James Watson and the Insidiousness of Scientific Racism - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/james-watson-and-scientific-racism/ <comment><USER2> Feels like the author writes way too much without saying anything, then ends the article without a real conclusion.

I guess maybe "Black scientists are in the best position to understand what is so broken about the ideas of Watson and his army." was what he was working towards, but that seems like an extraordinarily weak point to make.

<comment><USER3> Because the topic of genes and race is too sensitive for many reasons, both right and wrong.

However, we should really be talking about this.

\- We _know_ that genes affect our physical appearance (hence races are distinguishable between each other).

\- We _know_ that different races have genetic predisposition to certain diseases (sickle cell disease and people of African ancestry, for example).

\- We _know_ that genetic studies reveal fascinating history of how people migrated across the globe and how nations are mostly a fictional invention.

\- We _know_ how genes affect anything from eye color to horrible conditions like Roberts syndrome

But we are too afraid to talk about anything beyond these few topics, and how genetic differences between races affect (negatively, neutrally, or positively) people of these races.

<comment><USER4> Obviously topics on race need to be covered carefully and sensitively given the destructive history of race, science and politics. However, it still should be covered, investigated and the facts accepted.

Sadly, in today's environment, science that conflicts with certain agenda have become blasphemy. It's reminiscent of the anti-science and anti-intellectual days of geocentrism and the catholic church. It's amazing how one of the great scientists of our time has been "excommunicated" and attacked mercilessly for his blashphemy. The strange thing is that the media is using racism themselves to attack the guy.

<comment><USER5> _> science that conflicts with certain agenda have become blasphemy_

How does that relate to this article?

In your assessment, are Watson's claims about race well supported by good science?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Black scientists are in the best position to understand what is so broken > about the ideas of Watson and his army.

His _army_?

</comment><comment><USER7> Reading the article I felt confident about general direction of comments on the HN page. HN proved as reliable as ever. Not only is it flagged as most articles about Blacks seem to be (meanwhile something about age discrimination, Asian victimization at the nefarious hands of affirmative action, or poor old James Damore are karma goldmines) but it's the same old ill-considered nonsense that doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of critical reasoning.

Hey, while we're researching why _those_ people are stupid, let's also research why inhabitants and descendants of Northern climes seem so predisposed to be and do evil. The race/IQ obsessives being a relatively minor example among countless others.

</comment><comment><USER8> While I am certainly not going to endorse any racism, I am a little uncomfortable with what's going on here.

As a bit of background, let's look at Lysenko ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko)). To summarise briefly, soviet collectivist political doctrine was fundamentally opposed to Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution as concepts, as I understand primarily because individuals are not identical parts of a collective, but are genetically unique and competing and succeeding or failing upon that basis. So they adopted practices which were politically acceptable, but without a shred of scientific evidence. 30 million people starved to death as a result. And soviet science, while generally advanced, was many decades behind when it came to biological and genetic research as a consequence.

Science is fundamentally about asking questions by formulating and disproving hypotheses. Sometimes, the questions and hypotheses in question can be uncomfortable. However, just because a question is not politically correct does not mean that question isn't a valid question to ask or to obtain an answer for.

I'm not going to address whether Watson himself is simply asking controversial questions, or actually racist. I don't know, or care especially. But I'm going to pose the following:

If we take the entire human population, and consider if specific genes have a contribution to intelligence (however we might choose to quantify it), the answer is almost certainly "yes". Genes affect every part of our development, and it would be extremely unlikely for there not to be any genetic contribution for this single factor when we know it has profound effects upon everything else. The real questions are which genes, to what extent they have an effect, and the mechanisms by which they exert that effect. That shouldn't be particularly controversial.

If you take that a step further, and decide to look at not at the whole population, but the spread between and within different groups, that also shouldn't be too controversial. We already know there are significant differences between the variants of individual genes between groups. It would not be surprising or controversial if some of those genes had some effect on intelligence.

It only becomes truly controversial when you make those groups specific. For example, grouping by sex, or race, or age, or occupation, or whatever classifier you might choose. These aren't controversial scientifically, they are controversial socially and politically. And going back to the original point about Lysenko, when politics decides what is or is not acceptable to question, we stop dealing with the facts of reality, and start dealing in wishful thinking. The wishful thinking here is that we are all the same and that there are no differences between races. But it's obvious that we aren't all the same. Basic genetics and observation tells us that. But there probably are differences, even if those differences are small. Or not so small. The problem is that people are afraid they might not like the answer, so they try to suppress the question.

But, from a scientific point of view, we can't deal with the problem except from a position of knowledge. We can't tackle it without understanding and quantifying it. Suppose that there is a big difference. Maybe that would give us a basis of doing something about it, to ensure we all have equal prospects, such as changing education to help people who don't learn as fast. The alternative is to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we are all the same, despite any inequalities that might result by that inaction.

</comment><comment><USER9> "scientific" racism

<comment><USER10> This. There's _nothing_ scientific about Watson's views, and even social scientists who stress the relevance of cognitive skills in development and express concern about this relevance (such as, IIRC, economist Garett Jones) do _not_ share or endorse a view nearly as extreme as Watson's. Even journalist and pundit Steve Sailer, who is very often ridiculed as a believer in scientific racism, has actually stated many times and with great clarity that even "raw" cognitive ability (to say nothing of things like educational attainment or productivity) is extremely likely to be highly affected by environmental factors such as severe disease, malnutrition and the lack of a range of important micronutrients-- such factors being very common in Africa and in low-income countries more generally, but also obviously amenable to change. This whole Watson kerfuffle is just a cranky old guy sharing his deeply misguided opinions-- it's not science and it's not even "scientific" in any real sense.

<comment><USER11> Why is this downvoted?! What's here to disagree with?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We are only a few years away until GWAS studies finish identifying the genes linked to intelligence, and that scientists confirm what sociologists have known for the past 100 years. It's high time for society to maturely start discussing this topic.

</comment><comment><USER13> so, why is he wrong again?

</comment><comment><USER11> Strange article. Why give Watson, who most people forgot about anyway, publicity in this way? Seems to me that this kind of articles fuels racism by introducing bigots to a great bigot they can look up to, more than it actually fights racism. The fact that it mixes emotions, ideology, and science in the same pot is also problematic.

Then comes the "Black scientists are" part. This is a ridiculous and dangerous construction. Again it fuels racism more than it fights it. What's special about black scientists? Nothing. If we don't see race. A better phrasing is to express culture/feeling/history "Black people are"

<comment><USER14> "I don't see race" is a luxury for those who aren't seen by their race.

Two days ago, a well-known black actor was attacked in Chicago. His attackers put a noose around his neck and poured bleach on him, while shouting racist and homophobic slurs. Do you think he gets to "not see race"?

What's special about black scientists? It's in the article. Until recently, they didn't exist, by and large. They weren't granted the opportunity, talent be damned. So there's a relevance to their experience, whether it makes you feel good or not.

<comment><USER11> My comment was that I dont see race _when it comes to science_. Science is not influenced by race. Race is not relevant for scientific discussions.

I was criticizing the fact that the mixing between race and science is bad at best. Wherever it comes from.

Im certainly not denying the existence of racism, and I also don't need anecdotes to know that.

<comment><USER14> Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any attempt to discuss racism - as if sticking our heads in the sand will protect us from predators. I'm sure you've seen this, too. So when I see it, there's some reflex involved.

Science itself is, of course, not influenced by the race of the scientist. However, racism has been rationalized by "science" for centuries, which is what Watson was doing. That's what the article is about. I kind of wish the author had reached back to debunked nonsense like phrenology to show the history of how "scientific racism" works, but it is what it is.

I thought the author's point that using exceptionalism to reinforce "scientific racism" was really interesting and important. I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system.

<comment><USER11> >Ok. I brought it up because "I don't see race" is a popular rebuttal to any attempt to discuss racism

Yes, I got the good intention behind your message. No worries.

> I think there's a lot of valuable ground to discover if we analyze racism > itself through the lens of science, to figure out why so many people will > make irrational excuses to justify a morally repugnant belief system.

Of course. But black scientists are not better suited to do that. Not more than Asians or Arabs for instance. That's the core of my comment. Science is just a method.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Backtype Removes User Profiles - <AUTHOR> http://blog.backtype.com/2010/04/removing-user-profiles/

<comment><USER2> Meh.. What is the reason exactly?

"Note: comments will still be aggregated by BackType and accessible through our website; however, users will no longer have the ability to explicitly claim any comments"

Tbey're still doing all the server side stuff. This is a feature many people love and they take it away.

