Don't get an internship. Start a business. - <AUTHOR> http://www.sean-johnson.com/dont-get-an-internship-start-a-business/ <comment><USER3> _Are you insane?_ Yeah, you'll learn by doing. You'll probably learn by failing. That's all well and good, you'll likely learn a lot.

But you can learn this also by interning at an existing business, learning how they do things, learning what they do wrong and what they do right. You'll bask in the experience of people who have already done this, and from their partners and connections. If you want to learn from a startup, then intern or work at a startup.

Outright cutting off this possibly important and valuable experience is borderline insane. This is not an absolute. This one-sided recommendation should be taken with a spoon of salt.

Both internship and entrepreneurship are valuable experiences. It's entirely dependent on who you are, what you're interested in doing, and the opportunities you find are open to you.

<comment><USER4> I couldn't get myself to click on the article. It just sounds like a bad idea. Industry experience is so valuable even as an entrepreneur. You learn about the efficiencies and inefficiencies of industry and it can only help you run your operation better.

<comment><USER5> Wrong. You learn even better when you figure things out by yourself.

It's called "outside of the box" thinking for a reason. If you join the box, it ain't outside the box.

<comment><USER6> > Wrong. You learn even better when you figure things out by yourself.

Assuming you figure out the correct answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've had my own business since I was 15 and also multiple internships. You can do both, and if possible, you should. Never underestimate what you can learn as an employee. This is especially true as a software engineer. Once you work with a talented team of engineers at an established company, you realize that you don't actually know anything. You will learn more in a summer internship than you will in any CS class or teaching yourself.

<comment><USER8> I agree, especially about "you can do _both_ , and if possible, _you should_ ".

I think you're right, chatmasta, about the benefits of being an employee, especially in the context of a given craft. This is exactly what I was thinking between reading the title of the article, and reading the article. Just yesterday on HN there was a very moving confessional about hacking on a production DB without transactional safety, and everyone agreed: in a sane world, junior staff learn not to do this from senior staff, rather than just trying crap and getting burned. How many things are there left to get burned on? Oh my FSM, so many. Please, please, let me learn from experienced hands, and reinvent as few wheels as possible.

But, that said, I found this article really convincing. I think all of TFA's points about the benefits of early -- crappy -- entrepreneurship are very compelling. Far more compelling than I expected. When I look around at people who're doing better (at their careers and their contributions to the world in general) than me, and people who're doing worse than me, my feeling is this: the strengths mentioned in the article (selling, managing, and focus on creating value ) are _really_ big differentiators in determining success and impact.

I've never had my own business, so maybe I dunno what's up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems to be the trendy advice to give to young people now, "go start a business straight out of college!".

But speaking as somebody who relatively recently set one up, this seems to ignore how expensive it can be to get even a simple business off the ground without someone willing to help bankroll you to begin with.

No, you don't need millions of dollars but you probably need _at least_ a couple of thousand $ spare to cover your living expenses for a few months + whatever up front costs you need to fork out on.

You get problems like clients who pay very late, or for whatever reason try and not pay you at all. And since you're the new guy with no track record people don't want to give you much up front and know you're going to struggle to lawyer up so put you at the bottom of the payment list.

Not the sort of money who somebody who is likely without savings (and who probably also has debt) is likely to be able to spare.

Also the advantage of having a job _before_ you go out on your own is that you already have some track record with a company people have (hopefully) heard of as well as more connections and hopefully knowledge that you have acquired on someone elses dime.

</comment><comment><USER10> Cool idea, but I can't help but wonder about the whole movement around pushing people toward management or leadership. Sure, it's great to find those of us who are naturally talented in that area. However, in a lot of the big companies I'm familiar with (like my previous employer), there was a glut of "leadership" made mostly of people who shouldn't be leading. Tons of middle management. It separated the regular working employees so far from the origin of their assignments that no one really felt motivated to do more than the minimum. Zero innovation from actual developers, since the system was highly resistant to ideas that originated from below rather than from above.

Great leaders are a vital asset, but transforming every person into a leader is akin to alchemy. And remember, gold is only of higher value because of its relative scarcity, not because it is intrinsically better than other metals. :)

</comment><comment><USER11> I feel bad for the people whose houses he painted. This guy probably did a shitty job. They're going to need to repaint sooner than they should. Guess we're supposed to be proud of him for swindling/pressuring people into buying a subpar service. Not to mention the employees who are lured into half-baked businesses and lose months of their lives to an incompetent "entrepreneur".

<comment><USER5> This says more about you than about the OP.

If you love to do a good job, and you find yourself without experience, you will spend more time on it, taking care about the details a professional will know to overlook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article is spot on. I create a consultancy during my studies, in ... 2001!!

Best learning experience ever- tough times help make a tough mind, and the best part is after university cost and life cost, it even left a profit. My clients were satisfied, and kept coming back for more - which made me raise prices (market demand you know).

And what can I say about the referrals- that _really_ make one feel proud, because it means you did a good job not only by your own standards, but also by the other person standard, enough than he feels like taking a risk and recommending you to friends & family.

Basically, internship is passive. Entrepreneurship is active.

If you want to be a salaryman, you should really do an internship.

If you don't, you know what you have to do.

</comment><comment><USER12> I tried sub-contracting and I didn't know what I didn't know. It was a disaster. I didn't even have to worry about getting clients and I still didn't succeed or really take much away from the whole experience other than piles of stress.

<comment><USER13> Would you mind expanding on your experience? I would really appreciate it.

<comment><USER12> Sure! I tried sub-contracting in Massachusetts for a guy who did Computer Repair. A lot of people/businesses used him and after some time started asking whether he could put together websites for them (you know, because all computer work is roughly the same). Well, he looked me up and I joined him as the web team.

I came on looking to expand on my development abilities, but I soon realized that very little of the is spent actually sitting and programming. There was meeting with customers, getting requirements, creating some sort of plan then figuring out how to break it all into a roadmap/schedule where the delivery is satisfactory and on the proper date. I had little to zero experience in any of those tasks.

I struggled to gain comfort during meetings and lacked confidence while I would be setting up the schedule, I assume it stemmed from my beginner status and an overall lack of successfully completed tasks to look back on (whether as a sub-contractor or just even hobby projects).

There were times I'd ask my father for advice (he had started a company that was rather successful), read a book or two, tried some online resources, but really, I was probably just too young and not wired to be a sub-contractor at that point in my life. Sometimes I do look back and see the mistakes I made and what I could have done to correct them, so in a way, it was a great learning experience - but not in the area that I wanted.

