Static web – back to the roots? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.callr.tech/static-web-roots/ <comment><USER2> I'm at present working with a client who is on Wordpress. It's a huge company with 100s of employees in just one of their locations and they don't actually have dedicated manpower to maintain their homepage. This is where I got in.

Once I audited their site, I found a ton of issues, particularly - their stale Wordpress version, themes and plugins. I updated them all one by one and migrated them to Wordpress.com which doesn't suffer this upgrading pain.

Then, I found out the theme provider had actually stopped supporting the theme and there were a bunch of security flaws in it. But, the client wanted something like push and forget.

So, I painstakingly migrated them off of Wordpress and made a custom Jekyll site with Jekyll admin running on Netlify. They're immensely happy now knowing that their site is virtually unhackable (it's just a static site).

Static site builders are more powerful than we think. I have a travel platform running on it right now actually and none of the end users know its a static site they're on top of. There's no plugins to manage, no software versions or security loopholes to keep track of. The only way someone can hack into your site if they hacked your identity provider (Eg. Netlify). Otherwise, it's simply just a boon.

<comment><USER3> What about keeping Wordpress under the hood to manage and update the pages, but then generate static pages off that?

<comment><USER4> I tried this last year for a Wordpress blog with ~1000 articles, and the time to generate the static pages was too long (several minutes) even for routine tasks like adding a new article. Simple things like a "New Articles" list in the sidebar can cause all pages to regenerate. I tried many different approaches (recursive wget, wordpress plugins, intercept wordpress output in PHP with ob_start() etc).

Ultimately, putting a Varnish cache seemed like the only logical answer to speed things a bit more, but that didn't avoid Wordpress security attacks.

For fun though, I built an experimental wordpress-clone dashboard that saved Hugo-compatible files instead, so I wouldn't miss Wordpress' editing features. The result was superb (<5 seconds to regenerate the ~1000 articles blog), but I missed the Wordpress plugins too much to switch to Hugo entirely.

But I still agree with you: "keep wordpress' editing experience, but generate static sites" is a pretty promising direction IMO.

<comment><USER5> > I missed the Wordpress plugins too much to switch to Hugo entirely.

Do you mind if I ask which plugins?

Also, if you're missing plugins, it sounds like keeping the wordpress editing experience alone isn't going to be enough. The question then becomes, are you missing plugins themselves or what those specific plugins do for you that doesn't appear to be available in hugo.

<comment><USER6> As someone who does a lot of WP at their day job and has looked into other platforms, plugins like Gravity Forms are indispensable. It is nearly feature complete at this point and I have full access to the underlying code for any customizations in logic or design.

Some hosted form solutions offer features like basic e-commerce which is useful, but then doing something after a submission is almost impossible or everything is in an iframe so customization is limited.

If someone could port gravity forms to Craft, I would likely switch all new projects before the end of this year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's an interesting piece, and lots of good reasons to "go static".

But. They're _developer_ reasons.

What almost everyone who piles into this support of static stuff seems to completely ignore is the _audience_ here.

Who do you think is editing your website? Amy the developer who has no problem committing stuff to Git or learning Markdown or Dave, who is a marketing manager and spends most of his life in Word writing press releases and social media posts?

The entire point of a WYSIWYG editor is that it doesn't require any developer experience.

If you genuinely think a corporate website can be run out of a Git workflow or a requirement to learn Markdown, you're basically in the wrong room. This is the whole "IT bottleneck" that content teams have been battling for years: it's back to the early 90's days of "yeh, we want to update our homepage but we need IT to do it for us".

Somewhere in the middle is the holy grail: performant sites that are also editor friendly.

<comment><USER8> I keep coming back to this: we keep underestimating our coworkers, users, bosses etc.

Even as an engineer people keep on underestimating me (although sometimes they overestimate me : ). Here are some examples:

\- telling accounting a number of times that they've forgotten a rather large PO.

\- telling a network vendor they have a huge hole in their firewall only to be ignored until I contacted one of their huge customers which I also knew. They could have saved themselves a good deal of embarassing attention I guess.

\- etc etc

Last year at JavaZone theee was an interesting talk by someone who was an early employee at a crowd funding company. He was a non-dev but talked about how he enjoyed being able to update copy in the web app (not just front page IIRC) directly after the devs had set up git, an editor and explained the basics.

If you are making the next google you'll want things to be extremely easy-to- use.

Making a google.com level UX for business apps might be smart. Or it might be insulting.

<comment><USER9> I've tried Gatsby on a couple of occasions due to the page load speed promise. With netlify it seemed like using it almost made sense.

I do see the compromises wp puts us into but for me, the benefits of static seem awfully abstract at the end of the day. If you want me to buy it, please show me an authoring experience I actually want to live in. I haven't seen one yet.

It's not about over- our underestimating people. It's about whether the technocentricity you are selling is worth it. For some of us, it is, sure.

For one, I just hate writing with markdown. Compared to WYSIWYG (i.e. just writing), markdown's syntax is a distraction. Writing is both visual and storytelling to me, why should I exclude the visual to a separate stage of the process? Just doesn't make sense to me.

<comment><USER10> _the benefits of static seem awfully abstract at the end of the day. If you want me to buy it, please show me an authoring experience I actually want to live in._

Authoring is about input to the system, static is about how the contents is given to the visitor. There is no technical reason a rich author experience cannot be coupled with a static approach to content delivery.

In fact, the article focuses mostly on page bloat, not so much server-side processing. The amount of bytes a Web page weighs in at should mostly depends on its contents, not on the author tools used to create its content.

<comment><USER9> If these are separate to you:

How would you allow a user, while creating a blog post, to add commenting to the post in a way that enables progressive enhancement i.e. doesn't require javascript, with static site generators?

If you can't, what is your justification for the sacrifice in accessibility?

If you can fulfill this basic requirement, please show me the experience of using the system and show me how it is better than wp _as a whole_.

<comment><USER11> I'd probably put the comments and submission form in an iframe; possibly from a third-party.

<comment><USER9> An iframe is a possibility; the fixed box size is an user experience tradeoff. I really believe in the vision of a read-write web, i.e. for me the default should be all involved parties being able to comment on any given content.

Of course this should be possible to turn off for certain content and moderated, but it still seems artificial to not have the discussion on the same page, compared to the original post. HN is beautiful, for instance. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is a misconception in the article: static websites aren't guaranteed to be small and dynamic websites aren't necessarily big (in size of assets / load times).

Most of the bulk in modern websites comes from JavaScript (frameworks, tracking, ads), images, videos. All these can and are used both with static and dynamic websites.

Static websites may be mostly hassle-free for developers/devops, but they're typically more of a hassle for content producers. I don't see a convincing case for them overall, because one of their bigger advantages - that they are easier to cache (or rather: to keep cacheable when developers add stuff) upstream than dynamic websites - is mostly gone from the web infrastructure.

<comment><USER13> I don't see why they would be more of a hassle. Why would they even care if the HTML is being rendered on demand or pre-rendered and stored?

Regarding cache, I don't agree - having your site cached by the edge nodes of a CDN is quite important nowadays.

<comment><USER12> > _Regarding cache, I don 't agree - having your site cached by the edge nodes > of a CDN is quite important nowadays._

How many of the Alexa top 10K or so have cacheable HTML content (not JS, CSS, images, video) in CDN? Can you provide a few examples?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There was an article yesterday on a french tech web site about a member of parliament asking if there was a way to encourage developers to make less bloated softwares for ecological reasons (less power consumption).

The text was around 5.5ko on a page weighting around 3mo...

Edit : link to the post (in French) [https://www.numerama.com/tech/518848-un- depute-souhaite-que-...](https://www.numerama.com/tech/518848-un-depute- souhaite-que-les-developpeurs-codent-mieux-au-nom-de-lenvironnement.html)

Edit 2 : replaced encline with encourage

<comment><USER15> What does "encline" mean?

<comment><USER14> Strictly nothing in this sentence so I replaced it with encourage. Thanks !

(For the record, the word I wanted to use was incite. I don't know why it pops out that way)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I currently have a static microblog, which is open source [1]. It's generated from a single mark down file with some custom stuff to separate articles. I've been using it for two months and so far I have been able to blog daily [2].

[1] [https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog](https://github.com/john- bokma/tumblelog) [2] [http://plurrrr.com/](http://plurrrr.com/)

<comment><USER17> I tested it and even I am not a fan of mark down I am amazed fast speed,simply customizing colors, nice templates and git pull I replaced Wordpress for this system.. \- for the SEO part looks like it beats Wordpress -JSON is in there also Great job....used on [http://www.werken.nu/blog](http://www.werken.nu/blog)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My current static setup consists of:

* Nginx [1] - Serve the content with some settings, such as compression and HTTPS.

* Pandoc [2] - Builds the HTML pages and throws a header and footer in there, as well as a comments section [3].

* Bash script [4] - Runs in a screen session, polls git for changes, pulls and rebuilds the content, then builds RSS feeds.

Whilst this works for me, I could see how WordPress could be desirable. Some online editor, ability to add "plug-ins" (i.e. some bits somebody else coded), tracking, comments, etc. I think there is space for some static page generation system/script that adds a light weight editor and the ability to add other people's scripts.