They're also keeping URL profiles but not user profiles. Seems arbitrary.</comment>


Let Children Get Bored Again - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/opinion/sunday/children-bored.html <comment><USER2> We do quiet time in my home where my kids go to their rooms with a small activity box for acouple hours. They hated it at first because they were "bored", now they love it.

The amazing things they come up with when I come back to the room to let them know it's over. I've never seen them play the same way twice. They get bored at first, and then get creative, which turns into a ton of fun for them as they imagine new ways to use a toy.

It's common now for them to hang out for another 30-40 minutes to finish their play scenario they built over that two hours.

It's an investment in creativity, making more with less, there is no technology involved, just wood blocks, a few figures maybe, puzzles, or books, and I'm constantly impressed now with what they are doing with their time.

The constant feeling that parents need to have non stop activity, education, and entertainment for their kids I think is one of the biggest detriments to their development.

Let kids be kids, let them play, let them screw up, and let them figure it out themselves.

We are raising future adults, not just biologically older children.

<comment><USER3> Parent of a toddler here, and always looking for best practices.

Can you give any more detail about how this works? At what age did you start doing it, what's in the boxes, and how did you introduce the idea to your kids?

<comment><USER2> 2 and 4 year old.

The activity boxes can be whatever you wish honestly. I have 6 I rotate currently.

My two year old is sensory and loves tactile things to play with. My 4 year old is highly imaginative and I can give him sticks and he builds a hockey rink and plays the game out in his mind with sound effects and everything.

I don't think there is a wrong way to do it, I just avoid technology and putting too much in them.

A nice side effect is I buy them less toys because by the time they get to the last box, it feels brand new to them even if they played with those toys 20 times prior.

That bit of it shocked me, we spoil kids too much with new stuff, just make them use what they have in a way that feels new.

<comment><USER4> How much do you monitor them? If I tried to leave my twin 2 year olds alone for an hour, one would probably strip naked and play with whatever is in his diaper, and the other would do her best to destroy whatever she could find in the room. She especially loves to dismantle books.

<comment><USER5> The first couple times are tough, like toilet training. Sometimes to learn you gotta pee on the rug. And when you (the parent) aren't there to react, the novelty of their disaster-play goes away - surprisingly fast. Little brains work faster than I think we give them credit for. Their bodies are not strong but that brain is some kind of magic sponge.

<comment><USER4> He's never done this while we're there. Only in the middle of the night. He wakes up, doesn't cry, and plays. Sometimes when we come in in the morning it's a literal shit show.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since I've raised my children, I find many problems with children are rooted in adults. So when I hear children parenting advice, I switch it to adult. That yields a lot of interesting insights.

"Let Adults Get Bored Again"

Parenting is also about adult self-discipline.

<comment><USER7> Best parenting is simply being a good example.

So if you want your kids to be truthful, disciplined and respectful .. try to start with yourself.

I know too many parents, who sneak out to smoke their bad habit cigarette or joint, while preaching their children to never smoke .. and I suspect all their children find out about that at some point.

<comment><USER8> Yes. And the parents who sneak out to smoke aren't just teaching their kids to smoke: they're _teaching them to be sneaky._ It would be better to smoke openly and say, 'Please don't follow my example. I regret having started.'

<comment><USER9> On the other hand, my parents never snuck around at all, and I was very sneaky as a child/teen.

<comment><USER8> Yet authority figures set a standard, whether one is able to meet it or not. If they _had_ been sneaky, then I might sneak around sociopathically for the rest of my life, without a twinge of guilt. This could easily mar both my life and others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We have this thing at our house called "no screens" or "turn off your screens". I yell it out, and my kids from ages 10-18 turn it off. (The 18 year old is off to college, but he used to as well).

There IS an exception. If the thing they choose to do with their time has online instructions or they will be learning from a tutorial, etc, then the screen can be used to a degree.

They start off bored. They may get ahead on some homework. The littlest one takes the longest to figure out what to do. Often times I ask if they want to play a board game, or go somewhere with me, walk the dog, etc. But if I'm in the middle of something else, it's up to them.

It takes a few minutes, but, before you know it, they're on the floor in their bedroom drawing, or building something elaborate out of cardboard, the LEGOs come out, or nerf darts start flying through the house.

And for the older kids, they will get out of the house, reach out to a friend, read a book, or study a new topic.

Being bored doesn't last long when you don't have a choice. The hardest part is getting started with that "something new".

<comment><USER11> As someone who grew up with the internet and rules like this I can tell you that the only thing it taught me was how to game the system and use electronics without getting caught. It gives me anxiety just to think about it honestly.

If you didn't grow up with it you can't understand how stressful it is to maintain friendships when your parents will randomly take away your phone. Its like being randomly grounded over and over for years.

<comment><USER12> As a parent, I'm still going to try to instill good habits and behavior even if my kids attempt to subvert them (similar to financial responsibility, manners, or safe sex). Once you're an adult, how you behave is up to you, but before then it's still my job to help them understand how to be decent, functioning humans.

Being a parent is hard, and mistakes are going to be made. Positive intent is important.

<comment><USER13> The point of the comment you are replying to is that plenty of parents, under the guise of "instilling good habits," simply issue a blanket ban and the threat of further punishment to discourage the use of whatever they are trying to teach their children to avoid rather than teaching their children responsible use, and that this is counter-productive, extremely damaging, and basically the opposite of good parenting.

In my experience my parents issued blanket bans and the threat of punishment for eating sugary foods, using the internet and watching TV. All this did was cause me to binge on all three whenever I had the opportunity at a friend's house, and that behavior extended into my adulthood until I was able to break free of my parents and seek the advice of reasonable adults to help curb my addictive behaviors.

When I discussed this with my parents they doubled down on their behavior, washed their hands of responsibility and blamed me. They used the same tired "how you behave when you are an adult is up to you" line. I hope you aren't doing the same to your children.

<comment> semi-extrinsic > simply issue a blanket ban and the threat of further punishment to > discourage the use of whatever they are trying to teach their children to > avoid rather than teaching their children responsible use

I take the somewhat contrarian view: kids (at some age) need to learn to cope with absolute limits that are strictly enforced. How else will they cope with living in real society? Not paying your rent will get you kicked out. Driving over the speed limit will get you a ticket, or worse. Not showing up to an exam in college means you fail the class.

Not saying you should have draconian rules on everything. But some rules need to be enforced with (reasonable) consequences. Otherwise you are doing your children a disservice, IMHO.

<comment><USER14> Driving over the speed limit will usually get you nothing. Failing to show up to an exam in college got me an opportunity to retake it with no penalty. Failing to pay your rent - maybe, but if you just paid it late, or if you were moving out anyway and make things enough of a pain for the landlord...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I hate screens, constant connectivity, but could not live in today's world without them.

So much of the world is fixated on our addictive devices and trying to find ways to live without them are difficult, even damaging in some ways.

I really do miss those days I could leave the house with just keys and wallet, and had the world around me to provide my entertainment. Today, I am constantly pulling out my phone at the first inkling of boredom.

Finding balance is crucial for all aspects in life, our devices are the same, and developing enough discipline to shed our serotonin inducing toys for a few hours a day is a challenge we will all have to face. Otherwise we will be hollow and hunched over glowing screens for the rest of our lives.

<comment><USER16> > I really do miss those days I could leave the house with just keys and > wallet, and had the world around me to provide my entertainment. Today, I am > constantly pulling out my phone at the first inkling of boredom.

This is such an idyllic revisionist take.

I remember having to take wallet, keys, extra cash and coins for things you couldn't pay with card or with the phone, street guide (cause there's no way I'm remembering the dozens of bus lines that run in my city), pocket calendar, pencil, random paper scribbles, and a book or two.

For the things you needs keys and wallet things are exactly the same. For everything else, the amount of crap I need to lug around has dropped dramatically. Hell nowadays I can travel to foreign countries and not even go through the hassle of going to an exchange rate, getting maps, asking for directions and getting lost going the wrong way, etc.

<comment><USER17> > I remember having to take wallet, keys, extra cash and coins for things you > couldn't pay with card or with the phone

Today you take your extra cash and coins and throw it away because nobody accepts it anymore. Digital payments only. That's how it works in Sweden.

<comment><USER18> Sweden is atypical in that regard, most places are not nearly so cash-hostile.

I never stopped carrying and using cash. I'm even a bit perplexed that carrying cash is seen as a a hassle... it goes into my wallet, which I carry around anyway for my ID,etc. It's just a bit of paper, it takes up virtually no space and weighs virtually nothing.

