The Wasteful Legacy of Programming as Language - <AUTHOR> http://coliveira.net/software/the-wasteful-legacy-of-programming-as-language/

<comment><USER2> This is yet another exhortation to "visual" programming.

Ironically, the author seems to believe that programming language syntax can done away with since the textual representation of a programming language is just an incidental detail, yet he simultaneously believes that the syntax is so central to what makes a programming language that by getting rid of it you'll be left with something conceptually independent from the features in any particular language.

I'll just quote a couple paragraphs from the article to illustrate how confused it is:

> In a program written in this way, using garbage collection is just a matter > of plugging the right run time support, which you could get along with the > system or you could buy from a third party. Instead, we erroneously consider > garbage collection as a fundamental attribute of the language in use. As > another example, in a language agnostic system we would would be able to > create and call closures by just adding a simple module to the system, not > by devising yet another language that supports closures as a first class > citizen.

> But the advantages don't stop there. Without the need for a language, it > also disappears the need for a compiler. Everything is such a system is > already parsed and ready to use. When we combine pieces of code they already > know how to glue themselves to each other, so there is no need for a linker > either.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article touches on some interesting ideas, but doesn't hint at the enormous amount of work that would need to be done to even see if they are feasible, let alone implement them. The author also makes important mistakes regarding PL implementation. Examples follow.

 _"Without the need for a language, it also disappears the need for a compiler. Everything is such a system is already parsed and ready to use."_

A compiler is not just a parser! In fact, the parser is generally regarded as the easy, tedious part of a compiler. This confusion between the syntax of a language and its semantics undermines most of the purported benefits of his proposed "languageless system".

 _"Whatever the form used to interact with the program, a language-less system doesn't care if parts of the program are shaped as s-expressions or C blocks: it just combine them as needed to create a program."_

The difference between s-expressions and C blocks is not superficial: s-expressions present a natural API to the syntax of the programming language itself, allowing Lisp's distinctive feature: macros. Language syntax and language capabilities are not so easily separable!

 _"In a program written in this way, using garbage collection is just a matter of plugging the right run time support, which you could get along with the system or you could buy from a third party."_

Performant garbage collection algorithms need guarantees about the code they manage (eg. the ability to distinguish pointers from integers for precise GC, and write-barriers for incremental GC). Choice of GC algorithm affects the compilation and capabilities of your entire program, and even the ways you can interact with other programs! You can't just mix and match PL features you find from various languages and expect them not to conflict.

</comment><comment><USER4> This article is nonsense. The author is belittling pretty much everything that has been achieved in computer science over the past decades without provide any examples or theories as to what could be done better.

</comment><comment><USER5> This article seems to be also proposing... a programming language. Or at least "environment". Visual programming is something people have proposed, as is interactive manipulation of an "actual" parse state, as with some of the Smalltalk environments. But then you still have different choices of abstractions, like what object model you use, or what concurrency model. I don't think you can avoid that by renaming it from "language".

You could program in raw machine code, then sure, no separate language, "just" instructions for the computer. But then each machine has a different... language, too.

Or you could program in "pure mathematics", expressions, etc., but then you have a choice of which formalism to use for that. I doubt there will be only one.

<comment><USER4> Yes. I am sure that most people who have tried to use a 'visual' programming environment to achieve anything non-trivial are relieved to get back to a text-based environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you want a programming language for which parsing is trivial, code is stored in a pre-tokenized manner and there is a direct correspondence between tokens and machine primitives, Chuck Moore's ColorForth[1] foots the bill. It's orders of magnitude simpler than what most of us would consider a programming language, but you can still build powerful abstractions and extend the language to add features like garbage collection, type systems[2] (not built in the same dialect of Forth, but you get the idea) and so on.

[1] <http://www.colorforth.com/cf.htm> [2] <http://home.vrweb.de/stephan.becher/forth/>

</comment><comment><USER7> "After some time he asked me if I was aware of the work by Chromsky [ _sic_ ] on formal languages. I told him that yes, Chromsky work was a basis for much of the developments in theoretical computer science."

Really? You couldn't proof-read long enough to notice two misspellings of the single most recognizable name in modern linguistics, and you want people to read your blog post on that same subject?