I've since done some "internships" (one where I was paid less than minimum wage and worked full days - but I really wanted a job experience) and realized that I came away with way more than I could have ever discerned from my experiences as a sub-contractor. However, I strongly believe this was due to the fact that I wasn't all that great development back then. Nowadays, I find that the business aspects come a lot easier now that my programming/development understanding are eons beyond what they were even 4-5 years ago.

I should also make certain to mention that my experiences are my own - <USER2> wouldn't be surprised if someone younger than I were thrust into that situation and would came out successful. However, given my past personal experience (and not even running my own business) I have to hesitate at the article's implication.

Anyway, I hope that was some good info - feel free to ask any questions if you'd like, I'll do my absolute best to answer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've heard this expressed several different ways, like creating your own job or learning by jumping right in, and it always completely ignores the value of professional experience.

Internships and first jobs are all about learning the realities of the work world and building up your professional network. If you're trying to build a B2B SaaS app, it really helps when you understand at least one of those "B"s instead of just guessing.

There will always be anecdotes of "I started my first business at 14 and have been my own boss ever since" but my (anecdotal) experience shows that most successful entrepreneurs are people who leverage their professional experience and network in order to get their first customers, co-founders, and so forth.

<comment><USER15> "Don't write something informative and realistic, make a call to arms!"

The whole point of an internship (or underpaid, monkey coder job) is to get your foot in the door, to get some residue on your resume, and to work with a real team trying to deliver something for other people.

You're naive if you think that you, by yourself, can imitate the processes, procedures, best practices, tools, standards, guides, and mechanisms that a large company can provide, and learn from it all to boot.

I'm all about "hoisting yourself up from your own bootstraps", but sometimes you need other people. Internships are about immersing yourself with other people, not trying to take the mantle of some superhero and thinking it's going to help you fly better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> You could spend all day arguing about where you will learn more, but what you really gain is perspective. Even if you decide that you never want to run a business again you'll be a more effective employee. Without that perspective you'll probably have critically flawed ideas about how businesses work.

</comment><comment><USER17> Rallying cry for a generation. Well worth passing around as a manifesto.</comment>


Ask HN: A good and cheap secure certificate provider? - <AUTHOR>

On a quick google search I see prices from ~ $13-$50/year provided by GoDaddy, register.com, Verisign etc.
I'm hosting my site currently at Dreamhost but I might migrate to other places.
What to look for when purchasing a certificate? Encryption strength, portability, price?
Any good recommendations?
Thank you. <comment><AUTHOR> Now I see on Dreamhost to access your db via phpMyAdmin you are offered a subdomain like mysql.yourdomain.com This requires a wildcard certificate which is more expensive than for a single domain.

I should reformulate my question like "Where I can find a good secure hosting for my Wordpress shop?". But I also have a Heroku Rails app which will need SSL soon.

Now I have two problems: \- find a new host for PHP/WP which offers phpMyAdmin without needing a wildcard certificate \- find a good certificate provider also for my Rails app on Heroku

<comment><USER2> You don't need a wildcard certificate, unless you want to host a lot of subdomains. If you need one just for mysql.yourdomain.com, you can still get a regular certificate, it just won't apply to www.yourdomain.com. Also, you can always get two.

The main difference between GoDaddy's certificates (and similar) and more expensive ones like Thawte and VeriSign is that the former ones are chained. This means browsers don't trust GoDaddy directly. They have to verify their certificate with whatever provider they are using. This is generally not a problem, but does require one extra step from you when setting up the certificate. GoDaddy has instructions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I see now, I can use a regular/free certificate for mysql. and a trusted-but- cheap from GoDaddy for www.

Thanks a lot!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Now I see there are certificates even over $500/year for a single domain ...

And I see Dreamhost was offering certificates in the past but now it has canceled ...

This business is looking very shady I think for a very good reason I would like to know

</comment><comment><USER3> You should be able to find a discounted GeoTrust Quick SSL 1-year cert for ~$70. I think that's the best option. GoDaddy isn't recognized by at least some semi-recent browser versions IIRC.

</comment><comment><USER4> Buy it from GoDaddy and be done with it. Purchase as many years as you can afford because renewing certificates is a bitch.</comment>


How Zappos' User Agreement Failed In Court and Left Zappos Legally Naked - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/10/how_zappos_user.htm <comment><USER2> This reminds me of some PadMapper discussions on HN where people noted that scraping Craigslist for public data (addresses) was "against their TOS" so of course it's wrong. Well guess what, Craigslist's TOS is a browsewrap and completely unenforceable.

<http://www.craigslist.org/about/terms.of.use>

They even have the "we can change this at any time" part that is especially pathetic:

> CL may post changes to the TOU at any time, and any such changes will be > applicable to all subsequent access to or use of craigslist.

<comment><USER3> I wonder what your thoughts are on the GPL. Browsewrap? Check. This or any later version? Check.

<comment><USER4> The GPL is a completely different beast. First of all it does not govern the usage of software, but its distribution. It does not matter that you don't have to click through it when downloading GPL'd software, because it's only important when you want to distribute software. And in that case the default under copyright law would be "you don't have any right to distribute". The GPL grants you the right to distribute the software under specific conditions. So when making GPL software available for others you can either agree to the GPL or you are simply in violation of copyright.

Secondly, the "this or any later version" is again quite different. It allows you to distribute the given software under the current or any later version of the licence, but since you have the choice of which version to use, a new version cannot retroactively restrict your rights (e.g. if GPLv4 doesn't allow you something that GPLv3 does, you can simply keep distributing under GPLv3 if the original software said "GPLv3 or later"). As long as you comply with the version that _you_ choose when distributing, you're fine. I don't think any court would find a problem with that, as you can't be surprised by someone else retroactively reducing your rights.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find the phrase "legally naked" to be suspect. The point is that terms of use statement on a website does not constitute a contract because there is no meeting of the minds and no assent from both sides. Moreover, judges don't accept a unilateral statement that that terms can change at any time. Hence, Zappos' TOS was found to not be a legal contract.

The linked-to article says "Zappos governed by the default legal rules, which aren't nearly as favorable to it. Losing its contract provisions meant Zappos is legally naked."

Naked means unprotected, correct? But the default legal rules include protection, yes? So naked here can only be a euphemism, rather like in the first warm days of spring where I go outside without a coat and feel 'naked' because I'm missing clothing that I expected. Zappos has protections, just not the protection that it wants. This isn't "naked."