<comment><USER19> My ideal wallet would be no wallet. Cash makes my wallet too thick. I keep some non-daily cards in there (like debit card, Rx card) because I'm too forgetful to manage continually adding and removing cards. There are phone based solutions but I don't want to be reliant on a charged battery for absolute essentials. Cash is funny because I am super hesitant to break a large bill, and then very eager to get rid of the smaller ones, and where I live, it's generally a good idea to carry one larger bill as a fallback.

<comment><USER17> That's exactly how I do it. Small plastic sleeve as a wallet for grouping cards together and a single larger bill as a fallback.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I heard an interview with Steven Spielberg years ago. I wish I could find it for reference.

He said in the interview that anytime he drives in his car, he would not talk on his phone or listen to the radio. It was complete silence for the duration of the drive. And most of his best work and ideas came from these "silent drives" because he was forced to be creative and use his imagination to keep himself entertained.

<comment><USER21> > ideas came from these "silent drives" because he was forced to be creative > and use his imagination to keep himself entertained.

Driving is the classic 'zone' activity. As such I question if it's even a good idea to attempt to think and be creative when driving or if that's (if what Spielberg is saying is true even 'best worked because forced to'). Not that having a phone call isn't distracting from driving either. It is. But when you drive I just am not sure it's when you want to go back and forth in your head with some heavy thoughts which might make you less alert (and by less alert I mean even less than with a phone call).

The reason for taking phone calls in the car is because it's typically very time effective and a great (and effortless) way to pass the time.

There could also be other reasons why he didn't take phone calls. For example I don't like to take business calls because I can't take notes or note things I need to do. Talking to a relative that's another story. In that case it's great a way to pass the time and let's say fulfill an obligation. Or he might have almost gotten into an accident once and swore off any future calls. Or the main reason is 'I want down time but I need a way to explain to others why I don't talk in the car and this sounds better'. After all Spielberg is a creative person so why not a creative spin to something he does.

The story and the reason people say what they do often differs from the real reason (which would sound less impressive). Possible this is just a spin he put on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The challenge is everything that was analog in the 90s (music, phones, etc) now requires a screen. "Screentime" is treated as this black and white thing, but when the iPhone becomes the uber-tool-that-does-everything you have to focus on how it's being used, not screetime writ large.

<comment><USER23> Do measurements of 'screentime' normally include talking on the phone or passively listening to music? Or are you implying something different?

<comment><USER24> Screen time might encompass video chatting with a relative, reading a book on the Kindle app, watching a 2 hour long documentary, watching a 10 minute long tutorial on YouTube, writing an email, editing pictures of one's vacation, managing one's finances through a webpage or spreadsheet, etc etc etc.

<comment><USER9> Sure, there are always things you can do on a screen that are productive. But you need to way the difficulty of managing these activities with the potential upsides that only a screen can provide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > "Boredom teaches us that life isn't a parade of amusements. More important, > it spawns creativity and self-sufficiency."

Realistically, children aren't the only ones with an aversion to boredom problem. Adults - especially those dependent on creativity to solve problems - would benefit for generous doses to boredom as well.

</comment><comment><USER26> a classic of pious parenting is making the lives of your own children especially difficult to teach them some kind of life lesson. this one especially gets to me.

though I didn't know it at the time, I grew up with adhd and depression. an interesting facet of that is that people with adhd get to skip on some of the most important effects of the frontal lobe development that happens between the ages of 18 and 22 as a human matures. this gets interpreted as being 'lazy' 'energetic', 'childish' and -- easily bored.

This kind of parent has a conviction that the reverse hallmarks of adulthood -- being quiet, controlled and focused are not something as neurological as we know it to be, but something that has to be instilled by force, and as someone who feels the same boredom every day a kid does, that lack of knowledge and empathy makes me deeply, deeply sad on a personal level.

It's absolutely correct that kids not given something to do will find themselves something to do. Kids are natural explorers and learners. But is that boredom and thirst for new things something that has to be learned out of a child? I'd like to think that at least some of us embrace that stage of a child's neurology and help them find things that they find exciting, new and interesting instead of trying to teach them to stop complaining and sate themselves with busywork.

</comment><comment><USER27> The moment you suggest an activity, you've taken all the fun out of it. True for adults as well as children.

<comment><USER7> Only if you do it in a pushing way, or suggest something boring.

Today with my nephew: hey lets fight with larp swords ... "yeah!!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Such an interesting topic.

The famed Andrea Camilleri [0], one of the most prolific and well-known Italian contemporary writer (also author of "Commissario Montalbano", known worldwide in both print and TV form), in a TV interview recounted how "boredom" was so important in his youth.

He specifically remembered how he and his teenager friends would sit in a field or on the beach, take a metal coin, spit on it, and just wait, in circle, until a fly would get entangled by the spit. Whomever owned that coin would be the winner, and this "game" would usually take several hours, during which they would chat, sit in silence, fall asleep, etc. - "bored", you might say.

I found this story fascinating.

I can't point you to the actual documentary describing this, as it's in Italian and it's also not freely available online. Please believe me, there would be no reason for me to have invented this.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Camilleri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Camilleri)

<comment><USER29> YES!! In our family, we call these "stupid little games" and we made up a ton of them.

You look at where you are, what you got, and you play. Those memories are some of my very best.

Ok, we got this can. Who can kick it the farthest! Awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This intersects well with another NYT post from a few years back about unstructured play [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/magazine/the-anti- helicop...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/magazine/the-anti-helicopter- parents-plea-let-kids-play.html). Would be fascinating if we're seeing the beginning of a larger cultural trend back towards kids being allowed to experience more disorganized, self-directed activity.

</comment><comment><USER31> Sometimes I go to events that I know will be boring just so I can let my mind wander and be creative

<comment><USER32> This sounds really interesting! Do you mind sharing examples of such events? Thank you!

<comment><USER31> I'm an academic so I go to boring talks :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's not just about screens. It's about the societal pressure to keep kids engaged in some activity at all times.

</comment><comment><USER34> Whenever I have a child, I will not allow him or her to have internet access at home, until they're teenagers.

I don't like the idea of setting time limits—I feel like I spent too much of my childhood waiting for the next opportunity to use a computer. _Tools_ are not inherently good or bad, and my child should have the opportunity to explore them as he or she sees fit. However, I very much want to keep my child away from exploitative media, and I don't know how to control that other than just cutting off the internet.

If they play games, I want them to be games that teach _something_. Zelda teaches you problem solving skills, and Celeste at least teaches something about humanity. Neither attempts to suck you in for infinite lengths of time.

<comment><USER35> Good luck. Even schools are pushing that crap now. They'll need to be online to do homework not later than middle school—and that's the state of things now, may well be worse in a few years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Putting this here for the argument's sake: I think children do get bored with all the distractions from internet, screens and what not. If you've ever seen a teenager mindlessly scroll Instagram on their iPhone, that look is pure boredom.

Notice that for an activity such as looking at your friends' photos online, allocating your last 15 minutes before hitting the pillow and allocating what's seemingly every hour of every day won't have the same effect.

</comment><comment><USER37> No, New York Times. If you don't allow private mode browsing, I won't consume your contents.

Maybe respect others privacy before using the 'democracy and freedom is at stake' rhetoric.

</comment><comment><USER38> I broke my leg a few weeks ago, tibial plateau fracture due to skateboarding if you want the details, but I have been laid up. I also have fairly major research projects underway (yes, you can skateboard and lead multi-million- dollar research projects).

I have found that when I first sit down, I dread starting the work. Whether I'm working through an algorithm, a project proposal, a hiring process, reading a paper reviewing a grant application, whatever. But I just sit there, because my knee has made all other options even worse. Give it about 30 seconds, maybe a couple minutes, and I've gotten over the dread and just start doing. That's _the only_ thing left to do.

This is the same experience I had as a child, on that long road trip, in the back seat, that far back, rear-facing seat in the Buick station wagon, with the red vinyl seats. On I70, on the way from Omaha to Denver. You're just stuck there. You have to do so _something_. You start staring out the window, imagining what must be happening in the corn fields, the streams that must be in the veins of trees that occasionally interrupt the fields. The fish in the stream. The dirt at the bottom of the stream. How come that dirt hasn't all been washed away? How does that work? what's this little bit of dirt right here on the floor? It looks like the dirt in my shoe. I wonder if I play with this dirt maybe I'll understand dirt.