[1] [https://www.nginx.com/](https://www.nginx.com/)

[2] [https://pandoc.org/](https://pandoc.org/)

[3] [https://github.com/danielbarry/free- comment](https://github.com/danielbarry/free-comment)

[4] [http://coffeespace.org.uk/projects/site- creation-v2.html](http://coffeespace.org.uk/projects/site-creation-v2.html) & [http://coffeespace.org.uk/projects/rss- feed.html](http://coffeespace.org.uk/projects/rss-feed.html)

<comment> 52-6F-62 I do something close to the same, except each MD post is generated on request so I can update easily if needed. Probably not suitable for anything of demand, but my site isn't!

I wrote a slapdash server in Go, stuck it behind Nginx, and can just add posts ad-hoc. Only requirement is I have to restart the server to rebuild the list of available posts in memory. After that posts can be edited at will. Post metadata comes from a four line header.

Deployment is pretty manual. Just store everything in a repo, pull changes in on the serving machine and run the Go server in TMUX.

No comments or anything, though. And I rarely write anything.

It was mainly an exercise for learning some Go. That may even change yet.

No repos to share yet as it's not presentable but will gladly do the work to share in a gist if anyone's curious.

<comment><USER18> > each MD post is generated on request so I can update easily

> if needed.

You mean each client socket? If so that would be awfully slow for high volume traffic.

> Only requirement is I have to restart the server to

> rebuild the list of available posts in memory.

This seems quite undesirable too, where does this requirement come from?

> pull changes in on the serving machine

Is this manually pulling or do you fetch in a loop?

> will gladly do the work to share in a gist if anyone's

> curious.

I'm certainly curious now to see exactly how this Go program works.

<comment> 52-6F-62 Haha oh man, I was speaking to you from a few versions ago and didn't realize it. I've been so caught up in other projects that I've forgotten some of the changes I've made.

They don't make a ton of difference, but deployments were slightly smoother than I mentioned.

I didn't include directory structure or any views, but I'm sure they can be derived—I wanted it simple. I also used Spectre CSS + overrides for the front so any inline HTML can be assumed to be using classes related to that for any styled elements. There is a couple elements hard-coded into the server itself for the home page.

Definitely not an effort in best practices! But have at it, and happy to hear if you have any input if you're more versed in Go (probable):

[https://gist.github.com/robertfairley/f061df3a6a2fe15d429f82...](https://gist.github.com/robertfairley/f061df3a6a2fe15d429f824a5c38d089)

edit: Also—SSL is handled by Nginx. And god help us all if anybody uses this file as a model for any business web server

<comment><USER18> If it works then it's not silly! Thanks for sharing :)

If I understand it correctly, you build locally and then upload to the server? I have this setup for a few webservers that I have limited control over, so just FTP/POST documents to upload content.

When I have proper control over the server, I much prefer to have the server build the documents. The benefit is that I can simply write a new blog or something from my mobile whilst in a meeting, commit and the server auto- generates the new content. I just need a web browser, GitLab, GitHub and BitBucket all support some form of basic editor for markdown.

Interesting take anyway. My feeling is that I want to do more experimentation on my server and build more "rough and ready" web projects, with the knowledge they will probably fall over more easily and have security flaws. The service goign down is one thing, the entire server being compromised is quite another. I think this points towards introducing some container system. I'll have to learn me some docker.

<comment> 52-6F-62 Yeah you pretty much summed up what I was doing. Fun to learn a new language, make something work to some low expectation I had. And it did/does.

I'll probably try and rewrite in another language again soon. The former version that looked the same was done in Django—but I wanted less overhead.

But yeah, I build locally via that script, but upload all relevant files via `deploy.sh`.

For "rough and ready" projects, I've enjoyed playing with ipkn/crow—I wish it was still maintained. [https://github.com/ipkn/crow](https://github.com/ipkn/crow)

And yeah, your take has been similar to mine. I'm okay with it goes down. But the Django system I ran before I was more susceptible to someone breaking in. This one is pretty well untouchable—which is reassuring.

I can safely as rarely look at or update it as necessary without worry—and I appreciate the opportunity to be humbled if I'm wrong!

Also yeah—my current setup would also be made smoother by docker, I was _way_ too lazy to dig into it as I don't use it often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For static site generators:

[https://github.com/pinceladasdaweb/Static-Site- Generators](https://github.com/pinceladasdaweb/Static-Site-Generators)

[https://staticsitegenerators.net/](https://staticsitegenerators.net/)

I keep all my resources for working with GitHub Pages, here:

[https://infominer.id/web-work/github-pages-starter- pack/](https://infominer.id/web-work/github-pages-starter-pack/)

and am most familiar with GitHub facilitated Jekyll:

[https://github.com/planetjekyll/awesome- jekyll](https://github.com/planetjekyll/awesome-jekyll)

MkDocs makes really nice pages that don't require fussing around with frontmatter, with auto generated navigation based on directory structure.

It also opens your publishing toolkit to python's universe of markdown related extensions, which you may already be familiar with.

[https://www.mkdocs.org/](https://www.mkdocs.org/)

</comment><comment><USER20> I think this is a reasonable thing to do. For Dercuano, I hacked together a basic static site generator in Python 2 in a weekend (70% of the current static site generator code dates from the first three days, according to git blame); I've spent more time hacking on the CSS than on the Python, and immensely more time writing the text than either.

In case it's useful to someone else, as inspiration if nothing else, it's at [https://gitlab.com/kragen/dercuano](https://gitlab.com/kragen/dercuano), in the public domain. The latest version of the output is at [http://canonical.org/~kragen/dercuano-20190525.tar.gz](http://canonical.org/~kragen/dercuano-20190525.tar.gz).

<comment><USER16> Why Python 2 if I may ask?

I wrote my static site generator in Python 3.7 by manually translating the Perl version I had written earlier. Both are available at github [https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog](https://github.com/john- bokma/tumblelog)

Example of this set up: [http://plurrrr.com/](http://plurrrr.com/)

<comment><USER20> No real reason for using Python 2 — it was just an expedient choice in the moment.

Amusingly, your tumblelog.py is about the same size as dercuano.py, while the intersection of features is almost exactly empty. We managed to do even the most basic things differently — for example, yours reads a single long file with % lines separating the entries (like a fortune file!) and produces a passel of output files, while mine reads a passel of input files and produces a single multi-megabyte output file. This diversity of choices perhaps demonstrates the need for experimentation to see what works best for different people and in different circumstances. (Or it could just mean I'm insane.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > WordPress was one of the most visible early proponent of WYSIWYG, but others > joined.

I added inline editing to Surreal CMS back in 2013, but obviously it's not a well-known brand (the keyword is "visible" I guess).

People love inline editing, especially non-devs. When you abstract content into forms or markdown you often end up with results that look different from what you intended. I get feedback from new users weekly about how easy inline editing is for them.

Fortunately, TinyMCE, CKEditor, ProseMirror, et al all support it and the trend is finally shifting. But as a developer, I can attest that inline editing isn't easy to get right — even when the underlying lib supports it.

I suspect that's why we still see forms for content in CMSs.

</comment><comment><USER22> Aren't static pages similar to a cache ?

Wouldn't you obtain the same benefits while still keeping Wordpress if you would use something like Varnish[1] or CloudFlare Edge cache[2] ?

[1] [https://www.varnish- software.com/wiki/content/tutorials/word...](https://www.varnish- software.com/wiki/content/tutorials/wordpress/index.html)

[2] [https://wordpress.org/plugins/cloudflare-page- cache/](https://wordpress.org/plugins/cloudflare-page-cache/)

<comment><USER23> Static website is a controlled cache to the extreme, when you prepopulate cache when you create the content.

Benefits on top of regular cache:

\+ maintenance cost: you need to upgrade wordpress, why my static website doesn't require any work over years

\+ security: small vulnerability surface

\+ cost: hosting even popular static website is cheap

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Agree. Hugo is a great tool for static sites, and GitLab offers free pipelines for the conversion and SSL with Let's Encrypt. Don't forget to gzip your content as the final step.

</comment><comment><USER25> What I love best is that you don't need much to get started with generating a static web site, and you can be confident that once you deploy you don't have to worry that much about security or other production issues.

This greatly lowers the bar for entry, and I was doing this back in the 90s with Microsoft Access 95 and VBA for my school's website.

</comment><comment><USER8> Bonus:

If you write plain, valid HTML your site will just work across all mainstream browsers and it will probably work reasonably wrt accessibility as well, -out of the box.

It will also be reasonbly fast. You might be able to eke out more performance from a site that has a lot of interaction but I'd not take that for granted.

</comment><comment><USER26> All I want in life (as far as web authoring goes) is a wysiwyg editor for static html that creates fairly clean code and can provide responsive templates.

I just want to type text and drop images in and see it in real time, and then I would like to be able to define one or more areas on a page that contain dynamic content.

That dynamic content can be served up when visitors reach the site, or can be compiled by the static site generator periodically, I really don't care about that step.

I don't want to abstract "templates" from content. I don't want to abstract anything. I just want to type and drop in other media without extra steps.

Why does this not exist? Am I supposed to be using Dreamweaver? I just don't get why all these other solutions are so disjointed.

Edit: Maybe I want to be using blocs

<comment><USER27> I've recently purchased a license for Bootstrapstudio for $60 and I want to send a vote of confidence. Does exactly what you're describing. I wish they had a bit more integration for templates for webapps but you can only do so much at the end of the day.