<comment><USER8> did he fix it after reading this or you need new glasses? I hope he didn't write that in the first place. What a disgrace!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It is clear that the author hasn't actually done any work on, or even deeply thought about, computer languages. Claiming that a whole field is misguided and hinting at a much superior approach without going into any details is a special form of trolling.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is very close to describing (in very vague terms and not too great on the detail) a part of my present side project, and as such I completely believe in it [and respectfully disagree with most of the other comments here]. If I don't achieve it - I'm pretty sure that someone else will, and it will (in whatever form) make a significant impact....

Though not great on the _how_ i think this article is at the very least forward thinking. I'm not sure why everyone else here has to try to box a relatively original thought in with whole bunch of old failed ones to drag it down (like the 'visual programming languages' we all know and hate).

<comment><USER11> The author doesn't provide a solution. Or his solution is so incoherent that it's simply not one. Listen, we are all frustrated. We're all waiting for the deus ex machina language that will be a direct interface to pure thought. But belittling people just because they stomached their frustration and continued to make progress in the field of "wasteful" programming languages is not the way to go.

<comment><USER10> Sure its not a fixed solution, however to me it doesn't mean that the idea isn't worthy of discussion.

I'm not sure where you see this belittling coming from... maybe I'm missing something? I certainly didnt see any belittling of programmers here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Rubbish.

Visual programming is becoming more common, but it is coming _from_ the text environment. IntelliJ is showing the way: wizards that are embedded _in_ your text editor, so you hardly notice them (e.g. renaming a variable.)

That's where the technical leverage is: improving our current development environments, not in completely changing the way we write code.

</comment><comment><USER13> "the only difference between a Java programmer and a C# programmer is that they use somewhat different keywords and have to program against a different run time library"

yeah well, most people spend their time combining libraries and making them interact with each other, so it is actually kind of a big difference.

</comment><comment><USER14> No.

Now, if one uses a homoiconic language, visual and text programming can potentially become (mostly) equivalent concrete syntaxes for the same abstract syntax.

See Android App Inventor, which uses visual blocks that compile to a subset of (kawa) Scheme.

</comment><comment><USER15> The author completely misses the point that programming languages are every bit as much human-to-human interaction as human-to-machine, i.e. programming languages happen to be textual representations because they are "human languages"!

</comment><comment><USER16> %s/Chromsky/Chomsky/g

<comment><USER2> Thank you. I was annoyed that someone who wants us to take his writing about language and programming languages seriously couldn't even spell Chomsky's name right.</comment></comment>


A Gossip App Brought My High School to a Halt - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/04/gossip-app-brought-my-high-school-to-a-halt.html <comment><USER2> I used to run CollegeACB.com, which usurped JuicyCampus.com and was one of the most popular anonymous college "gossip" sites ever. >20M monthly pageviews and sparse usage at 500+ schools, intense usage at 100+. I sold the business in 2011.

Yik Yak is heavily protected by the Communications Decency Act, and articles like this (generally) just serve to fuel the fire. After Time Magazine, Mike Huckabee, Chronicle of Higher Ed, et. al. tried to draw negative attention to CollegeACB, it only served to strengthen our brand and broaden our footprint.

One needs to understand that sites / services like these aren't going anywhere. They'll continue to enjoy legal protection and benefit from the virality of anonymity and mean-spirited gossip.

One of the most effective forms of dissent I experienced while running CollegeACB were spoiler-filled-spam. If people started posting Game of Thrones spoilers and other such content, I'm sure it would affect usage. Creating petitions, contacting school officials, etc. were totally ineffective, and almost always just made the promise worse.

I'm not terribly proud of my ownership of that site, though I did try to run it with something of a conscience: never called for gossip, voluntarily removed 30,000+ posts, etc. Happy to answer any questions if people are interested about this space.

<comment><USER3> Hey, Peter. Fellow Wes'12 here. As a student at the most-active school on CollegeACB (CollegeACB was originally developed as a replacement for a LiveJournal-based board active at my school), I saw the good and the bad. It was terrible for some students, who were heaped with anonymous abuse. I was lucky enough to never face that, but I know others who did and saw the negative effects of anonymity first hand.

But there was also a lot of good. During a terrifying two days after a student was shot on campus, it was the only source of information and communication while we were locked down in our dorms. It also helped build a sense of community across cliques, even if nobody would admit to reading it.

On the whole, I'm glad the CollegeACB existed. And anonymity is not going away. With strong moderation and flagging I think the worst impulses can be tempered.

<comment><USER4> Obligatory question: was the student shot by another student?