Yet I get the feeling that the author believes that the management provisions that Zappos had in its TOS ("its disclaimer of warranties, its waiver of consequential damages, its reduced statute of limitations, its clause restricting class actions in arbitration") are almost morally necessary. These of course are provisions that so-called "bricks and mortar" stores doesn't have.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _But the default legal rules include protection, yes?_

1\. Without a contractual disclaimer of 'consequential' damages [1], Zappos could find itself forced to defend against exorbitant claims for such damages --- and disputes about the underlying facts will usually mean that such claims would have to be resolved via an expensive and uncertain jury trial, as opposed to being disposed of on summary judgment [2] by the trial judge.

2\. Different states have different degrees of legal protection for businesses. A brick-and-mortar store generally will be sued only in the jurisdiction where the store in question is located (or a chain might be sued at the location of its headquarters or other, limited venues) [3]. On the other hand, Zappos could be vulnerable to being sued just about anywhere a customer places an order --- the rules about 'personal jurisdiction' are a little fuzzy when it comes to Web sites [4].

So by not having contractual protections, Zappos arguably is exposing itself to the vagueries of whatever the default legal rules happen to be, in whatever state an unhappy consumer happens to live in.

3\. The actual business risk to Zappos might not be terrifying here, because the potential harm to consumers from buying an ill-fitting pair of shoes seems manageable (although Zappos does carry more than just shoes). It might be a different story for other e-commerce Web sites. So the object lesson of the Zappos case is worth heeding.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequential_damages>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment>

[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction>

[4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Intern...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Internet_cases_in_the_United_States)

<comment><USER5> I made a mistake in referring to a bricks-and-morter store. I should have asked how mail-order catalog companies survived and thrived for decades under the same laws that Zappos and seemingly also you find sufficiently worrisome as to require a special contract in order to avoid.

I recognize the legal principles which you listed, but is it realistic for this case? That is, of the over 100 years of mail-order catalogs in the US, how many such "expensive and uncertain" trials have occurred, how many were won or lost by the company, and what was the overall business cost?

I say this because I believe that the laws are already, and in general, in favor of the company over the consumer.

Let's take this specific lawsuit as the most relevant case. It wasn't, as you wrote, a case of ill-fitting shoes. It was a data security breech where personal information from some 24 million Zappos customers was copied. A customer claims that Zappos did not follow "federal consumer credit laws by failing to protect her personal information." If that was the case, should that customer not have the right to sue?

Note that as this is a federal law, it does not fall under your #2 point, that "Different states have different degrees of legal protection for businesses."

Should it be so easy for a company and customer to enter into a contract via a TOS which waives those federal protections? If so, should we extend that flexibility to other companies? I think the answers are "no" and "no."

This issue deals with risk management, I know. There are other solutions to risk management. For example, data breeches are a known risk, and can be planned for by designing the system to reduce the impact of the risk, by setting aside funds in order to handle litigation which might arise, and by purchasing insurance coverage should those funds prove insufficient. These make operations more expensive for the company, certainly, while a TOS which waives federal data protections is cheap. There should be no way that exorbitant claims - if unfounded! - based on data security issues should have a severe impact on Zappos.

I'm certain that some restaurants would like customers to waive food protection laws in the interests of cheaper food. Is that acceptable via a TOS-like contract agreement between the restaurant owner and the customer? Why should it be common for an online company, like Zappos, to have a TOS which waives certain customer rights?

<comment><AUTHOR> 'dalke ---

1\. At least on first reading, I don't disagree with anything in your analysis responding to my own; in particular, your mail-order catalog analogy seems quite apt.

2\. You're correct that the risk-management precautions to which you refer have costs associated with them. Within limits worked out over decades in legislatures and courts, the law allows companies to use contracts to reduce such costs by shifting the associated risks to others.

When a company has sufficient bargaining power, its management typically attempts to do just that: Use standard-form contracts to shift risks to others, and thus reduce the company's costs.

(I spend some of my time helping to negotiate such contracts. As you might imagine, the standard-form contract of a powerful customer will usually be very different from that of a supplier.)

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, this is the same principle that's behind self-service gasoline pumps and self-service checkout lines in grocery stores: The more of a company's costs that the company can get its customers (or its suppliers) to take on, the higher the company's margins will be for the same amount of revenue. Not least, companies' managements are motivated to do this because eventually a company's aggregate costs will necessarily be reflected in the price, and thus the competitiveness, of the company's products and services.

(The costs of a company whose stock is publicly traded will also be reflected eventually in the price of the company's stock. That's generally high on the list of management concerns as well.)

3\. The question you seem to pose is whether we should simply forbid contracting parties from contractually shifting risk as described in #2. Various state- and federal laws already do that to a certain extent; see, for example, consumer-protection laws, as well as article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (which in most states governs the sale of goods), not to mention employee-protection laws.

Whether a given jurisdiction should attempt go even further in that direction is a question that comes up every so often. One example is the recent controversy over the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that companies can legally include mandatory arbitration provisions in their consumer contracts, thereby largely eliminating the possibility of class-action lawsuits and thus considerably reducing consumers' leverage [1].

Whenever the issue does come up, representatives of various affected interests converge from all directions --- including but not limited to so-called consumer lawyers eager to gain, or preserve, sources of contingent fees and/or statutory attorneys' fees awards.

Ultimately the issue boils down to a political question: What should or should not the law be? As with so many such questions these days, the deep ideological divisions among the American people often result in no change to the status quo.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this is really interesting and important.

We (web developers, entrepreneurs) can't expect to just slap a "Terms of Service" link in tiny grey font at the bottom of every page and expect that to be legally binding. We can't expect agreement without asking for it. It's especially problematic for sites which don't require registration (and I'd like to see those ToS disappear). One site I saw today had a ToS link but no about page. Which is really more important?

<comment><USER7> Well. You can't use a browse-wrap contract to enforce a binding arbitration clause to strip your customers of the right to avail themselves of civil courts. That doesn't mean every other term of a browse-wrap TOS would necessarily fail in court. It is particularly difficult to compel arbitration in consumer relationships; its doable, but clauses that seek to compel arbitrary have to meet a higher standard than some other contract terms do.

<comment><USER8> "That doesn't mean every other term of a browse-wrap TOS would necessarily fail in court."