Dirt. Miles of dirt out here. How much of life is dirt? Ow. There's a rock in this dirt. Is the rock part of the dirt? How much of dirt is just rocks? How small is a rock before it's dirt? What else is in dirt?

Dirt.

Nothing, not even boredom, can suppress the mind. Not as long as there is dirt.

</comment><comment><USER29> In the sense of nurturing that, "start something fun" part of childhood, yes!

But, if one does that, it requires also being empowering and participatory to a large degree.

The latter is a LOT OF FUN. If you do it, for a time, that old spark of childhood comes back, and you just play. Playing with them, leaving a little of the adult behind, is worth it for everyone.

I get to do it again as I am raising a granddaughter now, due to a son getting involved with the wrong people, hard fall. It's ugly, but she's great.

Know what? I have a much harder time returning there. I can, and each time it's easier, but damn! We do get old when we are not playing as much. Don't do it.

Play.

Participation was the best medicine. Yes, it takes your time, but only for a while. Soon, they will be acting on their own, and will invite you (best accept some of those to remain relevant), and will learn to play, explore, build, do more on their own, not just placating themselves in front of a screen.

</comment><comment><USER39> Visited relatives, their kids watched PBS kids in the morning, I was appalled with how frantic the majority of the shows were.

The idea seems to be if it's not non-stop yelling kids will tune out. Lso the voice actors were mostly pitching their voices much higher than actual childrens' voices.

<comment><USER35> A handful of gems exist, though I'm not aware of any being produced now. Mister Rogers' Neighborhood was really something special. Still is. Long (incredibly long, sometimes) takes, slow tracking, few cuts, lots of Mister Rogers talking directly to the viewing kids in his special, amazing way. So was pre-Elmoization Sesame Street, for that matter.

I really miss good nonfiction channels. The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic. TLC (it wasn't always house shows!). All gone to hell. It's a shame. I picked up a ton from those as a kid, even though I rarely got to watch them (we didn't have cable except for a couple years) but now they're all reality shows and ancient aliens and other sensationalized junk.

Incidentally, I'm kinda worried about what all the auto-tune's gonna do to kids' sense of what good singing is. Check out Daniel Tiger for what I'm talking about, but it's _everywhere_ in kids' programming (among other places, obviously). I suppose it saves money, but it sucks.

</comment></comment><comment> Funes- I remember really well being bored as a kid, and as a teen. It always resulted, without fail, in a sudden and deep drive to explore--our home, our school, our town; wherever we were at the time--, in creative spurts-- painting, drawing, doing something with play dough--, and in an urge to engage in physical activities, such as going for a walk or practicing some sport. Great conversations with our parents and other relatives or friends also took place; we got into some sort of inquisitive, proactive mindset.

We should get used to get bored again, indeed, but I'd call it something else: not "getting bored", but "escaping our own lives at any chance we have".

</comment><comment><USER40> If you fully adopt this attitude, the funny thing is that the kids don't see it as boredom most of the time. They don't expect a constant stream of novelty.

My daughter attended a Waldorf school (in Europe called a Steiner school), K-12. There are some great things about it and some drawbacks too, and I'm sure the experience depends widely on which particular Waldorf school you attend.

When we signed up our daughter we had to sign a pledge: no TV, no radio, no movies, and no computer (until high school). We were strongly encouraged to eschew typical toys for a certain kind of toy: one with heft and texture, and one that left room for creativity.

The rational behind it was multi-fold. Most media is tailored for and fosters a very short attention span and conditions children to expect constant stimulation. When you grow up hearing polished songs where the top 0.01% of singers take dozens of takes, then are autotuned, then spliced into perfection by highly skilled producers, when a child raises their voice to sing they think their own singing is terrible instead of joyful. By having a set of wooden blocks, a bored child will use them to create dozens of things, whereas if you give them a plastic fire truck with flashing lights it can only be a firetruck.

By and large I think their goals work in that regard, but it also ends up isolating the families to interact with only other Waldorf families. If your child plays with non-Waldorf kids, they get dazzled by the neighbors x-box and resent that they can't have one.

The biggest downside, though, is the type of parent drawn to Waldorf also tends towards homeopathic hoo-hah and anti-vax tendencies. In our case we kept our rationality and politely accepted but ignored other parents' referrals to "energy workers" and offers of homeopathic tinctures.

<comment><USER41> I went to such a school and, while I don't believe we had to sign a pledge, no TV was certainly ingrained into our culture. Plastic toys, clothes with large prints, and the color black was to be avoided.

I always felt it was unfortunate because these schools were on the forefront in other areas such as lesson scheduling, teaching methodology and a curriculum that contained a good mix of art, language and science.

Growing up I had access to cable TV and because of that I was always light- years ahead of my class in English.

<comment><USER42> I went to a normal school. We didn't have TV but everyone else did. Like you I was top of my class. I thought it was all the reading I did but it seems we're both wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> My kids love to play with things like the left over cardboard from deliveries that became a 'cubby house'. I used to love playing with some left over carpet strips that became roads. I think children naturally like 'toys' where you imagine them into existence, although I am not sure how they'd like only to have those toys and nothing modern.

</comment><comment><USER44> What exactly is "bored" though. I read the article and it wasn't clear. Are they just referring to digital devices, video games, etc? Or books and doing crafts etc? Because those probably have the same level of stimulation as digital devices, in the absence of digital devices.

Or do they mean we should force our kids to do mundane work?

<comment><USER2> Don't force your kids to do anything for a time. Don't provide the work or entertainment.

You can give them a few limited options to work with if they choose, but it will surprise you to see the level of play they come up with a bit of time to think on it and limited resources to do it with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Is this comparable to accelerated learning through apps/media ?

I mean is their a validated study that new age learning tablets/apps are detrimental versus letting someone get bored ?

Would a daily session of yoga+breathing exercises for an hour achieve the same thing as in this article...but without eliminating the value that modern tech might bring ?

</comment><comment><USER46> Discussed at the time:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19069312](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19069312)

</comment><comment><USER47> Doing nothing sparks creativity in kids. It makes them think rather than be told what they need to do to keep their mind occupied

<comment><USER48> But then what if they think the wrong things?

<comment><USER49> I sure hope you're kidding, but it's hard to tell. Time and space to think might as well be a human right.

<comment><USER50> Like for example, pick on younger sibling to amuse oneself out of boredom. And again and again and again.

<comment><USER51> I think "let kids think for themselves" and "encourage good/discourage bad behavior" are correlated in a way that is opposite what you implied: being able to come to your own conclusions means that whatever behaviors you end up practicing (in a healthy environment, good ones, encouraged by parents/others) are _your own choices_ , rather than things you'll slavishly repeat for fear of punishment/desire for praise later on in your life.

Tl;dr parents can encourage/punish their kids and let them think for themselves. This is healthy and good.

Also, to loop back to the larger discussion, using screens _definitely_ doesn't discourage bullying behavior. For evidence I present . . . the internet, give or take.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Let adults get bored again!

</comment><comment><USER53> I grew up with a bonafide, diagnosed sociopath running my family. This didn't happen till I was 10 so prior to that I was your average spoiled upper-middle- class kid.

Being 10 and moving in with said sociopath coincided with my family being poor. This was 91, so off-hand I don't know what 12K a year would be in today money, but it was below the 13.1K poverty line I last remember seeing for 91.

The result? Well, said sociopath threw away 75% of the toys my sister and I accumulated over our brief lifetimes ("children don't need that many toys"), so we learned to make our own fun.

I retained one of those Lego-brand briefcases of, well, Legos. Buying my sister and I a set of that clay (I don't remember the name, so I appreciate any help on this) that came in different colors and you could bake to hardness in the oven was a staple of our Christmases; prior to us being poor, we'd make one or two things and ignore the rest of the set. Post the family debacle, we made anything we could.

Without the promise of eternal external stimuli, I designed scores of video games, and for my favorite series I made action figures out of the aforementioned clay along with entire Lego worlds for them to do things in. I measured the difference between the volume of some of my figures before being baked versus the volume after, and used the average to make their magically- powered hats or suits or whatnot, so that such could be put on or removed as the story I (and occasionally my sister) were creating demanded.

I don't at all miss the rampant abuse from that period. There were constant room searches. "Popular music" was utterly verboten; my sister bought a Mariah Carey album at 11 and the amount of horrifying verbal abuse leveled at my mother was legendary. Trying to avoid that, I wound up storing Pretty Hate Machine in a cabinet within a box within a Dungeons and Dragons box, as the latter was in a moral grey area as per said sociopath. Buying that tape (which, yes, dates me...) was a 16-mile bike ride.