<comment><USER2> No. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/stephen-morgan- wesl...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/stephen-morgan-wesleyan- s_n_200254.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My problem with Yik Yak isn't that its anonymous, its that I cannot conceive of a way that it could be used to do anything but hurt people. I read an interview with one of the founders who described a story of how Yik Yak was used for good. A user needed a place to stay and another user offered a spot on his dorm room floor. The problem with this example is that it breaks the design of Yik Yak: in order for this "good" example to occur the users had to give up their anonymity, effectively ruining the point of the app.

Last month I visited a new city and was curious to see what their Yik Yak was like. It was essentially a stream of abusive posts like those featured in the article. While refreshing the app I saw a glimmer of hope. Someone wrote "X is a really nice guy." The post was down voted to invisibility in literally less than two minutes.

I have my beliefs about the importance of freedom of speech and safe, anonymous places for whistleblowers etc. But this is something else. It makes my stomach churn. I'm readily admit that I am biased on this issue, I've seen first hand how much pain this app causes people.

I'm told that at my old high school there is at least one student on suicide watch who would not be without Yik Yak. Putting aside arguments about freedom, if taking down an app could save a kid's life then shouldn't we do it? If Formspring didn't exist then it is very possible that the four minors who committed suicide in connection to the site[1] might still be alive today.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring#Controversies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formspring#Controversies)

EDIT: Keep in mind there is a difference between free speech and hate speech ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech)). Ditto for libel (ex the article's quoted posts accusing the school principal of molesting children).

<comment><USER6> If you're not willing to defend speech you disagree with, or find repulsive, then you don't support free speech. Popular and uncontroversial speech doesn't need any protection, because nobody is trying to ban it.

<comment><USER7> Not sure where you live, but a lot of what is quoted in the article would be libel - is libel allowed as 'free speech' anywhere? The anonimity of users allows breaking of rules is a bit beyond anything I'd support.

<comment><USER8> I'm not trying to make a blanket case for the acceptability of hate speech or libel, but I think there are situations where allowing them is useful.

If you are, deep down, a hateful racist, it's better that everyone else is at least aware. If for the most part you are a nice and reasonable person, there's a chance you'll be corrected and come to accept the incorrectness of your beliefs.

On the other side of things, what if everybody does share the opinion that X comes too close to the sexual harassment line on a frequent basis. It's easy to imagine that libel would appear on Yik Yak about X. But now X has a big red flag and is more careful to respect people's boundaries, fearing legal action.

This doesn't cover all cases, and doesn't pardon all libel. But especially with anonymous comments (it's not a reputable source like The Guardian), a tool like Yik Yak can help to relieve social tension, or at least bring up topics that everyone is otherwise too afraid to approach.

<comment><USER9> Libel isn't saying disagreeable things, it's knowingly lying about someone in a public context, such that it causes them harm.

It's not saying that you believe people of ethnicity X are inferior, or that gay folks and people who don't believe in your god are evil and deserve to die. It's saying, "John Doe is a child molesting, drug dealing, goat blower who's gonna steal all the shit from your apartment and tank your startup with his shitty code."

I can't see where there's value in society in allowing such speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So kinda like exactly what Community portrayed in their MeowMeowBeanz episode

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3278596/?ref_=tt_ep_ep9](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3278596/?ref_=tt_ep_ep9)

<comment><USER11> That's one of my all time favorite episodes because no matter how ridiculous "MeowMeowBeanz" is portrayed to be, it's totally possible. People will try to validate creating these apps, but at the end of the day they're profiting from bullying ("cyber" bullying is redundant these days) and young people's inability to ignore what's being said about them. It's pathetic.

<comment><USER10> Well I think the resolution is the same too. The only way to deal with this specific issue is to not participate. Implicitly all those people who are being effected by this are enabling it by participating in the activity.

I actually think this is easier to deal with then its non digital counterpart. Sure its easier to spread the gossip in a digital forum, but it should be known to be false. When gossip spreads through physical networks ( and is therefore not anonymous ) there is a much higher perception of reliability, and its much harder to shake then a completely unreliable and anonymous post on a gossip site which is not ever for a second pretending to be accurate

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How is just ignoring this shit not an option? Am I that far removed from HS culture at 33? My HS was full of asshole bastards that would say anything about anybody just to get a reaction.

We didn't have social media, but if a juicy rumor got started it only took about half a day to spread to the whole school. Hands down the best way to beat them was to not give a fuck. Just don't feed the trolls. Bullies are motivated by a reaction and as long as you're not being physically harmed you shouldn't give them one.