Not to mention the fact that what happened in this court on this issue would not necessarily happen in every court viewing the same facts. Or whether in some cases a company makes a conscious decision to do what they know _might_ fail in order not to add friction to the process. Clean up the mess afterwords, get the extra business now. "Polute the river and if we get get caught and fined, pay the fine!"

Separately, what I would like that I haven't seen in this thread are some thoughts on how a company like Zappos could have made this type of a mistake if it is so obvious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Frustrating that "click wrap" is seen as acceptable. Some of them are very many screens in tiny font on a small screen. I don't know how many people actually read those at the time they accept them, but I suspect the number is very low.

It'd be great if there was a standard, simple, AUP / TOS. Perhaps even a TOS- Builder app - you select what your users will be doing and it interactively creates a TOS for you using simple English and short sentences.

<comment><USER10> I wish there was some law saying that a 'contract' like that is not valid if it has more than X words (e.g. 1,000), it's between a corporation and a person, and the corporation has not resonably established that the person has consulted legal advice. That would be a relatively unambiguous way to ban such one sided contracts.

<comment><USER11> The UK Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 [1] are reasonably good in this regard IMO. It gives effect to an EU directive, so most/all EU countries should have similar protection.

Summary of major provisions:

> s.8(1) - An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller > or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

> s.5(1) - A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall > be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it > causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations > arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

> s.7(1) and s.7(2) - A written term must be in plain intelligible language. > Any doubt is resolved in the customer's favour.

[1] <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/contents/made>

<comment><USER10> That is _very_ interesting. I didn't know about this sort of law (and yes I'm in another EU member state, so this is relevant to me). Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It seems like this would have all been mute if zappos did the standard industry thing of including a "I agree to the terms and conditions" checkbox on account creation page:

<https://secure-www.zappos.com/register?checkout=true>

<comment><USER13> Sorry to be a pedant. It's "moot":

[https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amoot](https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amoot)

<comment><USER14> Isn't it moo? Like the cow?

<comment><USER15> you're stll kind of new, so let me give you some friendly advice, since i've been here slightly longer: hacker news hates jokes and jokes are a great way to get downvoted.

<comment><USER16> What HN tends to discount are useless and derivative comments of the sort which may turn into "insider" memes.

Humorous comments may get upvoted, particularly when they extend the content cleverly and are well written. However, you are correct in so far as the threshold tends to be higher than is common.

In my experience, it is best to view downvotes as editorial suggestions rather than personalizing them as "hate." A downvote may mean a lot of things, but in general it is often best to consider them as an indication of how well one's point has been communicated. I recommend using them as feedback regarding the quality of one's writing.

Likewise on the subject of communication, one might read your post as a bit uncivil in regard to the way it addresses the author of the parent comment. Curtailing incivility is a current point of emphasis within the HN community.

My question is, how could your point have been better communicated in a way which promotes meaningful dialog, and how could the "edit" feature be used to implement an improved version?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This entire TOS thing should just be eliminated. It's inevitably a bunch of ridiculous legal mumbojumbo and does little but eliminate accountability and give lawyers busy work.

</comment><comment><USER18> Lately I've been thinking that this should be part of the login process. Enter username and password. Just below the "Login" button there's the "If you click on this button..." text with a link to the TOS. Every time someone logs in they are accepting the TOS. If your login events are recorded you even have a record of when each user logged-in and, effectively, accepted the TOS.

<comment><USER19> I would not consider that to provide adequate notice of a change in the TOS. If it's just a link that never changes, you won't have been notified if it updates.

<comment><USER20> What if it included the date of most recent update? Worst case, you could store the user's most recent TOS agreement version or date identifier, and force them to agree after logging in if they want to continue. This seems to be how Apple operates for the App Store.

<comment><USER21> When I was at Yahoo years ago, and we handled billing for premium servies, we'd explicitly store the version of the TOS the user had indicated express consent to as an extra precaution (express consent in this case meant the user had ticket a checkbox to confirm they agreed _and_ then submitted the form).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Given that Eric points to the bottom-of-page placement of the TOS as further evidence of its inadmissibility, it's a bit ironic that the first paragraph of his article says "This post will make some suggestions" and the _last_ paragraph, pages down, says "[this post] doesn't provide legal advice"

An interesting read though -- thanks.

<comment><USER12> I think it has been well established that disclaimers on legal advice and commentary are less important than 10 years ago. A reasonable person must be under the assumption that the author is acting as their lawyer. Adding the extra "This is not legal advice" is moreso just a extra nail in the coffin of protection.

Its the same reason webmd does not have a big disclaimer at the top of the page saying they are not acting as your doctor.

<comment><USER23> Are there specific legal precedents that have made such disclaimers less important, or has it been a general trend?

<comment><USER24> Yes, generally see the NOLO line of cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "As you can see from the screenshot snippet above, Zappos' terms of use says "We reserve the right to change...these terms and conditions at any time." Zappos isn't the only website using language like this; it's ubiquitous on the Internet. _Unfortunately, despite its widespread usage, this language is toxic to a contract._ "

Isn't toxic to strong a word here? That particular clause it unenforceable, but the rest of the contract is unaffected, because of (I presume) a severability clause? The article seems to indicate that this clause taints other aspects of the contract.

<comment><USER26> Toxic is not too strong of a word here.

The use of a unilateral change-of-terms clause, without notification or assent, in their contract with the users of their website invokes an illusionary promise of a contract which vitiates the entirety of the contract at its very roots, including the severability clause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This raises an interesting question of whether forcing every user to click an annoying accept checkbox would actually hurt their bottom line more than the results of the lawsuits.

<comment><USER28> As far as I understand it doesn't have to be annoying. Simply having the legible text "By clicking the Purchase button you agree to the Terms" should suffice. There'll be just one Purchase button in both cases (of course, getting a legal advice wouldn't be a bad idea).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If anyone's particularly interested in the online contract issues highlighted by the Zappos User Agreement, Stanford Law had a great hour long session on online contracts at their 7th Annual Stanford E-commerce Best Practices 2010 E-commerce Best Practices Conference.

[http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/stanfordebp/files/2010/07/2010...](http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/stanfordebp/files/2010/07/20100625_LST_ECommBP-002C-OnlineContracts.mov)

</comment><comment><USER30> How does one prove that at the time a user signed up there was a checkbox/button to accept the terms, not a different version of the page?

<comment><USER31> Any half-informed Internet user should be saving copies of terms they have agreed to (after reading them thoroughly, of course).

That's sarcasm, but I feel like that's what would be legally argued in court, and it shows how much power websites have compared to their users.