All that said... sometimes even today I try to impose arbitrary constraints on myself to recreate the creativity and just overall fun of that period. There was abject misery then. There was also a lot of fun.

Children should be allowed to be bored, but as others have said, so should adults. "If you're bored, you're boring!!!!" is commonly leveled at adults, but.. perhaps not? Perhaps it's simply a result of our "if you're not producing anything RIGHT NOW you are an abject failure of a human" culture.

It's not good to make your life revolve around anything, really. That seems obvious in terms of drugs or alcohol or video games or internet addiction in general. But I worry about people who make even supposedly-benign things like exercise or veganism or activism or even the much-vaunted "family" thing their sole reason for being. Sometimes we need to not be 100% fulfilled.</comment>


Grantoo launches Propeller SDK to extend reach to iOS and Android apps - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/16/grantoo-launches-propeller-sdk/

<comment><USER2> Grantoo cofounder here. We'd love to hear what the HackerNews community thinks of what we've built. We're a team of game developers frustrated with the options out there for engaging + monetizing players by delivering value, not showing ads, so we decided to take matters into our own hands. With PropellerSDK, we are matching top games with Fortune500 brands who will sponsor tournaments with real prizes (tuition, charity grants, etc) for players. Games get great features + a new revenue stream, players win prizes, and brands benefit from the most effective mobile advertising channel currently available.

</comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr: platform to add server-side multiplayer features (challenges, tournaments) as well as monetization through sponsored tournaments. sounds pretty win/win/win to me..

</comment><comment><USER4> Cool. Looking forward to trying it out!

</comment><comment><USER5> Stoked on this release guys! Cheers from North Van.</comment>


StumbleUpon closing after 16 years, accounts can be migrated to Mix - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@gc/su-is-moving-to-mix-c2c3bff037a5 <comment><USER2> StumbleUpon was one of the first web services I came across that actually provided a new and exciting way to traverse the internet. I'll never forget the sense of discovery and wonder and amusement it provided, my only other sources for cool and interesting content were things my friends would share with me or sites I would find via an article/web page.

StumbleUpon took me out of my "filter bubble" if you will and introduced me to corners of the web I would have possibly never discovered on my own. It will be missed.

<comment><USER3> Same. It's a real shame they are shutting it down. To be fair, I haven't used it in a long time.

I'm now wondering how do I rescue my data from StumbleUpon, I don't see any way to download it. I looked through the settings and my profile page. I even tried this new mix.com website and it didn't transfer any of my data from StumbleUpon. Anyone know whether I can export my data somehow?

<comment><USER4> You could also check a tool I wrote that extracts page likes data as JSON file on [https://github.com/gusanmaz/StumbleUponRescuer](https://github.com/gusanmaz/StumbleUponRescuer)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So SU tangentially provided me with the singularly most embarrassing moment of my life about 9 years ago.

So we are showing our office to a design company a few buildings over and just chatting about the business and the stuff we make (we were all starting out and in our early 20s), there were lots of prototype bits around and adhesives and stuff, basically the office had a slight chemical smell to it.

One of the guys from the design agency says "That smell, reminds me of _inaudible half mumble_ , in my spare time I like to surf". My dumb dumb brain decides he means he likes to surf the web and so I reply with "oh, you should check out Stumble Upon, it's a pretty cool service for finding new stuff on the web".

Everyone looks at me like I'm a total idiot but I just carried on as normal because my brain is still thinking: surfing the web and not the much more obvious surfing with wet suits that smell like our office does. I'm guessing the bit I didn't hear was the word wetsuits.

Anyway, as soon as we show them out it dawns on me what a socially awkward penguin I just managed to be, I still die a little inside every time I remember the bemused look on his face after my comment. Funnily enough we never did do any work with those guys.

Anyway, thanks Stumble Upon!

<comment><USER6> You should drop what you are doing and go find a way to embarrass yourself properly. I mean no offense but it's just so sad that you've managed to avoid embarrassment to this extent when there is so much to learn from it.

<comment><USER5> No offence taken, I'll take mine over some of the other stories out there. I've got plenty of time to drum something else up, I'll try not to specifically plan anything though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been mulling a form of charity where instead of closing down a once famous website, you give it to some talented developers in a poorer country to maintain it remotely. There are good developers in third world countries who get paid a pittance for basically busy work. They would certainly appreciate the challenge and money around a service like StumbleUpon. What do you think of this idea and is there anyone doing something like this?

<comment><USER8> "Once famous" websites are rarely ever thrown away completely. They are often scrapped for parts, and any nugget of value that still remains, is sold to the highest bidder. This is often incompatible with letting the service continue running as usual.

For example, the article mentions that the StumbleUpon cofounder is currently working on Mix, and all StumbleUpon accounts will be migrated over to Mix. Most likely, they want to harvest whatever is remaining of StumbleUpon's userbase/reputation, to help grow Mix instead. This will be much harder to do, if StumbleUpon continues operating and slowly degrading.

<comment><USER9> Example: The zombie-esque [http://www.excite.com/](http://www.excite.com/)

<comment><USER10> Holy fuck how is this still around?!

edit: never mind. Most of the links are dead and half of it doesn't work. Kinda makes me think of this old Jurassic Park website that's still alive:

[http://www.lost-world.com/Lost_World02/hammondsoffice.html](http://www.lost- world.com/Lost_World02/hammondsoffice.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I started using StumbleUpon in high school, maybe around 2007. Until then my internet activity was pretty limited to Wikipedia and (oddly enough) Slate. StumbleUpon cracked that open -- the number of cool, strange websites I'd never have otherwise found was astonishing, like what I imagine the prototypical country bumpkin feels when they step off the bus in the big city.

Of course, I haven't used it in at least 5 years, so this news isn't so surprising. But it was a cool thing for a while.

</comment><comment><USER12> I loved stumble upon until the pages I was shown veered from my interests and began to feel like either spam or obvious paid content. It was annoying and the issue that eventually pushed me off after 3-4 years of use.

I'm a bit sad to see this news. Maybe my view became jaded, but with this timing I have to wonder if it's related to GDPR. A profile of your interests and favorite sites is the kind of information a company like CA would have been interested in buying.

<comment><USER13> I felt the same, it lost its charm. It seemed like there were many paid articles coming up and I didn't feel the categories worked all that well.

Ultimately it seems reddit did a better job at categorising links for peoples interests with a transparent voting system...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is no mention of this in the document, but the timing suggests there may be a GPDR-related factor. It's hard to get consent from users that haven't touched the service for years.

<comment><USER15> That's an interesting point. I wonder if at some point in the future we'll start getting historical exemptions, similar to those for real world properties with historical value.

It might even free up faster innovation in technical law, since new laws could be as onerous (or not) as lawmakers wish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I used to have a setup where StumbleUpon was permanently on my TV set, and the Stumble button itself I had hooked up to my remote control, so I could stumble my way through things on the couch. It was infinitely better than TV itself.

I agree with other commenters how it expanded their online world, and I'm saddened that there is no real alternative to this now, especially in the land of insular internet bubbles we live in today.

</comment><comment><USER17> StumbleUpon was "unique" in the aughties sense of the word. Before Reddit and Digg made things Hot or Not this was the place to go for interesting content. It wasn't loud or or overly verbose; it sent you to great sites before SEO and paid media killed content.

Maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic on the implementation as well as the time. IDK.

I hope Garret, Ali and the team at Mix do great things.

<comment><USER10> I personally miss What's Better (two random photos and you click in which one is better, like a Seal vs a Bird, or AIDS vs Jazz Music, or Europe vs Ben Folds Five).

It didn't last long and it was written entirely in Python .. had some scaling issues too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Stumble upon was one of my first contracting jobs. In second year university back in 1999/2000 (more than 16 years ago?) I had a little freelance project for them to write an Amazon like recommender system. Super small project money wise and I just ended up delivering a math paper like result. I suspect they never used it and instead just contracted with someone else.

<comment><USER19> 2000 seems so long ago, but then I realize I was a "mere" 23 y/o at that time. Now that makes me feel old.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> StumbleUpon was a game changer, and a big gateway into discovering truly weird and wonderful things about the internet. I used to bind the Firefox plugin to middle mouse click, so I could keep browsing with a hotkey.

Haven't used it in years, but still sad to see it go.

</comment><comment><USER21> By far the most important service of my younger years that influenced me and attracted me to CS. Without it I never would've discovered all the cool tools that eventually convinced me to try building my own.