<comment><USER13> For fans of This American Life, there was a really good show on a similar topic a couple weeks ago called Tarred and Feathered ([http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/522/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered?act=1#play)).

As a brief summary, the story discusses a man who lives in a small town in the US. Like many small towns, residents frequent a website called Topics where gossip is shared anonymously in much the same way that it is on Yik Yak. One man, whose wife was killed by an ex-husband, ended up on the receiving end of a stream of particularly vicious rumors and lies spread through the site. This gossip, posted anonymously by a single person under multiple pseudonyms, ended up tarnishing his reputation and costing him his job. Keep in mind, this is a community of grown adults we're talking about.

A high school is similar in many ways to a small town in that everyone knows everyone else, which facilitates the spread of gossip. Add to that the lower maturity levels of children and teenagers, and it is easy to see how anonymous gossip can do some serious damage to a community.

Anyway, I can't recommend that episode of TAL enough, it's very relevant to this whole topic of anonymous online forums.

<comment><USER4> I like how sites like this expose true human nature. It seems like we spend a lot of time denying it, but we love to pick on the vulnerable.

<comment><USER14> Expose? This is something we all know. It's no secret.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This made me realize: Reddit/HN wouldn't be nearly as valuable without usernames. They allow you to scan someone's posts to see if they have a history of being mean, intellectually dishonest, etc.

<comment><USER16> Although throwaways are generally considered acceptable, especially on Reddit. Without some means to enforce single account registration or a real name policy, the same problem exists.

<comment><USER17> Yes, but I would argue to a lesser degree.

Persistent usernames on Reddit create a culture of identity on the site. Throwaways with no user history that post inflammatory comments frequently tend to get called out and downvoted. That's a very different setting from something like YikYak.

<comment><USER18> _Throwaways with no user history that post inflammatory comments frequently tend to get called out and downvoted._

Are they not also more prone to being hell-banned?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think the Online Disinhibition Effect [1] and Greater Internet F __*wad Theory should have some kind of multiplier based on age.

Online anonymity–while necessary IMO–has a dark side. You can say "don't blame the medium" all you want, but I don't think it's that simple. When the medium increases the volume/frequency of bad behavior, there will be more bad consequences. Some poor kid will commit suicide because of an app like this. Being a father of 4, that makes me grieve.

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

<comment><USER20> so what is your proposed solution?

I read about suicides from internet harassment from time to time.. and although sad, we don't shut down the internet.

Top poster has it right I believe. Fight it and simply get more attention. Leave this thing alone and it will be so clogged up with nonsense it will be almost unreadable in few months...imop.

<comment><USER19> I don't have a good one off the top of my head.

But you have to understand, school administrators are going to be under pressure to do something soon. Solutions like spamming such apps with spoilers aren't going satisfy them (IMO).

These situations are why crappy, overbearing laws get put in place by sixty- something year old politicians.

<comment><USER21> The laws needed to fight this have been in place for hundreds and hundreds of years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Similar stuff was written on bathroom walls or passed around in notes when I was in high school...

And everyone had to see it on the wall as opposed to having to be informed about and go look for it.

The point? this isn't novel and don't blame the medium.

<comment><USER20> What is it with HN lately?

Anyone makes a post and 17 people feel obligated to argue... even if the point is irrelevant. Very seldom do they even bother to stick around to back up their arguments.

Now, I know everyone wants to appear smart... but really... this is getting kind of silly.

<comment><USER22> > What is it with HN lately?

> Anyone makes a post and 17 people feel obligated to argue

"Forget it, Jake. It's Hacker News."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm surprised someone hasn't written a Markov Chain-based Yik Yak post generator.

It would learn all the worst insults at a particular school, then apply them to the entire student body at random intervals. After a while, nobody could tell the actual malicious posts from the random posts, so all would be ignored.

Or so I would hope.

<comment><USER24> This is a great idea. Feed enough misdirection into the system and the whole thing collapses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> A truly dystopian monetization strategy for this type of app would be to let users pay to reveal each other's IP address and/or location (location costs extra).

Edit: Or worse, enable and encourage bidding wars over whose identity gets revealed. It may sound obvious when you actually say it but there's a great potential for evil schemes profiting from "shallow" (not cryptographically ensured) anonymity.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've said it many times before, but humans are primates. No matter what we say to the contrary, if we act like primates, look like primates, and have the DNA of a primate, we are most likely primates.