<comment><USER32> how do you keep a record of terms you have not agreed to, a screen grab of an unchecked box?

<comment><USER33> You could, say, post a digitally-signed repudiation of the ToS. Or, interesting concept, of _all_ ToS terms to which you explicitly do not agree.

Put that somewhere that, say, Internet Archive would get ahold of it. Among the Archive's revenue-generating services is providing notarized copies of data that it's archived, essentially substantiating someone's claims that material was available online at a given point in time.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Hire Insanely Great Employees - <AUTHOR> http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=How_to_Hire_Insanely_Great_Employees.txt&topic=Recruiting&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium

<comment><USER2> I suspect the guy in the back was being a smartass. After all, if A hires A, and B hires C, how do you end up with B's in the company in the first place? It's the sort of unreachable condition that your typical computer geek just can't resist pointing out.

Eh, maybe A's or C's become B's while they're at the company.

</comment><comment><USER3> Folklore.org classic. Beside the obvious comic value, it shows the depth of insight Jobs had even at that age.</comment>


How I Turned Down $300l from Microsoft to go Full-Time on GitHub - <AUTHOR> http://tom.preston-werner.com/2008/10/18/how-i-turned-down-300k.html

<comment><USER2> What unit suffix is 'l'</comment>


Ask HN: Need help on design and call to action with developers as the target - <AUTHOR>

I originally started this Illuminations project as a way to fix some of my pain points with ExtJS. Debugging tools just don't give the high level view of what you are working on, so I went to fix that, at least a little. Not to mention it could server as a resume of sorts, and make some constructive use of the time I have volunteered for the Firebug project.
Anyhow, I'm at a point where it is good enough and needs to ship! And generate revenue! But I need to get the site with the call to action, etc. up and running, and am hoping some HN readers can lend a hand! Here is the site:
http://www.illuminations-for-developers.com/
Thanks for the help!! I'm a Gmail fan, so you can reach me there (same account name there as here).
-steve--
PS: For those interested, a longer term goal I have is to setup a site where you fill out one form and then it registers a new domain name for you, sets up a website and PayPal links for purchases, and creates a skeleton extension for Firefox and Chrome (and Safari?) that automatically tracks if the user is a buying user or not so your trial can turn into the real deal. <comment><AUTHOR> Don't know why the paragraph tags got in there. Original:

I originally started this Illuminations project as a way to fix some of my pain points with ExtJS. Debugging tools just don't give the high level view of what you are working on, so I went to fix that, at least a little. Not to mention it could server as a resume of sorts, and make some constructive use of the time I have volunteered for the Firebug project.

Anyhow, I'm at a point where it is good enough and needs to ship! And generate revenue! But I need to get the site with the call to action, etc. up and running, and am hoping some HN readers can lend a hand! Here is the site:

<http://www.illuminations-for-developers.com/>

Thanks for the help!! I'm a Gmail fan, so you can reach me there (same account name there as here).

-steve--

PS: For those interested, a longer term goal I have is to setup a site where you fill out one form and then it registers a new domain name for you, sets up a website and PayPal links for purchases, and creates a skeleton extension for Firefox and Chrome (and Safari?) that automatically tracks if the user is a buying user or not so your trial can turn into the real deal.</comment>


Ello Pretends It's Not Over with Video and Music Launch - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/22/remember-ello-no-i-dont-either/ <comment><USER2> The author goes a bit overboard with the snark here. Ello has done well out of its early brush with the public consciousness. True, many people arrived and left, but more than a few stuck around. There are many interesting people on Ello now. Some use it for art or photography and some use it as a journal site.

<comment><USER3> Thank god Ello came around! There have never been any decent sites to post art, photography, or journal entries to your followers.

Can't wait until all these fresh ideas kill Facebook, IBM, Tesla, NASA, etc!

<comment><USER2> They're not trying to kill Facebook. The ones that left were the ones looking for another Facebook. Those that stayed were the ones looking for something else, and they seem to have found it.</comment></comment></comment>


A Casino Town Rolls the Dice on High-Tech - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/07/business/reno-nevada-recasts-itself-as-home-to-tech-start-ups.html

<comment><USER2> As a former Casino engineer in Las Vegas, I'm happy to see Nevada diversifying away from Casinos.

Zappos is trying to revitalize downtown Las Vegas into a tech-hub and Reno's excellent location makes for a perfect outlaying office from Silicon Valley. That and the excellent tax system in Nevada make for an win-win for companies and employees.

I really hope the projects continue to move forward for the sake of the residents of Nevada.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ok, I'll bite. I have a startup. Why should I move to Reno?

<comment><USER4> Reno's OK. Vegas is a very viable alternative, just ask Tony Hsieh (founder of Zappos). Operating an online-only company in California when it could just as easily be run a few hour drive away in either Vegas or Reno is a crime against shareholders and employees. Apple, Facebook, Google and their ilk, along with their employees, are paying billions of dollars in state taxes that they wouldn't have to pay in Nevada. That money should be going straight to the bottom line, not to the California legislature, who will waste much of it on nonsense.

<comment><USER5> Apple and MS actually shield a ton of their money by having offices in Reno. Microsoft Licensing is on Neil Rd in Reno with Intuit just down the street. Tons of companies have shell corps in Nevada for tax reasons.</comment></comment></comment>


Margrethe Vestager stays on as EU competition head in blow for tech giants - <AUTHOR> https://www.cityam.com/margrethe-vestager-stays-on-as-eu-competition-head-in-blow-for-tech-giants/ <comment><USER2> As an European I am happy over this. It feels like companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook etc only really care about what the US Government has to say and it's good that the EU show these companies clearly that they have to play nice if they are going to exist in the European market.

<comment><USER3> Agreed; this is excellent news! A highly competent and principled government should be a considered a good thing _regardless_ of where you stand on the whole "big tech" debate.

<comment><USER4> As a non-EU'er, the anti-trust stuff is sure hard to separate from the promoting EU companies stuff and EU politicians certainly treat it that way.

Let's see Vestager take action against Airbus after the WTO finds against them this fall and I'll be more convinced. Maybe they'll even take on VW Group.

<comment><USER5> Scania (VW Group) was fined €880 million 2 years ago.

[https://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-17-3502_en.htm](https://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-17-3502_en.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is good news. EU is the last stronghold against big tech becoming more powerful than Nations on the global scenario. America has had its own Chaebols for a while now, it's just they're not managed by families.