There are similar other offerings (one that comes to mind is reactstudio, but has a bit more going on there with code and flow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> the biggest problem with JAMStack (everything including Gatsby, Jekyll, Hugo, etc) is that there is no single place with a nice source code repo, CMS system _and_ hosting.

Basically, to get your JamStack to work - you need to use Github + Github hooks -> Contentful/Cosmicjs -> Netlify.

I believe this is a missing and a killer product. People think "oh why reinvent Github". But a business guy who wants a fast website does not know what github is - he/she just need a single place to do everything.

the workflow that would work is - upload my code to dashboard (using git/FTP upload). Write content in CMS and see the website change within a few seconds. Reupload new code, and the website changes within a few seconds.

<comment> huy-nguyen You should check out Gatsby Preview which is currently in some sort of limited public beta. [https://www.gatsbyjs.org/blog/2018-07-17-announcing- gatsby-p...](https://www.gatsbyjs.org/blog/2018-07-17-announcing-gatsby- preview/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I hate WYSIWYG (although I am not trying to prohibit anyone from writing/using them if they want to, only to say that you should not be forced to use WYSIWYG), but certainly for a lot of stuff, static web pages (especially if do not require script and a lot of other external resources) would be helpful, and sometimes gopher would do better, too. (Use of other protocols is also sometimes helpful for non-static stuff too, such as telnet/SSH for interactive sessions, or remote virtual table protocol (or maybe a better protocol and implementation can be made up), for remote database queries.)

</comment><comment><USER30> Static web is fine for some use cases.

For an admin dashboard, static web is stupid.

<comment><USER31> Static is perfect for an admin dashboard since it doesn't have SEO requirements.

Static doesn't mean there isn't any dynamic content is just means the assets are static files that can be cached both server and client side. Dynamic content can be fetched by the client, it doesn't need to be fetched and delivered by the server.

<comment><USER32> I guess that's one definition of static webpage. My understanding was that static webpages are static. Meaning it has no dynamic content and that everyone accessing the static page sees the same thing.

If dynamic content is client side driven, it wouldn't be "static" as each client could see a different page.

For example, even if you your webpage just displayed the client side time, it would be dynamic since people in different time zones will see a different time regardless of the time being generated on the client side.

Whether it is a static class or a static webpage, static has a well established meaning in the CS world. But I haven't done web development since college and it is possible the meaning of static webpage has changed as technology changes.

<comment><USER31> Static is a term to describe the assets that are delivered to the client. It means every user is delivered the same assets which means the server doesn't have to do any logic. The assets can be delivered from a CDN and cached on the client indefinitely.

Sending every user `document.write(new Date());` is static because its identical for everyone. The fact each user sees something different is completely irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> but sometimes you legit need dynamic capabilities. I'm now pondering about selling a few items through my website(built with Hugo). But, how? So, I'm stepping into Wordpress realm because that's where the payment processing stuff are.

Anyone here know/have done a shopping website built with Hugo and a simple third party service for payment processing?

<comment><USER34> I currently run a static website with a shop using Shopify's JavaScript SDK. All the benefits of Shopify's excellent backend and admin interface while still using a performant website that can be designed however I please.

Another option is Snipcart, which explicitely works as a drop-in shop for _any_ website[2].

[1] [https://shopify.github.io/js-buy-sdk/](https://shopify.github.io/js-buy- sdk/)

[2] [https://snipcart.com/](https://snipcart.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> What I understand: the most used solution, Wordpress, is an attractive market but has a slow UI and experience, please consider using my markdown solution which I positioned in a different page than this article.

</comment><comment><USER36> The main issue I have with static sites is that publishing from mobile isn't simple. That said I also have this issue with WordPress, so I'm using Known now

<comment><USER37> I checked out Known and it looks quite interesting. Surprised I'd never heard of it. How are you liking it? Is it well maintained/frequent releases?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Disable Javascript and you too can surf the WWW like it's the 1990s!

</comment><comment><USER39> Admittedly just bikeshedding, but the author is using a blockquote tag instead of an h2/h3 right under the h1 title for the summary of the article. Makes me think he probably doesn't have that firm of a grasp on the fundamentals of semantical HTML and markdown, let alone web development in general.

This is, by the way, something I see a lot out in the wild, especially in Medium articles but also in READMEs on GitHub. Please stop using blockquote tags for emphasis purposes.

<comment><USER13> The lede is not a heading, why should the author use an <h*>?

<comment><USER39> I see your point, an h* would probably also be inappropriate. What would you use? Just a normal p tag with some styling?

<comment><USER40> `role="heading"`?

<comment><USER41> no, that's the same as <hX>

I'd probably go with just a styled text, maybe with an aria-label.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: Whats the Best Shared Hosting around? - <AUTHOR>

Currently, I can't afford a dedicated or a Virtual Dedicated box, but I need something to speed up my site.
I currently host with Godaddy and over all during peak times they just seem slow to me.
I would like to speed it up a bit.  What do you suggest?
P.S. - I require a windows box. <comment><USER2> I had a good experience with DiscountAsp.Net. However, if your site gets a lot of traffic or if you want extras, I think it could get pretty expensive. You need to pay extra for subdomains, domain aliases/pointers, or additional sites. Disk space is only 1000 MB and bandwidth is 80 GB for the base plan.

They have a bunch of 3rd-party extensions that is included in the hosting plan but if you leave DiscountAsp, you will need to get licenses for these extensions yourself.

I have since moved to Mosso. Great service though a little expensive ($100 a month + $5 SQL Server db). I can host several web sites though under 1 account.

</comment><comment><USER3> I see that you've added you need a windows box, but the best shared host around is Dreamhost by a long shot (however, they do linux only I think). Shell access, svn, etc. No other shared host comes close IMO.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have hostgator accounts and MediaTemple accounts

MediaTemple is the best host I've ever used (and I've been through many hosts in the past 9 years) although hostgator is a close second.

</comment><comment><USER5> Well I use dreamhost.com but not sure if it's the best. I used to be on mosso but too much downtime and too expensive.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hostgator, though it's Windows Hosting is coming soon.</comment>


A comparison between funding education in Nordic countries and the USA - <AUTHOR> http://www.tickld.com/x/wtf-is-wrong-is-wrong-with-americans-this-guy-nails-it <comment><USER2> As a professional liberal, it pains me to have to do this. But since nobody else is, here's the conservative take. Because, seriously, there are real debates about this stuff.

Imaginary Cato institute position: "Leaving higher education to the free market is always more efficient. People naturally make the most rational economic decisions in their journey to achieve maximum happiness. Government interventions, such as confiscating money through the threat of violence (this is what they call taxes) to support free higher education will always distort this market, leading to inefficiencies on the path to maximum happiness. Governments are incompetent and inefficient because of the lack of market incentives, while markets are ruthlessly efficient."

Imaginary Mitt Romney position: The financial support I have received from for-profit colleges is immense. Seriously, those places basically print money. We need more of them.

Real Heritage Foundation positions:

[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/ways-to- mak...](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/ways-to-make-higher- education-more-affordable)

[http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/10/the-assault-on-for- profi...](http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/10/the-assault-on-for-profit- universities/)

I really do agree with the above comic strip. But liberals like me don't operate on a vacuum. Donate some money to us, you rich silicon valley types.

<comment><USER3> The "liberal-free market" education isn't

Distortion n.1: offering student loans. "Ah but the unprivileged don't have the resources to go to school!" Then give scholarships. Or cap limit student loans (to 10k for example), yes, to a lower number.

Distortion n.2: fscking textbooks. Really, if I'm paying an absurd amount for tuition, _everything needed should be included_. Nowhere else in the _world_ people are made to buy scantrons for example.

Distortion n.3: people shooting for "the best schools". I understand the connections a good school offers, etc but 1) courses can only go so far (even STEM courses), 2) after around 5 years of professional experience your education becomes less and less important

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh can we _not_ discuss fairly complex issues in comic strip form? I've yet to see one that doesn't automatically qualify for r/bad{history,economics,philosophy,etc} (I'm looking at you, The Oatmeal)

<comment><AUTHOR> By all means, let's have 45 submissions about Apple bidding for Beats, and let's have "The future of Unreal Tournament begins today" at number 1 for 12 hours, getting over 700 up-votes and nearly 140 comments, but let's not discuss the present situation with regards education.

I get it now - HN is not a place to have an intelligent discussion about things that affect the future, it really is a place for people to discuss technology that really matters.

<comment><USER4> Oh, I'm fine with the discussion. But please, there is better starting point than this shit. "your rich own most of your politicians", "a nation hurtling towards decline" are hardly things that can be stated without justification, and I doubt even Fox News would put them in the "fair and balanced" column. Hell, where was the panel comparing the quality of American and Scandinavian universities: of the top 10 universities, as ranked by QS, 6 are American, a not insignificant fact. And I wouldn't mention it had the author not picked the region out for special treatment, but the top university in a Scandinavian country is ranked 45 on that list.

The comic also assumes that the fact that schools in the US are not free automatically leads to the absence of "an educated population [which] equals a strong, steady state ready for the future", which I don't think can be taken to be true without evidence. Ha, most of the things he states can't be taken to be true without evidence, which is so conveniently missing. Regardless, this comic is shit.

So sure, we can talk about this stuff. But can we have a source not so blatantly targeted at the lowest denominator of the left next time, please?

<comment><AUTHOR> I seriously wish you'd given a useful, content-full and considered response like this in the first instance, rather than just dismissing it. Then there could have been a discussion that dissected the source, rather than ignoring it. We could then have had a resource at which to point people who nod sagely and re-tweet thoughtlessly.