Why are adults still surprised when they see young primates act normally? Adult humans spend an incredible amount of time trying to prevent children from behaving in the ways their natures dictate. Are we so surprised that they viciously fight to establish a status hierarchy in high school? All primates do this. Adults do it too, but in a more nuanced way (money, fame, power).

The sooner we start dealing with the reality of what we are, the easier it will be. The more we deny it and sprinkle it with feel-good nonsense, the worst it will become.

<comment><USER27> While i don't disagree with you, I'd like to share something that recently struck me.

Although I hated the film Tree of Life, there was a pertinent line that has resonated with me since.

"The nuns taught us there were two ways through life - the way of nature and the way of grace. You have to choose which one you'll follow."

"Grace doesn't try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked. Accepts insults and injuries. … Nature only wants to please itself. Get others to please it over them. To have its own way."

The penny dropping moment is when you question nature "goodness". Nature is often perceived to be "the pure way", but we often forget that the pure way can be brutal and unforgiving. Nature is the route of the shortest path, highly optimised to survive and flourish often at the cost of others and without compassion. Grace balances nature.

Some of that is quoted from The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis (see Book 3, Chapter 54):

[http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/imitation/imb3c51-59.html...](http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/imitation/imb3c51-59.html#RTFToC290)

<comment><USER26> This may surprise you, but I absolutely agree. I am very much in favor of a religious lifestyle. I have come to understand that humans need to feel that there is a greater purpose for their existence in order to temper their destructive desires. Of course, this was probably the insight that led to the creation of the very first religious writings. Our ancestors are not as stupid as we are led to believe. Religious writings are absolutely the greatest works of literature known to man, having been so widely preserved and distributed.

However, there is a small issue. I want to live in a religious society whose morals are practiced, not just preached. I am hard pressed to find such a society. I have no preference of religion, just a preference for a society where people are united in a community and behave cooperatively.

Unfortunately, most capitalist democracies do not work in this fashion. Ruthless competition is the name of the game, and the usurious practices which reduce most men to beasts of burden are rampant. The elected leaders and their elite masters sing songs of virtue, yet ruthlessly undermine the common working man at every step.

What good is the gospel when it is only preached and never practiced?

Addendum: For those interested in the evolutionary history of religious practices, please see _Darwin 's Cathedral_ [1].

1\. [http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution- Religion-S...](http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion- Society/product-reviews/0226901351/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1)

<comment><USER27> We appear to have very similar beliefs and opinions. I reckon we would get on well!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Interestingly Yik Yak have geofenced middle and high schools, preventing the app from being usable _in_ school anymore:

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/13/amid-vicious-bullying- threa...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/13/amid-vicious-bullying-threats-of- violence-anonymous-social-app-yik-yak-shuts-off-access-to-u-s-middle-high- school-students/)

</comment><comment><USER29> Why would anyone worry about being anonymously slandered, on a stream of nothing but anonymous slander?

It seems like it would take about 1 day for this to go from truths and half- truths to just a contest for who can write the most shocking or offensive statement. At that point, who cares if it's your name being used on a made up shock-value joke or story? Any real information would be safely obscured by a mountain of false accusations.

<comment><USER30> Clearly you've never been bullied before. A bully doesn't get bored after a day, it's a continuing pattern of behavior. I had a kid in high school who would say degrading things to me on a daily basis, for months, until I finally realized that I had to get in his face if I wanted it to stop.

<comment><USER29> But this app isn't a bully picking on you every day. It's every potential bully standing behind a curtain yelling non-stop insults against every person in the school.

Surely it takes most of the sting out of the insult when everyone is getting continuously insulted anonymously.

<comment><USER31> The parent comment bears repeating: "Clearly you've never been bullied before." You can't logic away emotional pain.

<comment><USER32> Can't you? Or to put it another way: in the face of Reason, can the emotion even remain?

If you rationalise and understand the triviality of the situation and the ultimate stream of nonsense that the App apparently is, would this affect you?

It seems one would be emotionally affected upon _failure_ to make this rationalisation.

<comment><USER31> I'm going to extend my earlier comment to "clearly you've never been clinically depressed." The attitude that "you've got nothing to be sad about, rationally speaking, so logic your emotions away and cheer up!" is a factor in an awful lot of suicides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Wonderful quote:

 _" Suddenly, the social 1 percent was subject to the same sort of cyber torment that had in the past been directed at the students at the bottom of the pyramid."_

I love the way technology brings about democracy and levels the playing field!