</comment><comment><USER22> StumbleUpon was a key driver in traffic to some of my early blog posts. They didn't stay long (compared to search referrals) however the exposure was great.

<comment><USER19> IIRC, there was no "social" part of the media. It was just random links to other sites. Most of which also had zero social media factor. SU was just curiosity.

<comment><USER22> The "social" part was that the inventory of links/websites was provided, and voted upon by users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was working on Website Randomizer at the time when everyone told me it is already done and pointed to StumbleUpon. I abandoned project, which I am a little bit sorry about, but I always liked StumbleUpon and it was great way to discover new things.

</comment><comment><USER24> If one wanted to build a barebones SU replacement, what would be a good approach to get an index of random pages these days? (Or is there an underreported replacement out there somewhere?)

<comment><USER25> Comman crawl may be good place to start

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I remember using StumbleUpon in my teens, and one site in particular sticks out to me. It was a full-page Flash point-and-click game where you directed a few children across a few different landscapes (IIRC at least a desert and jungle).

It stuck out to me because it was an example of someone making something to be enjoyed, in a time where I had assumed people needed money as a motivator for entertainment to be created.

</comment><comment><USER27> I have many fond memories of Stumbling back in the day, made some genuine connections with a few Stumblers, more so than I ever did with Friendster etc.

The only other social media service that resulted in similar genuine connections with other like-minded folks was MySpace music. I've not found that x-factor - serendipity, I suppose, with a platform since.

</comment><comment> murph-almighty Honest question to commenters here, since this seems to be a common trend: Why did you stop using StumbleUpon?

</comment><comment><USER28> Computer science blog gems I found using stumbleupon were priceless when I was in college. I would spend google portion of night stumbling good blogs of computer science and DIY projects. I could never find them through google because I didn't know what to look for.

</comment><comment><USER29> Lol, I used it this week after 5 years. Articles were pretty old and outdated, but the UI hasn't lost its touch, just no real/meaningful community

</comment><comment><USER30> I fondly remember this platform from my college days. At the time I had a girlfriend who was kind of a missmatch for my interests. She was much more focused on athletic pursuits than exploring new types of technology. That all changed when I showed her the StumbleUpon toolbar and site. After a few clicks she realized that it was a lot of fun exploring the Internet randomly.

Thanks for the great memories guys!

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm sad that I had forgotten about StumbleUpon, and now it will be gone. I found so many small interesting sites that way.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've been meaning to check out this StumbleUpon thing everyone's talking about. Guess I'm too late.

<comment><USER19> I hear ya. This sliced bread phenomenon seems amazing. I really should look into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Url changed from [https://www.neowin.net/news/stumbleupon-closing- after-16-yea...](https://www.neowin.net/news/stumbleupon-closing- after-16-years-accounts-can-be-migrated-to-mix), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER34> A valuable and worthwhile tool in its day. I was a fan from almost its beginning, using it for some years but, gradually, I stopped entirely. I haven't even thought about for a decade now. Still a pleasant memory however of something so simple but very useful.

</comment><comment><USER35> Apparently no data is being lost:

> _With a few clicks you can register and import your SU favorites, interests > and tags — creating Mix Collections that are easily shared with friends. If > you have any questions, email firstname.lastname@example.com for help._

</comment><comment><USER36> Shame, have fond memories of finding cool random things in the early days on StumbleUpon. Later on it felt like an adfeed but still, good stuff.

</comment><comment><USER37> People who have tried using Mix, how's your experience been so far?

If you haven't added any friends, is the filter bubble prevented?

<comment><USER38> I can only view like 4 lists of 13 articles each right now. The website directs you to download an app, which seems to be nothing more than a shortcut to a webpage. When i open the app, there is a banner at the bottom that says, "Get it on Google play".

All in all, Mix seems to be a work in process to me, and not a smooth landing off Stumble

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> StumbleUpon was first, why Reddit won? Can you tell me examples of what good decisions Reddit founders made?

<comment><USER40> Reddit started out with a nerdy community that bootstrapped excellent content. They added features slowly, focusing on quality and the moderation system. The idea of sub-Reddits allowed groups to form, each with its own "rules" to ensure the site remained useful to everyone as it grew.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> But stumble upon's logo is so much better than mix's...

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm simultaneously sad, and eager to hear Maciej's reaction.</comment>


Ask HN: Why isn't Ember popular? - <AUTHOR> Compared to Angular, people that use Ember are a rarity... https://i.imgur.com/4CEeJMv.png<p>I have used Ember on previous projects and love it. Whats the reason for Angular being so popular? <comment><USER2> The first two answers to this quora question are from authors of each framework and give very detailed responses, I encourage you to give it a read to gain technical insight on the differences, as it will help give perspective on why Angular is more popular: [http://www.quora.com/Client-side-MVC/Is- Angular-js-or-Ember-...](http://www.quora.com/Client-side-MVC/Is-Angular-js- or-Ember-js-the-better-choice-for-JavaScript-frameworks)

My personal opinion on why Angular is more popular than Ember goes back to the root difference between the two frameworks: Ember's syntax is structured in a way that favors those coming from Cocoa or Ruby, while Angular is structured in a way more familiar to those with an existing background in HTML5. I also wouldn't discredit the proximity Google already has with web developers (analytics, webmaster tools, etc).

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably two very large factors have to do with Google being the force behind angular, and the fact that you can inject it into existing pages. Whereas with ember, you more or less need to build from scratch with ember.

Personally, I prefer ember myself. I find angular very awkward and slow. I agree with you, ember doesn't get the respect it deserves.

</comment><comment><USER4> I tried Ember a few years ago, 2 things, I didn't like:

\- the api was changing all the time, so Ember would break often

\- Ember wasn't "opt-in", like React or AngularJS. You don't need to write SPAs with either Angular or React, in fact Angular doesn't even ship with a router by default anymore. Which is good.

I just thought that, at the time, while Angular knew where it was heading, Ember just didn't. Finally Angular seemed more pragmatic to me in term of integration with legacy jQuery widgets and stuff like that.

</comment><comment><USER5> If all you care about are Google Trends, why isn't _Angular_ popular? According to the trends, everyone's still writing jQuery [1].

ember-cli has counted _203986_ downloads in the last week [2]. I'd say that's not bad. Maybe even _pretty good_.

[1] [http://imgur.com/2MpXx6a](http://imgur.com/2MpXx6a)

[2] [https://www.npmjs.com/package/ember- cli](https://www.npmjs.com/package/ember-cli)

</comment><comment><USER6> Apart from other technical reasons, Angular is backed by Google.

</comment><comment><USER7> Ember Data was incomplete for a long time after Ember was new. It may have been usable, but it came with a lot of scary don't-use-this language.

</comment><comment><USER8> Google makes angular a trend although I think it hard to adapt. I prefer backbone. It is easy to learn and keep view layer clean unlike angular.</comment>


The Node.js job market - <AUTHOR> http://blog.8020.co/the-nodejs-job-market/

<comment><USER3> I don't think that this search has any smarts behind it -- it just matches on strings. So .net would include both the framework and the tld listed in the posting. For example, check out what happens if you replace .net with .org:

[http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=javascript%2C+objective+c%...](http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=javascript%2C+objective+c%2C+node.js%2C+ruby%2C+python%2C+.org&l=)

<comment><USER4> I searched on C# instead - which seems to bring it into line with what I'd expect:

[http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=javascript%2C+java%2C+node...](http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=javascript%2C+java%2C+node.js%2C+ruby%2C+python%2C+C%23%2C+php&l=)

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point; .net in a company's url will skew the results. But C# eliminates other .net languages like VB.net, F# (a much smaller quantity). The true quantity of .NET jobs posted is probably somewhere between the .net and c# results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Notice that PHP is missing from the list. I would imagine that PHP is still dominating over all over web languages. And it's not surprising to see Node.js higher than other languages like Ruby or Python, Node.js has commercial appeal and is more hip.

Slight nitpick, but I noticed Javascript and Node.js n the same charts, Node.js is Javascript and Javascript is Node.js.

"If your concern is finding a tech job then your trusty existing technologies are continuing to serve you well." — this statement made me laugh. Any sane technical director/lead knows better than to make a business rely on something still so new. Node.js has proven itself to an extent, but it's got a long way to go before people start using over the likes of Python or .NET.

I've used Node.js a little bit myself, but mostly only when hacking on an idea, not for production use. At the end of the day, use what you like and build what you love.

