampires. (I originally wanted to say "zombies", but that's wrong. Zombies are slow and stupid. Undead languages, on the other hand, are often amazingly competent and smart despite being technically dead. They've got a lot of experience.)

<comment><USER4> The two variables are:

* Current usage - how much of it is deployed.

* Growth - how much it's being used for new projects, worked on, written about, etc...

For instance, Cobol is still fairly widely deployed in some environments, but growth is probably negative, as it's being replaced by Java. Java is very widely used, and is still probably growing, although probably not as much as things like Ruby, which have grown a lot; which is easy when you start from a small base.

<comment><USER5> Actually, from a friend who actually specializes in COBOL: the number of lines of COBOL in production use are actually increasing due to regular maintainance.

<comment><USER6>
      <pedantism>

12% of that sentence was the word "actually." In all but the shortest sentences, it's strange to see an adverb as the most common word.

Edit: Thought about this more, and some people almost certainly say "like" more than any other word. (Un)surprisingly, your sentence loses little meaning if the actuallies are replaced with likes, commas optional.

      </pedantism>

<comment><USER7> s/pedantism/pedantry/

<comment><USER6> It's a word, just an obsolete one: <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedantism>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> C++ seems to have survived it's own death, as has C, why, even VB6 has come back for another drink after you're sure you saw it dead in the snow.

Languages don't die till everyone using them is dead. And you better burn the books too, because some hobbyist will come along and resurrect the language if you wait long enough.

So, however stiff it may look, ASM will continue to MOV, we'll continue to see C around, and goto is not going anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER9> Lame article. One of the strengths of Java is the very conservatism that the author bashes. Generics may have broken backwards compatibility if you opt to use that language feature, but the VM and compiler preserved forward compatibility of all previously-written code, an extremely important and considerate design goal. Just ask all the Python developers who now have to port their 2.x code to run on the V3 engine. And what is the big benefit of that porting effort? "A much saner string processing model based on Unicode." Oh, you mean like the one Java has had since its 1.0 release? This article, like most language-cheerleading flamebait, shows a deep misunderstanding about what has kept Java so popular for so long. Keep breaking compatibility, Pythonistas -- you'll be able to brag about the nimbleness of your language on blogs, and you will see your language continue to be passed over by developers who don't want to periodically rewrite their applications for marginal benefit.

<comment><USER10> Except that there is no plan to "keep breaking the language", it is a one-time now or never thing.

<comment><USER9> That's great. Just don't write blog posts trying to convince me that breakage is something that makes Python better than Java when in fact the opposite is true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm glad Python 3.0 has come out, but that's no reason to revive the language war. Every language has it's own strengths, weaknesses, toolkits, frameworks, and developers. Let people use what they want.

<comment><USER12> Some languages have more strengths (or more weaknesses) than others.

If you want to claim that every language is useful and good in its own special way, you may have to accept that COBOL is primarily good at being compatible with old systems based on COBOL, and Pascal is useful mainly for failing to teach computer programming in the 1980s.

<comment><USER13> How did Pascal fail to teach computer programming in the '80's? (While we're at it, how does a programming language teach at all?) My impression is Pascal got replaced by Java in intro to CS courses.

<comment><USER14> How does a programming language teach at all?

Well, it doesn't alone however the concepts that are available in a programming language constrain your thought process. Java/Pascal is much more constraining than something like Oz/Scheme.

<comment><USER13> Teaching languages are stripped down on purpose, so I don't consider that a valid criticism. Pascal was fine for teaching structured programming in its day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The google timeline of "java dead" is kinda funny:

[http://www.google.com/views?q=java+dead+view%3Atimeline&...](http://www.google.com/views?q=java+dead+view%3Atimeline&hl=en)

Looks like it has been dead since 1997, and was most dead in 2003, but not by a whole lot.

<comment><USER16> If you set the time line filter correctly you'll see it is getting deader by the year.

[http://www.google.com/views?q=java+dead+view%3Atimeline&...](http://www.google.com/views?q=java+dead+view%3Atimeline&vwdr=January+1998+-+December+2008&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Drestrict=Set+filter&num=5)

<comment><USER17> That's not really true - this is mostly a reflection of there being more and more internet content every year. For example [foo bar] appears to be growing just as much in popularity.

[http://www.google.com/views?q=foo+bar+view%3Atimeline&vw...](http://www.google.com/views?q=foo+bar+view%3Atimeline&vwdr=January+1998+-+December+2008&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Drestrict=Set+filter&num=5)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Java is still the best programming language for some problems (and I say this as primarily a C++ and Python developer). For some larger-scale projects, performance requirements mean that scripting languages aren't going to cut it. The decision is then between C++ and Java, assuming you are not developing on Windows and you want a reasonably popular language. And between those two, everything you say about how Java sucks is correct, but C++ is arguably worse. In particular the combination of crashes without stack traces and the pain of maintaining separate .c and .h files.