:)

<comment><USER34> We tend to think of technology with the "a rising tide raises all boats" line of thinking, or at least I do. But this is a pretty clear case of technology dragging everyone down. Yes, it may be an equalizing force, but we don't help the blind by taking the eyes of those with sight; it's equalization in the wrong direction.

I wish there was a solution, but there just isn't one. I think it just needs to run its course; maybe once everyone gets a black eye, they'll realize that it sucks and stop giving them to others. But I don't think it's quite that simple.

<comment><USER6> The solution is to teach young people how to behave properly, and not denigrate their peers.

<comment><USER35> I don't think it's a lack of _knowledge_ that is the problem here. Almost all kids are taught the basics of "be nice", "don't be a jerk".

But if someone treats a person badly, and they have the option to get revenge anonymously ... a lot of people find it hard to resist the temptation to hit back. _Just this once._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Where in the hell did we decide phones were okay in schools? In the 90's only drug dealers carried pagers, or so the school boards thought, so nobody was allowed to have a later or cell phone on school grounds.

</comment><comment><USER37> A thought for the school: maybe flood the app with good things about their students and encourage them to do the same.

A sort of happy uplifting DOS.

<comment><USER38> I dunno, history has shown that the negative people will win out unless you filter them out.

Most unfiltered communication channels online are known for being horribly negative, not to say there isn't positive content, just that it is minor.

Unfortunately the negative posters have more to gain. By putting down someone they get a minor lift up in their own self-image, while boosting someone does not provide nearly such a strong reaction.

Adding user names can help, as your history becomes public and scrutinizable, allowing you to be proud that you are positive.

<comment><USER39> _Unfortunately the negative posters have more to gain. By putting down someone they get a minor lift up in their own self-image, while boosting someone does not provide nearly such a strong reaction._

I think it has more in common with the phenomenon where in general most feedback is negative because people who are happy with a product/situation tend to not bother looking for ways to express that opinion, where people with a strong negative opinion generally want to find a place they can vent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> When I was in grade school, we had the same thing, called "slam books". The kids would write the same sort of gossip about each other in a notebook, and the notebook would get passed around. If a teacher caught you with one, you got punished.

It blazed around for a month or two, then burned out as people just got bored with it.

<comment><USER40> I expect these new gossip apps will follow the same arc. People will eventually realize that whatever is posted on there is bullshit, and will not take it seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Write a script to post awful things about everyone.

Then write a script to post nice things about everyone.

<comment><USER18> Indeed. If you cannot stop information, or take it back, then the next option is to degrade its value.

If a negative comment about is then echoed over and over but with X replaced with a series of other names then the idea that it's targeted starts to go away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> There was also a great bit on last week's This American Life on anonymous gossiping on the Internet: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/522/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered?act=1)

</comment><comment><USER43> The fact that something like this exists really shouldn't surprise me this much, but it's still disgusting. And really, the app itself _isn 't_ a horrible thing by any means. But, if this was around when I was in High-School I doubt I would have had a good time. I'm not sure there's much you can do really, there isn't any way to ban it as a service, nor do I think that's the best course of action.

The internet can be a truly scary thing, people aren't afraid to say really hurtful things and lies when they're anonymous. IMO, the Principal's suggestion of not looking at it, while a decent suggestion, doesn't make tons of difference when you're walking through the halls and everybody's staring at you and their phone and quietly laughing.

</comment><comment><USER44> It's truly a sad case of cyber bullying. I don't see how the school can ban the app they can probably ban it from their network but most kids would still be using their cellular data to access the app.

</comment><comment><USER45> If it is anonymous and unfiltered, it is possible to shit-spam it. Write some server that can find proxies and write random words from dictionaries to fill up so that it becomes impossible to filter the mean from the nonsense. Gotta take them by their game ! However, if it grows with too many people that have the free time to post (ala 4chan) this strategy becomes too difficult. For a highschool, shouldn't be too difficult ?

Btw, I don't know the specifics of the "app", but it could be done, even, with basic captcha imo.