Too late, now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Free education is not only in the Nordic countries and it is also in a lot of countries in Europe.

Also a few countries also offer education for really small fee.

But I definitely agree with this comic strip.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's hard to compare Nordic countries to U.S. because they are small. Take Notch. If he sells a billion bucks worth of minecraft to American schoolchildren and pays taxes on that in Sweden - that can be a substantial boost to Swedish coffers. Americans can't very well raise enough revenue by exporting to Sweden.

<comment><USER7> I'm reminded of this purported exchange:

 _A Scandinavian economist once stated to Milton Friedman: "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." Indeed, the poverty rate for Americans with Swedish ancestry is only 6.7%, half the U.S average. Economists Geranda Notten and Chris de Neubourg have calculated the poverty rate in Sweden using the American poverty threshold, finding it to be an identical 6.7%._

[http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a- false...](http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a-false-utopia)

Anyway, I look forward to this falling off the front page ASAP.

<comment><USER8> Maybe because they were all well educated?</comment></comment></comment>


Tips from the Pragmatic Programmer (2000) - <AUTHOR> https://pragprog.com/the-pragmatic-programmer/extracts/tips <comment><USER2> _" DRY—Don't Repeat Yourself Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system."_

Always good to revisit original phrasings of things. I think the catchiness of the lower-information acronym did this one a disservice. I find myself explaining with some regularity that repetition of code is not _necessarily_ repetition of ideas, and if I have `f(x, g(y), h(z))` both here and there _but for different reasons_ then it's introducing artificial coupling to break it out into a single function. The focus, in the longer expression, on _knowledge_ is exactly right. DRY isn't a call for "Huffman coding".

<comment><USER3> I like DRY and generally I'm the sort of person who's always spinning off chunks of code into their own functions, classes, modules, etc. and almost always hating anywhere I have duplicated code.

That said, I think DRY can sometimes lead people astray. One problem is that the boiled down concept of "DRY" has nothing to say about _quality_. Reusing bad code can often be much, much worse than the alternative. Sometimes it's critical to "sunset" code that is "working" because it's not good code, and it would take too much to make it good. Then tie any new attempt to reuse that functionality to an effort to create a better replacement. If instead people think "oh hey, this exists already and it sorta works, whelp, better be DRY!" then they can turn a small problem of bad code into a big problem of horrible code that becomes even less maintainable and more of an effort sink as it acquires little patches and fixes to add support to all the new stuff using it, and as it becomes more and more indispensable and costly to replace. Whereas if the first person deciding to be aggressively DRY had looked at the code and instead said "this is garbage, I'm writing my own better thing" then maybe everyone else coming along later would have ended up using the better replacement and over time it would have become trivial to migrate the one usage of the original to the better version.

The mental model I've started to adopt is instead one around "littering". Basically: don't create garbage code, and don't use it. Garbage code is code that has future cleanup inherently attached to it. Repeated code can be garbage code because there's inherently either deduplication work or duplication of fixing/redesign/adaptation work attached to it, it's basically like littering in the code base. But by the same token you don't solve that problem by finding a use for garbage, you still have future cleanup and bug fixing work attached to the code, only now it's worse because it has different use cases to support and higher consequences if it breaks.

<comment><USER4> As some have put it: "duplication is preferred to the wrong abstraction".

<comment><USER2> I think that agrees very much with my comment, but is sort of orthogonal to the comment above - which I think would recommend reimplementing even the right abstraction if the existing implementation is sufficiently poor.

<comment><USER5> One way I've always heard it referred to is: refactor the code so your task is easy to do. If making a new abstraction does that (just had this happen last week for me) then so be it.

<comment><USER2> I think that is incomplete. One should be aware of what other tasks a refactor is making more difficult or more error prone; it is not purely a matter of whether it makes the current task easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Provide Options, Don't Make Lame Excuses

This has helped my career more than any other single piece of advice. The critical mindset of the engineer can quickly lead to cynicism (especially when faced with bureaucracy). Don't get me wrong; cynics make great advisors. But the money is in solving problems, not (merely) pointing them out.

<comment><USER7> I like to put it this way: look for solutions, not problems. Many programmers spend their effort on figuring out why something can't work, rather than how it could work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I haven't found a better source of software engineering knowledge than this book combined with _Code Complete_.

<comment><USER9> Check out Leo Brodie's "Thinking Forth"

I read both The Pragmatic Programmer and Code Complete (2ed) before Thinking Forth. The latter provides a wonderful software engineering foundation (in clearer, more concise language too).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Use a Single Editor Well

This seems impossible to me, although I agree that it would be an extremely useful practice. I mainly develop Java and Swift, and both languages are extremely dependent on using an IDE. I honestly don't see how I would ever be able to use only a single editor across all the languages I use, even though Jetbrains seems to be trying their hardest to make that possible. (Unfortunately I don't think AppCode is quite there yet.)

Even using the same tools across operating systems causes issues: Using IntelliJ on MacOS at work has entirely different keybindings than on Linux, because MacOS doesn't monopolize the Super/Command key so heavily.

...Or is this just referring to things like having Vim bindings across all your editors? That seems much more doable.

<comment><USER11> In the case of Java, while the IDE systems are good, the last time I used Java I decided to do it within an editor and use CLI scripts for building and packaging, and enjoyed it much more than any Java IDE in past experience. It made me feel more productive, anecdotally.

Mind you most of my prior Java experience was 2007-2010, and the last time with the editor + CLI was in 2014, and just with a fun example. The editor + CLI workflow was still solid and similar to Node or Python workflow in that regard.

<comment><USER10> How did you handle things like import statements? That's really the biggest thing for me: if I'm working in a large project, I don't want to have to think about what package some really obscure utility is before using it.

Losing Shift+F6 refactoring is a little annoying, but definitely not something that makes programming Java impossible. Autocomplete might get a little hairy as well if you're referring to classes that exist in Jar files too, or am I wrong about this?

As for everything else, using the CLI for source control and building is something I do anyways, even when using an IDE. At least with Gradle, that is. As long as some of those issues have solutions, though, I think this might be possible. Maybe I'll have look into it a bit more.

<comment><USER12> Decent Java IDEs handle import statements automatically. (And can also organize them for you)

Many people don't like Eclipse but I find the Java-oriented distribution it pretty decent for an IDE. Auto-complete is handled well, and searching through classes/types is also easy. (Knowing the shortcut keys helps)

As for imports, when you start typing a class name that isn't currently imported or in scope, you can use auto-complete to select which one you want. There may be multiple matches from multiple packages if you are searching for a class name of `Result`, so you can select the `org.foo.someframework.Result` and the IDE will add the import statements for you.

In general, I haven't really had much trouble with Java and an IDE, even in large projects with a huge number of dependencies.

I haven't really tried IntelliJ but from the feedback I've heard, it's a great IDE as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "select" Isn't Broken

So - this one I have mixed feelings about. It is normally true. But you could have genuinely hit upon a bug. Granted it is much easier to investigate and prove with open source today.

14 odd years ago I was working on HP-UX & C applications. One of the signal commands caused things to crash. I finally figured out the test that could cause it to crash. Now HP support seemed to think I was crazy for asking me to debug their code. I took me ages to get them to understand - that the OS was their code and not mine.

Well, either way, they got a tier-3 OS support person involved who collected data, confirmed the bug and provided a fix.

The point is - it may very well be a platform bug. That is code too. It just shouldn't be your first (or may be even second or third conclusion) and you should have a unit test to exercise the bug.

<comment><USER14> When I was a fresh junior programmer (a few years before the book was written), making my first independently designed and significant change to the system I worked on, I tripped over a "select is broken" kind of bug - specifically, mmap() was broken on AIX 3.2.5, in certain cases. It was weird and wonderful, because my code worked in the test environment, but not the production environment.

The response of the senior engineers was "What's _really_ wrong with your code?" Ultimately, I was able to prove an OS bug with IBM, but it required extraordinary proof.

And you know what? If some smart junior programmer came to me and said "I think there's a bug with a low-level OS call", my response would be "What's _really_ wrong with your code?" As it should be. Heck, if a lead engineer said that, I'd have the same response. If _I_ said it, that would be my response to myself.

That's because select is very rarely broken. The exceptions just prove the rule.

<comment><USER15> I ran across a bug in the JDK when I was an intern and spent 2 weeks documenting and demonstrating that it was in fact a bug in Java not in my code. :D funniest thing was I got to pull an I told you so on my professor who claimed we would NEVER run into a bug in the JDK and to just try to figure out what we did wrong.

<comment><USER14> Yep. And if an intern of yours came to you and said "I think I found a bug in the JDK", you'd probably say "What's _really_ wrong with your code?", wouldn't you?

<comment><USER16> But if you're smart, you'd ask him to show you the bug.

<comment><USER14> If she thinks she found a "select is broken", she needs to write a test to exercise the behavior, independently of our existing code base. That's how I chased down the mmap() bug - I wrote a program that showed the bug on the prod servers but not the test servers, and sent the C code and the executable I compiled off to IBM for analysis. (It was a charming bug, btw... it would randomly overwrite pages of memory with nulls, maybe 10% of the time)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I read that book when it first came out back in 1999 or so. It was the first "software engineering" book that actually felt sensible to my pragmatist mind. I still quote "tracer bullets", "boiling frogs", and "select isn't broken" liberally.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is one of my favorite books about software development. I read it early in my career, and it was a big influence on me (for example, motivating me to learn Python).