<comment><USER7> EU will learn the hard way that this kind of protectionism is creating far bigger problems than it tries to solve. Soon all the big tech companies (read lots of jobs) will leave for greener pastures e.g. UK, South Africa, SE-Asia, AU.

<comment><USER8> No sane company will leave the second largest market and GDP area of the world, it would take a really lot to make them go to "greener pastures".

"Think of the jobs" is the ultimate callout of corporate defenders, while the EU is a huge profitable market for these companies they will stick around... Just compare to what happens in China, if that country still attracts tech companies then I don't think the EU will be shedding them anytime soon.

<comment><USER9> _No sane company will leave the second largest market and GDP area of the world, it would take a really lot to make them go to "greener pastures"._

That isn't necessarily true at all. The EU may be a large market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it represents a proportionately large contribution to the revenues of any given business that trades with EU customers.

For example, in the world of small tech businesses I operate in, I know of several examples who do offer their services to EU customers like anyone else. However, with hindsight, those businesses would have chosen to give up the relatively small proportion of their business that comes from elsewhere in the EU some time ago, if that also saved them the time and money they spent complying with ever-increasing levels of EU red tape. I even know some people who feel so strongly about this that they voted for Brexit because of it.

<comment><USER10> It seems to me that tech businesses really have an inflated sense of self- importance and a deep aversion to anything which might impede them from abusing people's (private) information.

<comment><USER9> It's unfortunate when people resort to stereotypes. It means the vast majority of businesses that aren't doing something shady get penalised for the actions of the relatively few that are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good. She has upheld her stance on antitrust matters and demonstrated above- average literacy with digital economy issues (for a politician). We should prepare an agenda for her to look at during the forthcoming EU commission legislature.

<comment><USER12> Although she failed miserably in her recommendation of the recent copyright directive (CDSM). The final Article 17 is a catastrophe.

[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...](https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019L0790&from=EN#d1e822-92-1https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019L0790&from=EN)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Vestager as EU competition, Goulard as defense, Timmermans on climate. These are the ingredients for a strong EU, and it's good news for the world.

<comment><USER14> But they are balanced out by von der Leyen who doesn't have the best record from her previous duties...

<comment><USER15> Meh, she got a pretty thankless job, at an especially thankless moment, and it's hard to judge without having a comparison.

And the decision we're applauding here was her's. So she does seem to be off to a good start.

<comment><USER16> > Meh, she got a pretty thankless job, at an especially thankless moment, and > it's hard to judge without having a comparison.

Her time as minister of defense isn't everything she is being criticized for. she earned the "Zensursula" moniker as minister of family.

>And the decision we're applauding here was her's. So she does seem to be off to a good start.

Yeah, lets give her the chance to be a good surprise by keeping up stuff like this decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Compared to the US tech sector, the European one is a completely different beast. For me it seems more like a slow moving, risk-averse and regulated behemoth, while the US tech industry likes to present itself as agile, risk- seeking and (kind-of) unregulated.

All major companies from the US already gained a huge competitive advantage by being first-movers and the resulting network effects, which are hard to overcome. The incentive for an average European citizen to switch from something like Google to Qwant is basically zero.

I understand the reasons for the EU to force taxes and regulations on tech giants, but this alone will not help the EU to invent itself anew. We're stuck behind and will be for a long time. You cannot change the culture through taxes.

<comment><USER18> Uncomfortable thruths: US tech rules because risk capital is extremely cheap due to the petrodollar backed up by the planet's largest military force.

<comment><USER19> this is very true.

Also, the US has a corporate structure which is brutal in terms of competition. (and it has a less equal society as a result).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wish the EU was more focused on helping European tech companies become successful, rather than preventing American tech companies from doing things.

<comment><USER21> It is the EU's job to do both, but neither is done to the exclusion of the other. We are lucky to have such a privacy-focused federal body which can bring about change effectively. I'm thrilled at the passing of GDPR, for example.

<comment><USER22> the result of the GDPR was to increase Google's European ad market share[1]

and the massively increased compliance costs will ensure that no domestic small competitor will ever be able to challenge their position

that's some effective change

[1]: [https://www.politico.eu/article/gdpr-facebook-google- privacy...](https://www.politico.eu/article/gdpr-facebook-google-privacy- data-6-months-in-europes-privacy-revolution-favors-google-facebook/)

<comment><USER23> That's not necessarily a bad thing. Innovation and healthy competition in adtech space is a _problem_ ; the industry needs to die, not grow.

<comment><USER24> ... What?

<comment> cuban-frisbee Mass surveillance for the the purpose of more targeted ads are bad for society.

<comment><USER24> Cool.

The point was that his comment was a non-sequitor. The EU strengthening Google's monopoly position will not make advertising go away.

<comment><USER23> No, but it will slow the innovation in that space, which I consider to be a positive development. It's on-topic, because slowing innovation is why people are complaining about Google's position being strengthened.

(Also, my perhaps naive hope is that the better the Google's market share here, the more damage will be caused by EU regulating the space.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Build Your First Thing with WebAssembly - <AUTHOR> http://cultureofdevelopment.com/blog/build-your-first-thing-with-web-assembly/ <comment><USER2> Nice investigation! A minor point about your description of wasm: "WebAssembly or wasm is a bytecode specification for writing performant, browser agnostic web components." The term "web components" already has a pretty specific meaning referring to the in-progress specs for custom html ui elements and surrounding technologies (see [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Web_Components](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Web_Components)). You probably don't want to overload that term given how close the domains already are.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's fair. Originally asm.js was named capsule.js but that was taken and didn't really mean what it was. We could also call it modules but there is another very related spec out there for that as well. What would you call it instead?

<comment><USER3> OpenDoc used 'part'. IIRC, all parts had a presence in the GUI, though.

This, I think is just a library or archive (in the ar/ranlib sense; [https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/binutils/ar.html#ar](https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/binutils/ar.html#ar)) of code that the browser loads over the Internet.

Java hit a jackpot calling such a thing a jar, a word that is both shorthand for "Java archive" and a noun describing a container. That suggests looking at words such as 'bottle', 'box', 'cask', 'pot' (nice word, but its connotations do not make it a winner), 'cup', 'amphora', 'pithos' (not well-known enough, and typically unmovable), 'crate' (taken by rust), or 'vase' but I can't find a nice alternative interpretation as an abbreviation ('Jug' has a 'j' that could mean JavaScript, but I think we would be looking for something with a W for 'web' or I for 'internet') or even something that sounds good ('crate' is growing on me, but already taken by rust. That shows that other terms might grow to become acceptable, too. Maybe 'jug' could be such a word?)