</comment><comment><USER18> Java is "unpopular" with people who follow the hyped languages.

That's in no way the same as it being dead. It's everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER19> What's wrong about backward compatibility. When MS had to make lots of changes to .NET 2.0 and broke pretty much every application that was implemented for .NET 1.0 that was a major turn off, so many people found another excuse dismissing MS. So if MS aren't backward compatibility that's bad, but if Python that's good?

Dead languages are actually good, you can extend them while keeping the core stable and extending them with other flavours (e.g. J2ME, Android, JSP) making them easy be adopted to new uses.

BTW Delphi is the most backward compatibility language that I know,

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm not a Java programmer, at least at the moment. But if what the author writes is accurate about Java keeping all sorts of cruft because Sun doesn't want to break backwards compatibility, then it's interesting to note that one of Java's alleged strengths when it came out was that it kept all the good parts of C and C++, without having to maintain backwards compatibility by keeping the ugly parts.

</comment><comment><USER21> We use jython in our project (thats python implemented in java). For us it has the advantage that it easily coexists with java.

To put it bluntly: it is a mess. Indentation breaks, if you use different editors. It is terrible not to have a compiler, because we discover so many bugs during runtime. Not to speak of typelessness...

Loop performance of jython is a factor of 50 behind java. If the use of jython taught me one thing it is this: Never use a scripting language for a serious project!!! It is alright for interactive debugging (although its better to write unit tests right from the start).

And - breaking backward compatibility is a serious step towards extinction. Its alright for hackers, but not for projects that build on top of a large and growing codebase.

<comment><USER22> Wow. That makes me glad that for my own JVM work I stuck with Kawa Scheme: <http://ourdoings.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I know what's going on behind the scenes, but I still find it funny that an article praising Python just a tiny bit and then bashing Java is surrounded by advertisements for Java books.

</comment><comment><USER24> Java remains is the most popular programming language out there but the number of Java programmers exceeds the number of jobs for available to those Java programmers. That is not true for c++, Python, Ruby. I know because the career center at the university I work for tells me so. The question is: do you what to be a small fish swimming in a shrinking large pond or a big fish swimming in a growing small pong?

</comment><comment><USER25> Oh no, it is dead _again_ !?

</comment><comment><USER26> I think the death of Java is long overdue. It will happen as soon as it loses it corporate backing from Sun (which has its own problems nowadays). Who else can maintain such an ugly beast as the JVM?

A nice point in the article is that many (most?) people that like Java started programming at the time it was created. Younger people think it is too clumsy, older people prefer C or C++. I personally started programming with Pascal and C, and hate the way Java downplays the capacity of its users. C#, although inheriting many of the problems in Java, is a much more interesting and inclusive language.

</comment><comment><USER27> The article misses the point of backward compatibility for java. Consider a company that has desktop (Swing) applications that were written in the 1.2 or 1.3 era. That company can upgrade to 1.6, and use 1.6 applications alongside those 1.3 applications. However, a java that wasn't backwards compatible would either have to keep some way to identify legacy code and run the old JVM, or they would have to force the new language into the backwards compatible JVM, where cruft has also developed.

BTW, I haven't looked at python 3 yet. How have they adapted to two pythons on the system?

</comment><comment><USER28> lol

# "python rocks" Says:

5y ago I switched from Java to C and Python, I've never regretted the decision."

# "Jason" Says:

Congrats… 5y from now you will still be jobless.

</comment><comment><USER29> Orange is dead, long live apple!

</comment><comment><USER29> Orange is dead, long live apple!

</comment><comment><USER30> Please rephrase:

"Java is Dead; Long Live the JVM."

</comment><comment><USER31> Annakin: You mean using this 'Java' and 'C or C++' he could actually . . . command . . . IBM Cell Processors. Bring multi core programming to life?

Chancellor Palpatine: 'Java' and 'C or C++', Annakin, are pathways to many abilities SOME would consider to be . . . UNNATURAL.

Annakin: Is it possible to learn these skills?

Chancellor Palpatine: NOT from a Jedi.

or, if you choose . . .

Annakin: You . . . KNOW 'Java' and 'C'?

Emperor-Imminent Palpatine: If we wish to understand the FULL nature of the coding universe, we must embrace a . . . a LARGER view of hacking Annakin. Not just the DOGMATIC assertions of the Jedi.