One thing I've always thought ironic is how much nicer the typography and design is in this book, which was published by Addison-Wesley, than the books the Pragmatic Press publishes. And don't even get me started on Pragmatic's embarrassing covers.

<comment><USER16> What's wrong with their covers? [https://pragprog.com/titles?f[sort_by]=pubdate&f[category]=a...](https://pragprog.com/titles?f\[sort_by\]=pubdate&f\[category\]=all&f\[skill_level\]=All&f\[title_contains\]=)

<comment><USER17> It looks like they did a Google image search for whatever the subject of the book is, and slap the first thing they find on the cover.

Example: The Agile Samurai [https://imagery.pragprog.com/products/176/jtrap.jpg?12985898...](https://imagery.pragprog.com/products/176/jtrap.jpg?1298589898)

Dart 1 For Everyone is even better. [https://imagery.pragprog.com/products/432/csdart1.jpg?140865...](https://imagery.pragprog.com/products/432/csdart1.jpg?1408653364)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _" Use Tracer Bullets to Find the Target

Tracer bullets let you home in on your target by trying things and seeing how close they land."_

All the other tips I appreciate but _embarrassingly_ I have hard time with the analogy on this one (besides the bullet reference). I mean I think I get it but I can't figure out how it maps to anything I have done. I would say it is like a "software spike" [1] but somehow the analogy description doesn't fit.

Maybe someone has a real world example?

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_(software_development)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_\(software_development\))

<comment><USER19> I work with a customer who is notorious for not defining requirements. Their culture is that everyone is either too busy or not knowledgeable enough of all the working parts of a system to define requirements. It's a culture problem over there.

The tool I work on generates reports. Rather than defining requirements for reports, the only way to make progress is to understand their general needs through conversation, then provide them a draft report - your best guess. They tell you what to change or what they don't want, then you make changes and provide another draft. When enough tracer bullets are shot, you arrive at the report they actually need.

<comment><USER20> Aren't at this point you doing the job of two people? I have a coworker who would say this when the requirements are well defined. He would say its our job to build the requirements that are given to us. Our job is not to create / define a product. He would often follow this up by saying our company is worth X Billions of dollars, they can afford to hire a Business Analyst/ Better Product Manager.

Personally I don't agree with this. It goes against my core beliefs to make something that I don't believe is good for the end user. I have a hard time however coming up with arguments on why we should as a developer spend our time creating basically a product plan.

<comment><USER21> I understand how you feel. You are being hired to solve problems, and figuring out what to solve is a key part of the job. Solving problems is your aim, writing code is only helpful if it solves the problem. I love the days where I get into the office someone ask me streamline something, and all that really is required is a whiteboard, some pens and no code ever. Solving the urgent business issue at a cost of 30 minutes talking and 5 dollars of pens ;)

Hiding developers behind analysts and product managers makes everyones job less fun.

In my first job we had analysts, product managers, user councils making specifications. Specifications that where terrible and the developers in the team would have loved to do this iterative design with the end users, because the software would have been better fit for use. For me that was a soul sucking experience. Much better to be able to understand why the software needs to exist and how to make it good for users and the organisation (not always 1:1 mapping either)

Wanting perfect specs is a good way to limit your career as a developer. Because that way you will never be more than a glorified type writer with a analyst to hold your hand. Solving the whole business problem from start to end is the way to grow professionally.

Also perfect specs are impossible :( so iterating with your users is the fast way to good enough for business applications.

If you want perfect specs write sudoko solvers...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Great round-up of tips from the book! A co-founder ( _was also CTO_ ) of a startup I used to work for recommended I read this book while I was still developing my skills, and I cannot thank him enough. This book changed the way I approached programming problems, and was an incredible influence on me. I wish I had read it sooner in my career. I now always recommend it to any developer still getting started, or even to senior developers who haven't read the book yet. I have nothing but great things to say about this book!

</comment><comment><USER23> Wow, I can't believe The Pragmatic Programmer dates back to 1999 — seems like I read it just yesterday!

<comment><USER14> It's a timeless book. I read it and Kent Beck's _Extreme Programming Explained_ at around the same time, and they completely changed my way of thinking about software development. The only other book that shook my foundations so hard was the classic K&R _The C Programming Language_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is one of the few programming books I've read from front to back. It's full of so much good stuff, I've been meaning to read through it again.

Can anyone comment whether Programming Pearls is as good?

<comment><USER25> It definitely complements TPP. For me, Pragmatic Programmer was a better bed time book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> That page has some impressive reverse-adblocking. I was somehow redirected to a no-Javascript page despite having all Javascript from the site blocked (including pragprog.com), and it looks like they only show content if you specifically enable their advertising servers.

I don't know if adwalling is a term or not (analogous to paywalling), but here's what's probably the same content without Javascript and ads:

[http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/lieber/courses/csg110/sp08/Pragm...](http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/lieber/courses/csg110/sp08/Pragmatic%20Quick%20Reference.htm)

<comment><USER27> It is very simple and very annoying:

          <noscript>
            <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="2;url=https://pragprog.com/no_js">
          </noscript>

Disabling autorefresh on Firefox: [http://lifehacker.com/5321420/disable- automatic-web-page-ref...](http://lifehacker.com/5321420/disable-automatic- web-page-refreshing)</comment></comment>


IAmA theoretical physicist. Ask me anything (via reddit) - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/cba5t/iama_theoretical_physicist_ama/ <comment><USER2> I stopped reading after it appeared he was advocating collapse theory. About the only non-confusing quantum mechanics I've read so far that's been light on math has been Feynman's stuff like QED and this series: <http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/>

On a meta-note, I don't really think this is anything but noise. If you want to really, really understand the physics, you have to do the math, and if you just want a high-level concept I don't see how in the space of a single reddit post you could take away loads of confusion or adequately explain a concept without cheating the person. Here's Feynman's take on magnets (really, on answering 'why' questions): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM>

<comment><USER3> Check out Dirac's classic 'The Principles of Quantum Mechanics':

[http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics- Internati...](http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics- International- Monographs/dp/0198520115/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275651696&sr=8-3)

I was shocked how much clearer (and more useful) the exposition is compared to textbooks.

<comment><USER4> I strongly second this recommendation, but it's not exactly "light on math". It's light on calculations, but you need to have had some contact at the very least with linear algebra and calculus. Now that I think about it, that probably makes it a perfect book for software engineers, who know the mathematical concepts from studying computer science, but have not much experience actually doing calculations, so typical QM textbooks may be off- putting for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's no relevant physics without mathematics, one has to work out the math before trying to answer the 'why' questions. There are no short cuts. (Note: I'm also a theoretical physicist :) )

<comment><USER6> The math follows from the basic assumptions made about nature. Assume translational, rotational and time invariance, add the finite speed of light and some less obvious assumptions and all of classical physics (for those non- phycisists: this includes special and general relativity) follows.

Assume charged fundamental particles and EM follows. Assume quantized fundamental units and quantum mechanics follows. Lots of relevant physics can be described and shown with hardly any mathematics at all.

The idea that nature is mathematical in essence is a notion that primarily physicists entertain. They mistake intelligence for knowledge and philosophers, that have actual _knowledge_ of the philosophical problems involved, know better. The idea that nature is mathematical in essence, and that we have discovered this fundamental essence, is both hubris and usually utterly devoid of any philosophical sophistication.

<comment><USER5> You could invert the phrase and still make a lot of sense: 'Nature follows from the basic mathematical assumptions.'

But you are quite right: Philosophers know better, could know...

<comment><USER6> _You could invert the phrase and still make a lot of sense: 'Nature follows from the basic mathematical assumptions._

It's not just that. It's also that a lot of physics can readily be explained and understood without mathematics. It's just that with mathematics, it's easier to demonstrate the consequences. It's important to remember that Einstein got at relativity by understanding the right assumption to be made.

Just to be clear on this: I fully agree that in advanced physics, you sometimes you have to blindly 'do the math' and can determine the physical interpretation of the result only afterwards. However, that doesn't mean that there _is_ no physics without mathematics, it doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of physics that can be understood without mathematics and it certainly doesn't mean nature is mathematical in essence. Hell, it isn't even physical in essence, unless you can reduce our minds to physics.

The notion that 'nature is mathematical in essence' is not logically seperated from assumptions about the object/subject and mind/matter dualities (and about whether they are dualities in the first place) that I doubt most of the phycisists espousing these notions are willing to support, because they are rather incompatible with other parts of their worldview.

<comment><USER7> I like what you say, but I am conflicted. As I understood it, math is the language that physics uses for us to understand/manipulate reality. Just as one understand "coffee" without the word coffee, one can understand projectile motion without understanding derivatives -- however in the absence of a language to describe it, the concept remains difficult to build upon.

I do not understand about it not being logically separated from assumptions about dualities (Platonic forms?) and their respective worldview. Could you explain more please.

<comment><USER8> Some guy by the name of Hartry Field claims to have successfully generated a logical axiomitization of Newtonian mechanics, without using math, only qualitative concepts like "betweenness."[1] Math can extend this model and is consistent with it, but it's not necessary in principle. Of course, this does not mean that you don't need math in practice, in the same way that continuations are the only control structure you need in principle but in practice you use loops and function calls and switches or whatever. What it does mean, from a philosophical view, is that math isn't necessary the quintessential 'language of the universe' that we thought it was.