<comment><USER4> Plus jug will give us great opportunities for immaturity, like hey Bob, can you take a look at my jugs? Are my jugs too big?

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure if that's a plus (because I think it's hilarious) or minus (as a top-heavy female developer.)

Have an upvote and a ಠ_ಠ.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I suspect webassembly will fail miserably. If it succeeds anywhere it will be for gaming applications. I could be totally wrong, but most web developers who build applications and sites will not be likely to embrace this given the leverage JS provides and the simplicity of use.

Again, I am not extremely against wasm, but this writeup is pretty well done and my take away was that it was non-trivial to pickup, buggy and has poor documentation. I am curious who web assembly is for and who is really excited about it. Is it gaining traction in gaming, and also what am I missing(serious)?

edit: Can advertisers bypass content blockers by compiling to wasm?

<comment><AUTHOR> We (at Stack Overflow) have a new documentation product coming down the pipe with an emphasis on examples and I thought it would be awesome if we could expand our stack snippets feature to languages beyond javascript. A reproducible example right there on the webpage. In researching existing solutions, nothing was satisfying, and then I had the idea to just use asm.js and write an MSIL interpreter. I spoke with some people familiar with asm.js and decided that it wasn't particularly difficult, but it had a ton of limitations from js file sizes to ways to get all of the libraries people ask about uploaded, and of course regular breaking changes in the browser. Wasm seemed like it could help with some of the issues being a formal web specification with representatives from multiple browsers.

Other than that, I can see a lot of uses for it, from small neural nets in the browser to high performance applications like photo editing, and of course gaming. It might not be for all applications, but it certainly has a spot.

<comment><USER6> Nick,

Great writeup. I am a big proponent of the _idea_ of webassembly as I believe many are. The browser is one of the greatest apps, and it is easy to look past many of its flaws because it provides a universal environment to develop for. I have always been a harsh critic of the balkanization apps provide when they are unneccessarily trying to extend functionality already provided by the browser and live natively on my device providing virtually nothing but more access to "my" resources.

That said, while I don't love writing apps in an old IBM GML and pulling in heaps of scripts to get the functionality I need, it is easy and well understood (which is why it has proliferated). If we are to change this, I think an entirely new paradigm would be easier to use and embrace than something like wasm because the browser has a lot of access to resources and this has a fairly narrow use-case relative to it's complexity.

I could be wrong, as this technology is super nascent and people as intelligent and synonomous with the web like BRendan Eich are openly supporting it, I just don't see it being embraced at the sort of tipping point neccessary to proliferate.

It will be very hard to build a community of people doing things like you have here: providing great resources and tutorials and a community of code base to build on. A new standard or tech must be 10x better than the current one and I do not feel this is.

<comment><USER7> Also you can't trivially copy/debug a web component built using web assembly(so far) and play with it which is kinda a death sentence for any tech on the web unless it's championed as being a killer tool for some usecases- which this doesn't seem to be so far

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> On one hand, I want to bash WebAssembly because it takes away our ability to see what we're running on our own PCs. On the other, it helps us slowly get away from the mess that is modern JavaScript.

<comment><USER6> I think "this javascript mess" is largely bourne out of an attempt to mitigate content blocking. asm.js is pretty fast and I am not sure how much improvement wasm will provide, but if given access to more of the low-level environment I am concerned advertisers will implement maliscious code and pop-ups in wasm that is non-trivially blocked.

<comment><USER9> It's the same VM as JS, so why would it be any less secure?

<comment><USER6> I am not sure exactly how it can be implemented, but I imagine that compiling and serving a binary file could allow for some maliscious things. My biggest worry is that many content blockers override js and search scripts for keywords and functionality which they muitigate. I could see a binary file executing code which provides pop-ups, advertisements or drm which would be harder to eliminate than it is now.

I am not 100% sure if this is true, but it seems possible.

<comment><USER10> Serving a binary file is in principle no different than serving a string file. What can be done with WebAssembly today can most likely also be done with asm.js.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thanks for the writeup! I had a hard time figuring out how to compile C++ to WebAssembly a couple of weeks ago and finally gave up given the lack of maturity of the implementation. I am sure this will help more people get interested in WebAssembly!

<comment><AUTHOR> I had the exact same problem when I first started. Someone once told me "what we can throw away to solve this problem", so I kept removing parts until I got here which I think is currently the easiest way to get started.

<comment><USER12> Ultimately you should be able to use your C compiler and generate wasm files directly, rather than go through asm.js.

There is an experimental backend of LLVM that you can try, but it will require building LLVM from source currently. Emscripten has an option to do this automatically, I believe.

You can also write the AST format by hand, which IMO is much easier to do than writing asm.js by hand, just more verbose. I wouldn't advise anyone do this, as the format has been changing over time.

Finally, there is work on specifying a true "text format" that is meant to be used with view-source and directly maps to the binary format. You can see some proposals if you look at the pull requests in the design repo. When a proposal is accepted and we implement the tooling, you will be able to generate a binary directly from this format, which will be much nicer.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm familiar with the LLVM direct to wasm tool, but I was unable to get it working using the steps from the emscripten docs. The binaryen toolchain is pretty easy to digest, but I've been using the emsdk almost exclusively for the convenience. Once you have to rework part of it from source, I just don't know enough about it to debug it yet.

Thanks for the info on where to find outstanding proposals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hey, the intermediate language is actually a nice step up from JS.

</comment><comment><USER14> Huh, the AST looks pretty human readable. Anyone have tips for writing WebAssembly without using asm.js? Even a pointer to decent documentation would be great.

<comment><USER15> Well, if you're comfortable with that AST text-format, check [1] for docs and examples (the .wast files in the links). If you're super brave, there's hints about the Binary AST format here [2]

[1] [https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/TextFormat...](https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/TextFormat.md)

[2] [https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/BinaryEnco...](https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/BinaryEncoding.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is super useful and helpful, thanks for writing it up!

</comment><comment><USER17> I have a problem with making designing websites more complicated. This snobbery of finding a new complex way of doing something that should be made easier... not harder.

<comment><USER18> If you understand the problem - that a dynamically typed, interpreted language has performance issues that prevent it being useful in computationally intensive scenarios, but can't be replaced easily - then this solution is actually quite reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I still see a lot of misunderstanding here about what WebAssembly is. It's not really a "bytecode" like JVM's. The best simplest way to describe it is a virtual ISA for compilers to target.