Annakin: <Draws his lightsaber> YOU"RE the hacker everyone's been looking for. You represent 'Java'!

Emperor-Imminent Palpatine: Are you going to kill me?

Annakin: I would certainly like to!

Emperor-Imminent Palpatine: Yeeesssss . . . I can FEEL your anger. It gives you FOCUS!

<comment><USER32> I thought this was funny, I'm surprised it was downmoded so much. Granted it isn't as relevant as other high thoughts expressed on news.yc--such as the history of bagels. But... still funny.

<comment><USER33> Y!Hacking is serious business, friends.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Inspired by Snowpocalypse, we created OneSpeedGo last night - <AUTHOR> http://www.onespeedgo.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

I'm a longtime reader and poster. I created this last night with my roommate. We're both developers at Grooveshark and came home to watch the 20/20 interview with Charlie Sheen and thought it was amazing. So we had a good laugh, pulled out our laptops again and put together what we think is a pretty sweet design and brand.

We're not taking this too seriously, but thought it would be a fun experience. We'll get a blog and write up everything if this proves to be more successful than we realize!

<comment><USER2> I'm literally listening to grooveshark at this very moment.

Thank you for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like the name, it's much catchier than some of the other sites jumping on this meme.

On the other hand, is the general HN population okay with this becoming "Hustler News"? I ask this genuinely, as some of the entrepreneurs and investors that I've met have an aversion to make-a-quick-buck or lifestyle businesses.

Thoughts anyone?

<comment><USER4> there's a balance to be struck. just like some people work a day job to fund their side projects or bootstrapped startups, some people are going to need to do a little hustle to help fund their more interesting but less profitable passions.

i don't mind occasionally reading about it, as long as it doesn't fill up the queue and the things that are presented are of good quality and informative.

<comment><USER3> This is pretty much my thought as well. I honestly found some of the writeup, marketing and statistics of the "Snowpocalypse" shirt kind of interesting. I'm all for making a buck, but not sure if the I'm much interested in hearing about this meme/shirt idea anymore. Not to discourage anyone from doing it, just not sure if it's so newsworthy. I do find that domain name an absolute winner (no pun intended), and I'd keep it for some other project in the future if I were the owner.

<comment><USER4> i'm less interested in this link. i'd be more interested in the details behind how this guy got this going, what he's doing, and how well its performing.

<comment><USER5> I agree completely. Without the background writeup, this is just free advertising on HN.

Yes, physcab promises the writeup/postmortem later, _if_ the site proves successful. But in the mean time, leave us alone? In the past week or two I've felt the overall quality of HN take a dive, so I'm feeling a bit defensive at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope you have the license to use his likeness.

<comment><USER7> likeness is ok - for eg. I can take a photo of somebody and sell it for $10.

what would not be ok is a copyright and no permission or license from the owner of the original image, even if it has been altered. see the obama 'hope' image dilemma[1]

the original image in this case is © WENN[2]. op - did you get their permission? The exif[3] of the image has copyright Nikki Nelson / WENN. TinyEye finds it in a few places, and other than a few spammy blogs and forums, most seem like legit online outlets that would license.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues)

[2] [http://www.superiorpics.com/wenn_album/Charlie_Sheen_- _TV_La...](http://www.superiorpics.com/wenn_album/Charlie_Sheen_- _TV_Lawsuit/charlie_sheen_001_041507.jpg)

[3] <http://xrl.us/sheenexif>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Critique: It's not obvious when you click on the shirt size that you're being redirected to PayPal. You need some visual feedback there other than the loading / progress bar in the browser.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wish it wasn't a white shirt. Those get too dirty far too quickly.

</comment><comment><USER10> Just out of interest, who are you outsourcing the work to?

<comment><AUTHOR> My roommate and I created everything last night after watching the 20/20 interview on Hulu. We're both developers at Grooveshark.

<comment><USER11> Not meaning to hijack your post, but thank you for Grooveshark. Changed my life forever since 08.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can anyone fill me in on the meme?

<comment><USER3> It's a reference to Charlie Sheen's recent comments about getting his show cancelled and accusations of problems with addictions and women.</comment></comment>


Personalized Search at eBay - insights on buying and auctions - <AUTHOR> http://www.ebaytechblog.com/2011/10/24/personalized-search-at-ebay/

<comment><USER2> i was a powerseller on ebay but decided to stop logging onto ebay 2007, when meg whitman issued that huge price hike. sorry, bad business decision. why should i use ebay if i could list everything on Craigslist for free? plus with the huge price hike i was losing money.</comment>