As far as advanced mathematical physics goes, our problem is that we stop being able to easily understand what the math represents when you go deep enough. A first derivative is understandable as velocity, the second as acceleration, and multiplying that by mass to get force has some intuitive notion. If you look in the middle of a bunch of scribblings, it's possible to put the equation into words and it will make sense and have a physical interpretation. Special relativity and the beginnings of quantum mechanics came about because we had intuitive concepts, and were able to fit math around them. In modern physics, the math has come first, and the intuition later or not at all. Quantum phenomena still have competing interpretations (probability fields, many-worlds), which may not even be mutually exclusive. Once we figure out what in the hell is going on, the math _may_ prove to be unnecessary, but right now the math is all we have to go on, and we sort of have to treat it like a literal truth in order to get anything done.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Ficti...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Fictionalism)

<comment><USER7> Thanks. This is kinda difficult to wrap my head around though. I found this passage interesting:

"By this account, there are no metaphysical or epistemological problems special to mathematics. The only worries left are the general worries about non-mathematical physics, and about fiction in general. Field's approach has been very influential, but is widely rejected. This is in part because of the requirement of strong fragments of second-order logic to carry out his reduction, and because the statement of conservativity seems to require quantification over abstract models or deductions."

I will admit that I have a problem when fictionalism requires that we regard "2 + 2 = 4" as false (also from wikipedia). All in all an interesting idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There should be more people like him/her who are willing to put time in answering questions about their specialty, although some may be unexplainable to the general public. For another excellent example of such a guy, see Terence Tao.

<comment><USER10> +1 for Tao

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Help me with a thought experiment. What do you think the result would be if a target, heated by the National Ignition Facility were to encounter a partical stream from 2 sides such as provided by the LHC.

</comment><comment><USER11> Help me with a thought experiment. What do you think the result would be if a target, heated by the National Ignition Facility were to encounter a partical stream from 2 sides such as provided by the LHC.

</comment><comment><USER12> Whoa this is long!

</comment><comment><USER13> When did you start actively pursuing you goal? Do you think someone less exposed to science and math in particular can achieve the same level as you?</comment>


Get Up Early - <AUTHOR> http://www.two-shay.com/articles/getting-up-early

<comment><USER2> I've always been an early riser. Not because I had to, but because I want to.

What I do is simple: I go to sleep when I'm tired. Then my body wakes me up when I'm not tired. (Okay, occasionally the alarm wakes me up. But I usually wake up before the alarm.)

Our body has natural cycles, so these times change over the course of a month. Sometimes I stay up later, sometimes I go to bed early. But always when my body tells me it's time.

I also don't drink caffeine at all.

I don't have any of the usual morning problems.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not sure if that article is some kind of joke, but if not, it offers some supporting evidence for this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1909903></comment>


Ask HN: What's a Good Business for a College Student to Run? - <AUTHOR>

I'm going into my second year of college, and I'm looking for any suggestions on what would be a good business to run at school.  I'm not necessarily talking about startups with revolutionary technology (I already have something to that effect that I've been slowly working on), but something that can hopefully help pay for school.  Something where if I work 5x as hard, although perhaps not 5x as long, I can increase my profits by a similar factor.  Any advice or ideas are appreciated! <comment><USER2> If you can hustle up a few beefy guys, start a moving service. A friend of mine started school in EE, but left school with the moving company supporting him full-time. He started it around his second year as well.

Edit: We went to school in DC, so having several universities around definitely did help him.

</comment><comment><USER3> Are there things that you donkt like to do? Like laundry or cleaning. Make a simple business doing the things that other students don't like doing. That is the whole premise of business, solving problems or doing things that other people don't want to do or can't do on their own. People will pay for services they don't want to do. So what are some of the things you don't like doing at college?

</comment><comment><USER4> something cool which can be developed FAST. brainstorm with some buddies for specific ideas. you wanna be able to take something to market ASAP so you can get feedback and learn. but be aware that for better or for worse, the payoff will be disproportionate to the amount of work. a lot of people work really hard and make nothing. whereas others can work work equally has hard and make millions.... for steady predictable income... job.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not really looking for a new technology or idea, more of a tried-and-true business model that fits well on a college campus/in a college town. My school has around 14,000 students and I'm sure there must be some service I can provide them that they would pay for, but I can't think of what exactly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Helping people move.</comment>


Trump's Conversation with Apple's Tim Cook about Manufacturing in US - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/23/donald-trump-apple-tim-cook-phone-call-manufacturing-us <comment><USER2> I'm from Europe so I don't know in detail how USA works. But I guess it is quite similar to Europe, the price of the phone will rise so much that it won't be a good product. In the best of the scenarios the price will rise 20$ or 30$ ... well maybe, but launching a product is not always the best of the scenarios.

Apple already told in the past, that the main reason to keep the manufacture in China are the last minute changes. USA or Europe cannot deal with that kind of changes and the labor laws that we have doesn't help ... just my IMHO. Labor laws and labor conditions in China or India are cruel, but works for capitalist markets.</comment>


It's Not About You  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/opinion/31brooks.html?_r=1

<comment><USER2> As someone who has introduced a lot of young people to the new world of extreme openness that he describes, I have not seen the problem that he postulates must exist.

In fact I think he's setting up a false dichotomy. Spending more effort teaching people does not necessarily make them less independent. Counterexamples: special forces, Montessori schools, YC.

</comment><comment><USER3> The author is talking about the problems of education. But the issue is deeper and more general than this, and arguably has nothing to do with education.

It has to do with human nature. Look around us. Everyone is concerned with his or her own life. Values such as friendship, community, etc are being thrown aside in exchange for climbing the corporate ladder, and wealth. Individuality is important, but it seems it's being overemphasized.</comment>


Regular expression speed comparison - <AUTHOR> http://snowplow.org/martin/rebench/

<comment><USER2> Have these folks just re-discovered what Russ Cox lays out in <http://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html> ?</comment>


Running 10M PostgreSQL Indexes in Production (And Counting) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.heapanalytics.com/running-10-million-postgresql-indexes-in-production/ <comment><USER2> Great blog !!

Some questions -

1\. Is the sharding logic (based on customer) written in the application or is it somewhere else ?

2\. How does your PG cluster look like ? How is the read/write workflow ?

3\. Is there a way to rebalance the tables after adding nodes to the PG cluster ?

<comment><USER3> Hi, author here.

1) We use software called Citus[0] which sits on top of Postgres and handles all of the read time sharding logic for us. Citus could handle the write time logic, except we wrote our own logic because we are able to perform several optimizations for our specific use case that don't work in general.

2) Right now, we have a 40 vanilla PostgreSQL instances running on ZFS on Linux and a single Citus master node. We perform writes by sending them directly to the proper vanilla PostgreSQL instance (why we don't use Citus for the write path). We perform reads by sending a vanilla SQL query to the citus master, which will automatically figure out what data it needs from each worker, send queries to fetch all of the data, and then aggregate the results and return them.

3) We wrote our own code for handling resharding and rebalancing different shards across our cluster.

[0] [https://www.citusdata.com/](https://www.citusdata.com/)

<comment><USER2> Very cool. Thank you for the answers.</comment></comment></comment>


Understanding Debt - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/opinion/paul-krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html

<comment><USER2> > but the situation is not improved if efforts to reduce debt end up pushing > the economy into deflation and depression.

I don't like how mainstream economists tend to portray deflation: that it's a terrible thing that necessarily leads to depression. I mean, is the average man on the street going have more money to spend if the stuff he needs (food, energy, etc) costs 5% more than it did last year? I'm not saying deflation is always a good thing, but particularly in times of declining incomes, I find it hard to believe it's the scary monster mainstream economists make it out to be.

And I particularly don't like how Krugman is always so quick to defend large debt loads. He keeps advocating to borrow borrow borrow, with seemingly no restraint. Is that really sustainable?

> America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did > before

Ya, because we're printing the rest. That is NOT a good thing.

But of course, Krugman won't say that, or consequences that result from such policies.

<comment><USER3> The government isn't "printing money" in the sense that this phrase commonly denotes. The government is selling Treasury securities on the open market. The rate of interest right now is quite low and has been for the past 7 years. Krugman isn't advocating a belief that all debt all the time is a good thing. He's advocating a belief that in the current situation debt is not the primary concern right now.

Deflation is a bad thing for borrowers. It's a good thing for people who have no loans. I think the idea is that deflation is bad for the country because it's bad for banks and large multi-national companies. It would squeeze consumers who have mortgages and credit card debt and student loan debt. Thus this would contract the economy. As I understand these things. I'm not an economist.

<comment><USER4> You forgot QE1, QE2, twist, and QE3 where the Fed digitally created $4 trillion and bought up assets.

That $4T didn't exist until the Fed conjured it up. Through a middleman, it was handed to the US Treasury.

<comment><USER3> I don't fully understand QE but I believe there is a balance sheet. It's not like money was created out of thin air as such. It did not increase M1. I'm guessing it did increase MB but I don't know. Of course my perception may be completely wrong.

<comment><USER5> > It's not like money was created out of thin air as such.

No, it was. Literally. The Fed can and does create money and then buy assets with that new money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the > economy poorer

This rational only works if you're thinking about the economy in collective terms. If the U.S. government borrows money from future taxpayers and gives it to the poor today, yes, collectively it's a wash. But there are winners and losers individually: the lender got an interest payment, the poor person got some free money, and the future tax payer paid more taxes to cover both.