<comment><USER6> I agree. Node.js _is_ JavaScript. Also, the lack of mention of PHP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I work at PayScale and I'm a pretty huge Node fan. We don't use it internally, but last year (maybe the year before, I don't remember)... I made sure we could report on it.

Here is some salary data on it. [http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Skill=Node.js/Salary](http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Skill=Node.js/Salary)

I've got to run to a meeting, but I'll see if I can find more details when I get back

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm curious, why do people treat Node.js and JavaScript as separate? I understand that the DOM API and Node's core libraries are different, but any good programmer can pick up new libraries and frameworks in a matter of weeks.

I just find it strange that as a JavaScript developer, many recruiters (and even some companies) won't even consider me for a Node position unless I explicitly state that I have Node experience.

<comment><USER9> There's still plenty of learning involved (having trained non-Node JS developers), especially learning "the Node way". I guess those companies are the types that needs someone last week, they're probably doing you a favor by not considering you.

There's also JavaScript developers who are only interested in front-end development, and for them it's a good way to let them know what to expect.

In reality it's not different from asking for Swing developers vs. general Java skills.

<comment><USER10> OK, I'll bite: been doing frontend development with plenty of node.js for the tooling side for a year.

What is "the Node way"?

<comment><USER11> The Node Way is best described as: Forget Design Architecture is old Testing is forgotten JS is the only code Node today is shiny So here we stay Pretending to be developers Blagging all the pay

<comment><USER9> Someone sounds bitter... FYI testing is considered a must in Node's culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Where is php? I suspect nodejs and php would be inversely related to one another.

<comment><USER13> That was my first thought as well - I would've liked to see how PHP compared in terms of demand.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can add/edit/delete terms and get an updated chart at: [http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=javascript%2C+objective+c%...](http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=javascript%2C+objective+c%2C+node.js%2C+ruby%2C+python%2C+.net%2C+php&l=)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't know about the accuracy of this graph depicting the Node.js job market. I think a lot of companies like to sound "hip" and include Node.js to try and attract javascript engineers. YMMV but I've found most companies saying "you can hack in node" means "we've done a side project or two using Node.js"

<comment><USER15> This graph is about as useless as it gets. All it means is the job has that term in the job description or somewhere.

What this graph really means is... "How many job descriptions contain the term ...". And that's about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find this chart to be much more useful. It's not job openings, it's "popularity" in terms of how much each language is being used.

[http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index....](http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html)

<comment><USER17> Great find.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Node JS Job Ad:

Hipster brogrammer wanted. Lack of knowledge of other languages wanted. Thinking every part of the tech stack should be written in JS. Must create yet another layer of shit to translate into JS and pretend it is cool! Must be willing to run to the next shiny-shiny when released and be willing to abandon current projects.

<comment><USER18> I was curious, so I actually searched through the Node.js job ads on indeed.com. I wanted to see some of these hipster jobs ads written by companies that are surely chasing a fad and doomed to fail. For everyone's benefit I've listed some of those companies here:

Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Expedia, Staples, Nordstrom, Macy's, Disney, Hulu, Comcast, T-Mobile, AT&T, Getty, LinkedIn, Heroku, Oracle, eBay, AOL, E*TRADE, Yahoo, Walmart, Sony Computer Entertainment, Lockheed Martin, GE, HP, MLB

Glad I don't work for any of THOSE jerks!

/sarcasm

<comment><USER19> Microsoft is using node.js now? Maybe that's why Windows 8 was so awful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm thinking that this also has more to do with the sorts of jobs that would end up on a job board (like Indeed or Monster or Dice) versus the types of jobs that appear in the "Now Hiring" HN sections.

.NET being more of an enterprise technology, I'm not surprised that the first step would be for HR to make job postings on Indeed or other sites. With Node, I don't have the same impression of it being accepted in the enterprise yet (though MS is pushing it with Azure, for instance), and it's also such a young technology that not too many organizations are hiring maintenance developers for legacy projects yet.

The relative trends chart is exceptionally misleading.

<comment><USER21> I don't see many job postings on HN for C# developers. When I do it's usually for senior developers and doesn't offer remote.

<comment><USER22> That is not true. First of all, there are at least a few c# opening each month in whoishiring monthly.post. Second, a quick inspection on these posts already gave me a few of these opening that were both looking for junior dev and supports remote.

<comment><USER21> I saw one posting for a C# consulting position January and February. Wanted 5+ years of experience and a degree with no remote option.

<comment><USER22> just did a quick galance on feburary whoishiring post:

Kaggle - San Francisco, CA We're hiring our next Software Developer - <USER2> Platform (C#, ASP.NET). REMOTE within US timezones or E3 is a possibility for the right candidate.

Kaggle runs data competitions that solve business problems for companies and provide fun and prize money to the world's community of data scientists. We're offering an opportunity to be involved in what Forbes magazine called the most novel Machine Learning applications that are "eating the world" [1]. As a developer, you'll be responsible for keeping kaggle.com (and the 140,000+ users who play there) running: everything from front-end UI work to server- side code and DB architecture.

See [https://www.kaggle.com/careers/](https://www.kaggle.com/careers/) to apply and learn more about our team.

You may want to use regex to find more. Hope it helps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> While this particular study isn't the best, one thing I have always noticed about Node.js is that the ratio of hype to job openings is way off compared to other languages in the past.

</comment><comment><USER24> I do think node is for real. I'm a database architect by trade, but have picked up a copy of nodejs in action to try to get in on this. I plan to get up to speed and start creating sites with a MEAN stack.

If all I get out of it is increased javascript skills and linux familiarlity, then it'll be time well spent.

My current shop is .net/windows, but in the last couple years we've introduced nginx, python (django), and angular. Times they are a changin'.

</comment><comment><USER25> Indeed.co.uk is an excellent job search engine but from what I have noticed it's flooded with ads coming from recruitment agencies. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a lot of those job postings would be replicates, posted by different recruiters/agencies.

Also, there seems to be quite a lot of confusion about node.js around recruiters/job postings. It is often being treated as another *.js library and put under front-end category.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm not surprised by this. Node's grunt.js is really useful for minifying/preprocessing js/css files in front-end heavy applications. I'm not even sure how you would do all that with Java or C#.

<comment><USER27> Can't speak for Java but built in bundling and minification was added to ASP.NET in version 4.5 (early 2012ish?)

[http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and- minifica...](http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/bundling-and-minification)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've seen node listed in job ads where node.js isn't even used at the company looking to hire, or where they'll use npm/bower/grunt tooling. It's a super trendy buzzword.

</comment><comment><USER29> Is there any market for node extension writers (as in the v8 stuff)?

</comment><comment><USER30> > Surprisingly .NET is much higher in demand than any of the other > technologies.

It's always funny when technology hipsters are surprised that the wider world doesn't share their anti-MS biases.

<comment><USER31> It's funny how nobody implied that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> any guesses where the .NET uptick in early 2013 is from?

<comment><USER33> According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Microsoft_Windows](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Microsoft_Windows) it corresponds to the release date of windows8 and server 2012. Must be a product release correlation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> there is likely some overlap between js and node.js</comment>


Ask HN: How do you find a startup partner or investor in the UK? - <AUTHOR> Hi, To cut a long story short: I've built two enormously complicated startups on my own but I'm running out of cash and I need help.
I've spent the last couple of years under my stone coding 12-14 hours per day and I have virtually no connections or friends.
Is there a way I could find a partner or an investor to keep my projects going? I'm based in the UK and I'd prefer to work with somebody whom I can meet face-to-face.
Where would you start? Thanks. <comment><USER2> I'm in a somewhat similar position although I'm not in the UK. I've spent a good while "under the stone" working on my product and I do have some great relationships with investors/customers, but I don't have any strong connections with technical folks so it's a bit lonely at times. In all fairness though, I've been so busy lately that networking isn't a top priority.

If I were you I would try to find a Meetup and invite myself, get out of your comfort zone. I've had a lot of success doing that and it's one of the better decisions I've made in the past year.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can connect you to an investor that i know, But he is based in Manchester, Where about in the U.K. are you ?

You can ping me an email ( in my profile ) and i can send his contact details if you like.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the offer, actually I can't see any details on your profile. I'm on the South West coast.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm in London and am in a similar situation to you, email me and let's meet or chat, perhaps we could pool resources...

</comment><comment><USER5> What industry are your startups in?

<comment><AUTHOR> One is general entertainment (think 16 - 24 demographic, male, using 4chan and facebook). Although it's got a USP, during the time spent coding the competition has increased (which I view as a positive). I do have an edge but it will take time to build user base and to drive advertising money.