So the languages that make use of it will be compiled languages like C, C++, Pascal, Fortran etc.</comment>


I saw a server configuration inspector on here a while ago, what was it called? - <AUTHOR>

from memory it could look at default config files from repo's and list changes made / packages installed etc... the website was blue, other than that i'm drawing a blank! <comment><USER2> I think you may have been thinking of this: <http://devstructure.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, i love you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Heyo - Matt from DevStructure. Glad you found it, let us know if you have any questions about blueprint - email@example.com</comment>


RethinkDB with io.js: exploring ES6 generators and the future of JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://rethinkdb.com/blog/rethinkdbdash-iojs/

<comment><USER2> I like the article, and I look forward to ES6 generators.

However, if someone want the compactness of the second example today, CoffeeScript is another alternative:

        conn = undefined
        r.connect().then (c) ->
          conn = c
          r.dbCreate('quake').run(conn)
        .then ->
          r.db('quake').tableCreate('quakes').run(conn)
        .then ->
          r.db('quake').table('quakes')
                       .indexCreate('geometry', geo: true).run(conn)
        .then ->
          r.db('quake').table('quakes')
                       .insert(r.http(feedUrl)('features')).run(conn)
        .error (err) ->
          console.log(err) if err.msg.indexOf('already exists') == -1
        .finally ->
          conn.close() if conn

(obviously the main benefits with generators aren't concise code, but since the article mentioned conciseness I thought I'd post the CoffeeScript equivalent)

<comment><USER3> That can be done via ES6 as well, replacing -> with => and adding parentheses for those lambdas.

<comment><USER2> True! The only difference are implicit returns and significant whitespace I guess (and trailing same-line conditionals).

(think it'll even have the skinny arrow, the fat one binds `this` too)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Mosaic – A declarative, front-end JavaScript library for building UIs - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Authman2/Mosaic <comment><USER2> Not sure if I am alone in this, but I tend to skip straight to demos after skimming the first few lines. I guess it serves as a basic indicator that the code actually works.

Would love to see some demos of this library.

<comment><USER3> Many examples of the library-in-action may be found on the homepage: [https://mosaicjs.netlify.com](https://mosaicjs.netlify.com)

edit: update link

<comment><USER4> I wasn't able to find any working examples from the homepage, even with the updated link. Can you link directly to a demo page or two that uses the library, rather than a Github repo with code that uses the library?

<comment><USER3> Looks like they could improve their examples section. These are links to jsfiddle from their documentation with some examples:

[https://jsfiddle.net/authman2/kdfzL2m5/39/embedded/js,html,r...](https://jsfiddle.net/authman2/kdfzL2m5/39/embedded/js,html,result/#Result) [https://jsfiddle.net/authman2/e8nuydLo/39/embedded/js,html,r...](https://jsfiddle.net/authman2/e8nuydLo/39/embedded/js,html,result/#Result) [https://jsfiddle.net/authman2/yfhsxrcm/35/embedded/js,html,r...](https://jsfiddle.net/authman2/yfhsxrcm/35/embedded/js,html,result/#Result)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So you made a web thing and called it Mosaic.

<comment><USER6> It would be amusing to write a basic web browser in JavaScript and call it Mosaic...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can someone explain the trend of mixing HTML and JS code that has been increasing lately? We fought for years to get away from that so I'm curious to know what happened to make people think it was suddenly a good idea. I'm not suggesting it's not or that it is permanently bad. I'd simply like to know why it's good after being considered a bad practice for so long?

<comment><USER8> When building certain applications, it turns out those concerns aren't really separate! It helps a lot to colocate the markup and the code that generates/modifies it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looks fairly interesting. Two questions the documentation ought to answer:

1\. How mature is it? My assumption is that it's _not_ mature, in which case it's more credible if the README says so.

2\. What would be the reason to use this instead of, say, lit-html or Preact or Mithril.js?

</comment><comment><USER10> This looks a lot like Vue.js - how is it different/better?

</comment><comment><USER11> This has some eerie similarities to [Backbone.js]([https://backbonejs.org/#View- extend](https://backbonejs.org/#View-extend)). That's not necessarily a bad thing, because Backbone was doing its level best to compete as a framework in its heyday, but it's still interesting to see how different it would be if Backbone was designed today.

</comment><comment><USER12> [https://mosaicjs.netlify.com](https://mosaicjs.netlify.com) contains a lot of broken links. If you really want to promote your library, fix them! Otherwise ppl will focus on your broken windows instead of the value of your product. Thanks for sharing Mosaic.

</comment><comment><USER13> The source looks like it has a lot of bits in it from lit-html.

</comment><comment><USER14> reminded me a bit of angularjs, with its constant watching of state data</comment>


This Device Could Provide a Third of America's Power - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-12/this-device-could-provide-a-third-of-america-s-power <comment><USER2> They forgot to mention price of trying to deploy a fleet of such devices along the coast.</comment>


Ask HN: How does your company manage passwords - <AUTHOR> I just started at a new company and we have a lot of passwords for many different services / sites / things and so far i got an (password protected .. . ) excel sheet, several emails and a print out containing some of the passwords i need.
For the first week "all" i did was putting all these passwords into my pwdmanager (1password) , but what about the next guy?
How does your company manage passwords? <comment><USER2> [By posting this, I'm not going StackOverflow]

Potentially useful answers from HN'ers to recent similar questions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10564055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10564055)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10360480](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10360480)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221196](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10221196)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9434963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9434963)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8866176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8866176)

</comment><comment><USER3> We've been using 1Password's new teams product: [https://teams.1password.com/](https://teams.1password.com/)

For me, the critical aspect is that the clients (like 1Password itself) don't trust the central password vault. Everything is encrypted on the client with keys that the central store doesn't have: [https://teams.1password.com/security/](https://teams.1password.com/security/)

</comment><comment><USER4> This works well for us:

[https://lastpass.com/enterprise_overview.php](https://lastpass.com/enterprise_overview.php)

</comment><comment><USER5> Password State: [http://www.clickstudios.com.au](http://www.clickstudios.com.au)

</comment><comment><USER6> We use enpass: [https://enpass.io/](https://enpass.io/)

</comment><comment><USER7> in my opinion LastPass Enterprise is hands down the best solution you can get (granular permissions, reporting, policy, shared passwords between accounts, cross-platform sync/availability, 2factor, push password to users automatically, identity providers, the list goes on)</comment>