Telling the future tax payer, "hey, don't worry, it was an economic wash since we just owe the debt to ourselves!" would be cold comfort as he or she is clearly poorer due to the increased tax burden.

<comment><USER6> Remember, money doesn't matter, only goods consumed (which money can facilitate). To help make this clear, imagine if G.O.D. materialized a bag with $10 trillion on the front steps of the white house. Would the world, past, present or future, to be able to consume more?

Thus, it's hard to see how it's possible for the world as a whole to "borrow" from the future in any meaningful sense. How much you tax vs. how much debt you run up does matter, but not in the same way people think.

<comment><USER7> When a country's debt grows faster than its real GDP over a long enough period of time, some sort of fiscal tightening ("austerity") will become necessary to avoid default. This may take the form of reduced spending, increased taxes, or both.

Guess who will be paying for that? Future consumers and taxpayers.

Not all debt leads to this. Debt which is incurred responsibly and paid off in a timely fashion promotes growth. But there are examples (Greece is one) where debt is used by those in power to sustain their own power structure rather than dealing with economic problems under their watch. To the extent that economic changes negatively affect the ruling elite, those in power will avoid making those changes. If those changes happen to be necessary to preserve future economic stability, then it will be future generations who pay for it.

<comment><USER4> Completely agree.

In 2008-2009, there was an opportunity to take apart big banks after their gross misallocation of capital. Instead those very banks and bankers were fortified and rewarded to continue onwards.

I still haven't figured out how this phase will end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's amazing. We answered a crisis brought on by too much debt with -- more debt. And instead of investing it in things that would have a real benefit to larger swathes of society (say, infrastructure, education, an even less byzantine and more affordable health system than Obamacare) it seems only to have goosed asset prices and promoted malinvestment. I believe politicians are to blame: they are forcing central banks to try and stimulate the economy in unhealthy ways because they are too cowardly or stupid to promote stimulus programs that might have a chance of boosting real demand.

</comment><comment><USER9> The title of the article is actually: "Nobody Understands Debt". A few years ago I discovered Modern Monetary Theory (thanks Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell, Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton) and it really opened my eyes to the universal misunderstanding of national debt. It boils down to this: the household debt model does not apply to governments that issue their own currency (USD, AUD, JPY, etc., but NOT the EUR).

<comment><USER10> Which model applies and can you sum it up in a few sentences? I know it's generally accepted here to make an effort to deeply understand the issues behind the article, but one criticism I have of Krugman's article is that, while he does explain what he thinks Debt isn't, he never bothers to explain why the household model doesn't apply except in a dismissive sort of sense.

So what models apply and why?

<comment><USER9> There is one major difference between households and sovereign-currency Governments: households can't create the money they use, but Governments can.

"So you're saying government debt doesn't matter? What about Zimbawe, Argentina, Japan, Pre-WWII Germany?"

First, I'm not saying that Government debt doesn't matter. Like all things, there are limits. What I am saying (and MMT says) is that there are conditions under which increasing national debt make sense - notably high unemployment and underemployment. ONLY the Government can kickstart an economy in this scenario. In those hyperinflation cases, you saw Governments whose debt was denominated by foreign currencies and they tried to print their way to solvency, which of course failed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Perhaps Krugman would like to redefine debt, because his definition does not seem to match Merriam Webster [0]:

"an amount of money that you owe to a person, bank, company, etc. the state of owing money to someone or something"

Debt is a wonderful thing. It means you can buy an expensive good like a house or a car now and pay for it later. As opposed to saving for years and then getting the car. However, either way you pay. I fail to see how national debt is any different. Governments want money now, so they go into debt often by selling bonds.

If the debt was acquired during my generation, but the bill comes due during the next generation, then that seems to be pretty close to stealing from the next generation. Today's debt is tomorrow's taxation.

[0] [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debt](http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/debt)

<comment><USER12> National debt is different from household debt for _many_ reasons, including the fact that the government operates a central bank, prints its own currency, does not have to apply for credit, passes the laws that specify the terms of the debt it owes, etc. Plus, in the case of the United States, the national debt is in the form of one of the safest and most widely held investment vehicles in the world : US treasury debt.

To argue that government debt is the not any different from household debt is to ignore all of those things.

<comment><USER11> The mechanics are different but the fundamental idea is the same. Taking on debt today is a promise to pay back the money in the future. Governments have more ways of violating or manipulating that promise, but the core idea is the same.

Taking your points one at a time:

> the government operates a central bank, prints its own currency

This is one method governments use to skirt paying the full value of what they owe. They can borrow a fixed number of dollars today, then print money and use the printed money to pay what they owe. By doing so they are paying back the dollars they owe, but because each dollar is worth less, they are never paying back the value they owe. And they will pay the price with a higher interest rate next time.

> does not have to apply for credit

Applying for credit for normal people is a way of offering evidence that you're likely to pay back what people loan you. The more trustworthy you seem, the less risk for the lender, and therefore the less demanded interest. Governments are the same way. The more the perceived chance that a government will not make good on its debts, the greater the interest it must pay to borrow money.

> passes the laws that specify the terms of the debt it owes

This is another method of skirting paying back what they government has borrowed. Drastic changes or changes which modify the rules on existing debt will have an effect on the government to borrow more money in the future.

> in the case of the United States, the national debt is in the form of one of > the safest and most widely held investment vehicles in the world

Yes, but I think that is true because the US usually doesn't play the games that are in the earlier points. Traditionally, the US has not drastically increased its money supply and has not changed the law on existing debt. If they started doing these tricks more, I think we'll see the high regard fade for US treasuries.

One last point: these are methods governments use to avoid repaying debt, but individuals in most countries have their own methods. They can default on a loan or declare bankruptcy entirely. But just like governments, that will make it harder to borrow in the future. The mechanics are different but the core ideas are the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Debt to build new transit infrastructure, research and development labs etc is a great way a country can use debt to benefit it's current and future citizens. A person could take a loan out for a car and that may create a small fraction of jobs. Where as if a government can take on debt to create DARPANET or invest in clean energy the outcome is many times more profitable to the government and future business derived from that.

<comment><USER14> Unless the investments bomb and no value is created eg. the clean energy investments of the last 10 years

<comment><USER15> Depends what you value.

I personally value a planet where my kids can enjoy a clean environment.

<comment><USER14> Have there been tangible environmental gains from all the money being invested?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Krugman's right about one thing: economies that have had large austerity pushes seem to have done worse than countries that have had smaller spending cuts. I don't know that I would agree with Krugman about how much spending needs to happen to recover. Within the next 20 years, spending on Medicare and Social Security are expected to grow rapidly. Thus, I think frugality still makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER17> I would be very sad to see the death of the monetary union.

</comment><comment><USER18> There are two major problems with this article (although they're not specific to this article and are more generally applicable to Keynesian economics).

Firstly Prof. Krugman writes: "Why is deleveraging a problem? Because my spending is your income, and your spending is my income, so if everyone slashes spending at the same time, incomes go down around the world."

This model entirely ignores capital theory. It creates a simple closed system where if spending goes up, everyone is better off, and if spending goes down, everyone is worse off (because they have less income). But this has almost no relation to whether more or less wealth is being created. Are there more cars, iphones, loaves of bread, new medical technologies? It is the creation of new capital that makes everyone better off, and increases the standard of living, not more spending (although more spending often follows the creation of new goods)

Secondly Prof Krugman writes:

"You can see that misunderstanding at work every time someone rails against deficits with slogans like "Stop stealing from our kids." It sounds right, if you don't think about it: Families who run up debts make themselves poorer, so isn't that true when we look at overall national debt?

No, it isn't. An indebted family owes money to other people; the world economy as a whole owes money to itself. And while it's true that countries can borrow from other countries, America has actually been borrowing less from abroad since 2008 than it did before, and Europe is a net lender to the rest of the world.

Because debt is money we owe to ourselves, it does not directly make the economy poorer (and paying it off doesn't make us richer)"

The problem isn't who the debt is owed to, the problem is whether the debt is serviceable or not and is used to create new wealth. This all gets confused by the introduction of money into the discussion. But imagine a situation where person A loans person B a shovel with the understanding they will receive the shovel back in a week, along with 10 potatoes. This is a loan that is likely to be serviceable. Now instead imagine a loan where person A loans person B a shovel with the understanding that person B will return the shovel along with some produce. Now instead of digging up vegetables, person B uses his shovel to excavate some rocks on his property to create a nice looking rock garden. Person B is now going to get into trouble paying back his loan. The debt he has incurred has been used to work on a project that is unlikely to be profitable. This is akin to people going into debt during the housing bubble to fund their consumption (big house, fast cars, big TV etc) rather than fund more production. That is the kind of debt that is not going to be serviceable and will eventually need to be written down, or in the case of the US, handed over to the taxpayer.

We ARE better off writing down that debt because, in general, we want people to use debt to work on projects that generate new wealth and capital over time, and if we do not write that debt down, people will continue to work on unproductive, unprofitable projects.