Other one is SaaS aimed at power-users of one particular global social media channel. Senior marketing specialists, PRs and similar type of folk. Very innovative tool, narrow niche, big subscription price. This one has a better short-term cash generating prospect compared to my first startup.

<comment><USER6> Your SaaS seems interesting and we could be traveling the same folks. I'm building a marketing platform for small businesses. Would love to have a look to see if it's a fit.

<comment><USER7> @tixocloud - Can you drop me an email (in my profile) as I think I'm also working in the same market but from a different angle. Couldn't find a way to contact you on your website.

<comment><USER6> Will do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm also based in the UK and facing similar challenges.

It'll be cool to see how this goes...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone for the ideas. I'll keep you posted on how it goes.

</comment><comment><USER9> whereabouts in the UK are you based?</comment>


Linode Block Storage Private Beta Is Here - <AUTHOR> https://linodians.com/blog/linode-block-storage-private-beta/ <comment><AUTHOR> I wonder if the 100GB cap is because they are using SSDs? I did research and apparently DigitalOcean's offering is also using SSDs.

Am I the only one that would have built this with HDDs? lol</comment>


Convox: Docker deployments to AWS - <AUTHOR> http://www.convox.com/

<comment><USER2> Hey, one of the authors of Convox here...

Convox is a private app deployment platform that runs in your own AWS account. Instead of paying to use a multi-tenant, black box PaaS, you can have your own for a fraction of the price.

Convox is all open source. Take a look at github.com/convox/kernel to see all the low level infrastructure work we are automating.

Running `convox install` is an easy way to get a stack of the best AWS services and configuration. VPC, ECS, Kinesis, Lambda and more are all there to support any Docker container you want to deploy.

Take a look at the docs here: [https://docs.convox.com/](https://docs.convox.com/)

I'm happy to answer any questions...

<comment><USER3> I spent the weekend with it and wrote my first impression - [http://oren.github.io/blog/convox.html](http://oren.github.io/blog/convox.html)</comment></comment>


Nodule: A Node.js Pub-Sub Key-Value Store in 185 Lines - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/chriskite/nodule

<comment><USER2> Just for kicks, here's what the straight port of Nodule.js looks like in CoffeeScript.

<http://gist.github.com/364845>

A little clearer, about 25% shorter, pretty fun.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. I haven't played with CoffeeScript before, I'll have to try it out.

I stuck to straight JS since I'd like the source to be simple for most developers to understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice, good to see more people coming to Node.js. These things are like the modern "Hello, World!".

Here's one I hacked up in 10 minutes. It's 40 LOC. <http://gist.github.com/366590>

The big problem with this is that it's just one server. I'm working on something called "NodeRed" (har har) that lets one scale out the frontend using Redis for communication. It's generic enough to do PUBSUB, chat, games, etc.

Here's an overview. <http://fictorial.com/NodeRed.png>

I developed the/a Node.js client for Redis if you care to dive into this stuff: <http://github.com/fictorial/redis-node-client>

<comment><USER3> I just uploaded the first version of NodeRed:

<http://github.com/fictorial/nodered>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Redis has Pub/Sub support as well: <http://code.google.com/p/redis/wiki/PublishSubscribe>

And I think their APIs ( _limited to pub/sub_ ) are very alike, kinda cool!

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm working to accomplish something similar with Redis's pub/sub and Rosepad Socket.IO for handling persisting the client connection. If anyone has ideas questions or suggestions related to this strategy or these technologies I'd love to talk, email is in my profile.

<comment><USER3> I am doing something similar with my redis-node-client as a base.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> i'm pretty clueless - what are some examples this could be deployed for?

<comment><USER5> It is just a form of message passing / broadcasting. Simplest example is chat. More complex example is Google Wave.</comment></comment>


Salva: And 3-dimensional fluid simulation library in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://salva.rs/demo_all_examples3/ <comment><AUTHOR> Wasn't sure if I should have linked to demos or to the project page.

[https://salva.rs/](https://salva.rs/)</comment>


Your app shouldn't suffer SSL's problems (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://moxie.org/blog/authenticity-is-broken-in-ssl-but-your-app-ha/ <comment><USER2> So, this is about six and a half years ago (December 2011)

Distrust of the Web PKI (the Public Key Infrastructure for SSL/TLS on the Internet that basically falls out of what the Netscape Corporation built in the 1990s) was high and lots of people were sure better was possible. Moxie was one of them and so was I.

So - what happened? Maybe somebody wrote a good article summarising, and will link it here, but otherwise here's a brief summary in two halves, plus a bonus

1\. Web PKI trustworthiness improvements. The CA/B Forum Baseline Requirements have been tightened up somewhat, so that the accepted minimum standard is higher than it was. Google's Certificate Transparency work ensure we (the public) can see what they're up to, rather than relying on rumours and guesswork, and so we can insist they do what they've said they would before disaster strikes. The Mozilla project's mozilla.dev.security.policy, open to the general public, began to take its oversight role more seriously.

2\. Alternatives proved trickier than anticipated. e.g. Pinning sounds great, and it works for Google, Apple, Microsoft. Most of the time. But it's a massive foot gun, and in some forms (HPKP) it's also a ransom mechanism; DANE leverages DNSSEC, but when you try to do that you find that a surprising number of users don't have working DNSSEC, indeed their DNS doesn't work properly even without DNSSEC; TOFU approaches which worked great for SSH in practice turn out not to suit the way ordinary users interact with the Web.

Bonus: Some fraction of the people who expressed concerns like Moxie turned out to mainly, perhaps unconsciously, not want to pay $$$. Let's Encrypt almost incidentally (because it's automated and machines don't have wallets) is free at the point of use. It's surprising how many people who were absolutely certain they hated the Web PKI in principle came around to it once it was free...

<comment><USER3> >"in some forms (HPKP) it's also a ransom mechanism ..."

Is this ransom as in "ransomware"? Can you explain how pinning and HPKP are a ransom mechanism?

>"TOFU approaches which worked great for SSH in practice turn out not to suit the way ordinary users interact with the Web."

How are they different exactly?

<comment><USER2> >"Can you explain how pinning and HPKP are a ransom mechanism?"

HPKP exists today, but probably your site doesn't use it. Bad guys break in to your servers on Monday morning before work. They leave the site working exactly as it was before, except for two things: they replace the private key value used for the site, and they add HPKP headers requiring the corresponding public key (plus optionally others of their choosing). Nobody notices. Why would they?

By Friday most of your big users have accessed the site, unknown to you or them, their web browsers are now irrevocably committed by HPKP to using one of the Bad Guy's chosen keys when talking to your site.

On Friday evening, the Bad Guys remove their new private key, your site mysteriously goes down for most users. You have no idea why. You receive a telephone call from someone with a disguised voice. Transfer $1M worth of Bitcoins to the address listed on a hidden page on your web site, and access will be restored. Or don't, your choice, Bye.

The dependency on this key has to be irrevocable otherwise it can't achieve its security goals, this is the whole idea of pinning. But because it's irrevocable you're screwed. Either you pay the ransom or your site is "bricked" indefinitely.

>"How are they different exactly?"

SSH users tend to visit a small number of systems, they achieve "First use" early, from a presumed friendly system and they usually have out-of-band contact (e.g. walk over to Dave and say "Hey! Dave, I saw this error! Did you change the keys?") when things go wrong. In contrast web users often first visit a site from some unfriendly environment (e.g. a coffee shop) and the only contact details they usually have for the site operator are on the site itself.

<comment><USER4> That, again, is a browser problem. Mobile applications do not share it, since literally every user of the application is on an update channel controlled by the vendor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> this ignores user trust.

now the closed source application is impervious to mim attacks or bad CA operators but the user also have no way to validate the traffic comming out of their very own device.

generic is good sometimes. and the generic solution already account for generic user/app local certificates just fine. no need to hide an extra one that can't be verified/update inside the app. that's kinda of an asshole move.

<comment><USER4> This doesn't make sense. Do you have the private key for Facebook's Digicert- signed certificate? No, you don't. So what difference does it make whether you get certificate trust from Digicert or from an anchor installed along with your mobile app?

<comment><USER6> ... because you essentially are always allowed to install your own custom root certificate when people use the system SSL support, even on iOS? (FWIW, I also feel like the implied solution here is wrong, but your analysis is worse.)

<comment><USER4> What difference does that make? It's also annoying to test applications that don't honor system proxy settings. And?</comment></comment></comment></comment>