</comment><comment><USER19> Another way to think about debt is that central banks are currently purchasing more global sovereign debt than is being issued[1] resulting in negative yields for many bonds. It is hard to fully articulate how perverse this is, but governments are issuing debts and then purchasing them through their supposedly independent central banks and these central banks are paying these governments for the honor of buying their debt -- world governments are paying themselves to take on debts, someone please tell me how anything resembling a market and price realization can occur under these circumstances, this is essentially central planning and is resulting in gross misallocation of wealth throughout the entire developed world.

[1]:[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-09/stunning-chart- day-...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-09/stunning-chart-day-first- time-ever-global-net-sovereign-debt-issuance-will-be-negati)

<comment><USER4> Misallocation of wealth is only a problem if it isn't "misallocated" to you.

My question is this: how does this edifice collapse?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> FTFA:

> the world economy as a whole owes money to itself.

> debt is money we owe to ourselves

Why don't we just collectively forget/forgive our debts, then?

Folks, if you think this astrologist/alchemist Krugman is doing scientific work in Economics, please stop and think: can you come up with a falsifiable statement for Keynesian Economics? I can come up with several for Evolution, which is why Evolution is a Science.

<comment><USER21> In fact Krugman, with his vile Keynesian bias, has been one of the few economists to make the correct calls in the Euro-debacle.

His record on other topics is significantly better than that of most 'economic experts.'

And he has at least one more econo-Nobel than (I'm guessing) you do.

He's been saying for a long time now that austerity is self-defeating. And he is, by any sane evidence-based standard, utterly right.

So your ad hominems are entirely off-point.

Meanwhile the neo-liberal school has made any number of claims that are often repeated even after they've been falsified by fact.

Laffer Curve? Boom. Dead. Utter rubbish. Totally falsified.

[http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%201999/1...](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%201999/1999b_bpea_goolsbee.PDF)

Trickle down? Self-serving nonsense. No evidence for it at all.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead- to-g...](http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to- growth-2012-9?IR=T)

Don't tax corporations so they can create jobs? Boom. Dead. Corporations mostly just give the money to executives and hoard the rest.

See above, among others.

Don't allow governments to spend tax money on infrastructure, innovation, and public education? Excellent! You've strangled the research that led to the beginnings of the Internet, and one or two other important projects too.

And so on.

The truth here is that facts are not on _your_ side. Name-calling is a poor substitute for being evidence-based, intelligent, and scientifically informed.

<comment><USER22> Erm no. He did not "call" the Euro crisis. I notice he has stopped mentioning Ireland, for example, because it now represents a counter-example to his world view. After a few years of austerity, growth has returned, unemployment is falling and tax revenues are rising in Ireland. All apparently impossible according to Krugman and in fact he explicitly predicted the opposite outcome would result from government policy. He irritates me highly because he is clearly smart but hasn't the tiniest crumb of intellectual honesty - he simply ignores inconvenient facts where other commentators and ecomomists (of various ideological bents) engage with difficult facts in order to explore and refine their own belief systems. I have gone from being a Krugman admirer to considering the guy a lying charleton in the space of 5 years.</comment></comment></comment>


EU Copyright Directive is a catastrophe for free expression and competition - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/internet-facing-catastrophe-free-expression-and-competition-only-europeans-can <comment><USER2> I wish that the EFF would include links to the updated directive. The latest I can find is the language as of 2018-05-25 ([http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf](http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/35373/st09134-en18.pdf)) which doesn't contain the terms "commercial platforms", "news site" or link. It does leave the definition of "unsubstantial parts" up to member states, which is indeed worrying from a single market perspective.

Furthermore, that wording contradicts EFF's assertion for article 13 that unlicensed content is not allowed to appear, "even for an instant." Since all that is needed to avoid liability is to perform effective and proportionate efforts to prevent availability and to react expeditiously upon notification. Proportionality and effectiveness explicitly depend on the size of the content provider: a new streaming video service would explicitly need to do less than YouTube. Has the updated documentation explicitly removed the provision about expeditious action upon notification? Because the exception proves the rule (the rule being that unlicensed content is indeed allowed to appear for more than an instant).

So... links to spam commissioners but no links to verify that EFF is presenting a fair reading of the updated documents.

<comment><USER3> This is a much better update: [https://juliareda.eu/2019/01/article-13-almost- finished/](https://juliareda.eu/2019/01/article-13-almost-finished/)

It describes the changes and why they will/will not work

<comment><USER2> That is indeed. Thank you for that.

Instead of requiring filtering on behalf of rightsholders that refuse to license to platforms (an asymmetric relationship that just increases costs for one party), I wish that the EU would legislate FRAND style royalties.

As in, if you want copyright protection then you have to issue Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licenses to any platform that may want to host the content. Don't want to issue such a license? Then the EU won't help you protect your work. In that way a platform could just host the content using a central database and performing deduplication instead of using the same central database to forbid viewing. Rightsholders would get royalties by virtue of the license agreement, EU would spend less money policing copyright since there would be many more legal avenues to access content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's alarming that there appears to be no provision for fair use of copyrighted materials. I'm not in the EU, but that would seem to be a grave oversight.

One can imagine an image or any copyrightable material which might become offensive or embarrassing might get copyrighted so as to in effect censor the material.

<comment><USER5> Hm, well, education is an exception already, but political speech and comedy are not enumerated as exceptions. (Though I guess these things will be decided by the Courts eventually, as the Directive is about proportional remuneration).

Also, the proposal leaves intact other Directives, and it'll take a bit of work to figure out if all of these are in harmony, or if there's a conflict between the rules. (And if there which one prevails.)

"Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU."

for example 2001/29/EC is the WIPO copyright treaty [ratification] directive, which already protects political speech and parody/caricature. ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive#Exceptions...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive#Exceptions_and_limitations) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Action was already taken when large-scale government interference of the internet was cheered on in the past. Since taking the bad with the good of a less-regulated internet wasn't acceptable, we now have to take the bad with the good of a more-regulated internet. Ideally we could have nuance where things work the way they're intended and overreach of power to add legislation wasn't continually leveraged. But reality has shown us it doesn't work that way.

</comment><comment><USER7> Ok, so what can those of us not in Sweden, Germany, Poland or Belgium do?

<comment><USER8> Go to the article. Click on the button for your country to take action.

<comment><USER7> you might want to read my question again - I am not a citizen of these countries.

<comment><USER9> RTFA:

> If you live in the rest of Europe: please contact the ministers working on > the Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive. We'll update this page > with more information as we get it.

<comment><USER10> What about those of us who don't live in Europe?

<comment><USER11> Are you asking how can you influence law making in a country that you're not a citizen of?

<comment><USER10> Yes, because it effects me, and I am morally opposed to this position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To get around the linking to news sites problem, couldn't search engines just not provide ANY links to news sites? Who defines what a "news" site is? Is there a strict definition? Anybody with a website? If it's something I have not read or known before, it's "news" to me no matter how old or from where.

<comment><USER13> That's what Google did in Germany when a "have a contract with news sites" law went into effect. It didn't take long before Google got free access to all German news sites.

Spain learned from this and make a minimum compensation mandatory. Since then Google News hasn't been available in Spain.

So now they're making a third attempt to make Google pay for sending business to news site. The result will probably be the same though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder whyI always get downvoted into oblivion for stating that which to me is an obvious fact: The EU is too far removed from reality to legislate. It now has a long and sordid history of over-doing things to the extreme.

In Denmark, we've had 'cinnamon patrols' go from bakery to bakery to verify that only the allowed amount of cinnamon was sprinkled on buns.

We had what felt like a complete shutdown of IT departments in the months leading up to the GDPR because, again, it was overreaching and too vague. (the idea was good though)

I could write a list much longer, but in general I think the Unix approach works: Many small things that each do one thing well. The EU is the opposite: One giant thing which does nothing well - If for no other reason, than the distance from the Parliament to a wooden cabin on the mountains of norway is just too great for them to regulate that cabin in great detail, but still this is what they attempt to do. And now, down to each word on each and every webpage accesible from the EU.

<comment><USER15> Yeah. Remove EU and I'm sure Russia will be happy to take over your little countries.

Individually European countries are pretty weak. They're only strong as a common entity.

<comment><USER14> Pretty sure NATO would survive the dismantling of some bureaucracy.

<comment><USER16> NATO is military pact. EU has economic advantages for member states like single market and trade union (so you can't create trade agreement in WTO sense with single EU member).

<comment><USER17> Also, the EU has a common defence clause aswell, so all EU member states are practically under the same defence umberella, even if they aren't into NATO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Right to be Forgotten, GDPR, and now this... pretty soon the barrier to entry will be so high that no new players would be able to get off the ground with an internet company in Europe.

<comment><USER19> I want to open a i-shirt store and I'm in the EU. None of these will prevent me.

Edit: typo... t-shirt

<comment><USER20> I have no idea what i-shirt is but it's likely that if an user uses copyrighted material for his i-shirt, you'll have to pay because it's your platform. Bonus points for not using a censorship filter in trying to do this.

<comment><USER19> No UGC will be allowed and the text you add will not be displayed anywhere :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This one I do like.

People could diverge from consumption of "data deluge", and return back in time when we used to have meaningful conversations on a private forums created around a very concrete ideas other than feeding society with ads.</comment>


GoDaddy Drops SOPA support - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/10474517182/breaking-godaddy-drops-sopa-support.shtml

<comment><USER2> I just finished transferring the one domain I own from GoDaddy. I'd like to believe that was what changed their mind :)

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems they only changed their mind under pressure, not because they really stand by it. These people should know better in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER4> The People have spoken.</comment>