</comment><comment><USER46> The author of this article is an exceptionally talented writer for a high- school student. And what she describes below seems like a positive development:

 _One student told Inklings, the school newspaper, that "kids are just mean these days, and they needed a new way to insult each other." Maybe. I remember when Formspring and Honesty Box infiltrated my middle school hallways. But Yik Yak felt different. It wasn't just a new tool for the school's bullies; it was also an equalizer. No one was safe, regardless of his or her place on the social pyramid. Bots and Amigos were targeted just as much, if not more, than the gays, the fat kids, the nerds, the friendless. "K. sounds like she has a cock in her mouth 24 /7," went a typical attack on an Amigo. Staples Guidance counselor Victoria Capozzi says that one student, prior to finding himself the target of a homophobic post, was completely unaware that his peers even questioned his sexuality. Suddenly, the social 1 percent was subject to the same sort of cyber torment that had in the past been directed at the students at the bottom of the pyramid. Yik Yak gave everyone a chance to take down enemies, reveal secrets, or make shit up in order to obliterate reputations. You didn't need internet popularity in order for your post to be seen; you just needed to be within a 1.5-mile radius of your target and your audience._

</comment><comment><USER47> It's no surprise that, when left unchecked, teenagers (whose brains actually lack some capacity for empathy) would generate extremely un-empathetic content. And it is certainly not limited to children -- adults can be just as bad or worse.

This is a topic that has come up in different forms many times as the Internet has grown. One way to reign in the vitriol would be to force everyone to use their real names (see Google+'s 'real names' policy), but I don't feel this should _ever_ be a requirement for participation in an online service. For the service itself to require it is one thing, but if the government ever tried to enforce this I'd consider it a human rights violation. (The debate over real names vs. pseudonymity vs. anonymity is a topic I could go into at much length).

In the case of Yik Yak, rather than shifting blame onto the app, I instead wonder how/why any parents would allow their children to freely install such apps on their phones. Sure, kids will be kids (and will always find covert ways of misbehaving), but there should be some form of supervision available for parents of smartphone users, don't you think?

I think Louis C.K. has a pretty smart perspective:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbYScltf1c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbYScltf1c)

</comment><comment><USER48> > a school that was "different," a school that rose above petty high school > malice.

Almost sounds like petty malice is something that wants to exist and, if kept away through the most well-meaning efforts, will eventually turn up all the more virulent.

Could there be some sort of (relatively) safe outlet for such impulses, something that can be both carthatic enough and somehow contained in its impact (e.g. available one for one day every month)?

</comment><comment><USER49> The app didn't bring the school to a halt; a bunch of assholes did. This is only marginally different from writing shit on restroom stalls.

</comment><comment><USER50> I was under the impression that Yik Yak had already blocked all highschools [1] after the last incident (I think it was a bomb threat?)

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-graber/yik-yak-app- maker...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-graber/yik-yak-app-makers-do- the_b_5029679.html)

</comment><comment><USER51> I expect it would be useful to have such an app that suddenly "unlabelled" and gave out everyone's identity. The blow back would be pretty huge and it might make an impression on some of the teens that their outlook was not just wrong, it was counter productive.

</comment><comment><USER21> The modern legal system was made for this.

Subpoena the information from the app creator. Don't know the app creator? Subpoena the information from the app stores. Can't serve process on (can't get a hold of) the app creator because he's out of your jurisdiction or whatever? No problem. Enjoin Apple and Google from providing it in their app stores. When the app creator's lawyer comes to contest the injunction (to get their app back), hit him with the subpoena.

"Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without remedy."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#D...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_per_se)

<comment><USER33> The modern legal system is an authoritarian whimsical piece of garbage.

I'd much rather the kids learn not to be assholes to each other.

<comment><USER21> I'd much rather be a billionaire.

You can have legal justice or you can have street justice. Yik Yak is an example of street justice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well if it's anonymous there might be a simple solution... Get a list of all highs school students, write 20 or 30 standard insults and flood the the thing by script.

Make those who want to read gossip really work to pick it out.

<comment><USER52> Better yet, boring compliments. "X is a nice person". "X helped me with my groceries".

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> High school students anonymously post mean things about their peers on the Internet?

Stop the presses!

Seriously, could somebody explain to me why this is front page material?

<comment><USER54> The article is fluff and not very appropriate for HN, but the discussion turned out to be reasonably good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I looked at the app's reviews to see what folks were talking about:

[https://sensortower.com/ios/us/yik-yak-llc/app/yik- yak/73099...](https://sensortower.com/ios/us/yik-yak-llc/app/yik- yak/730992767#review-stats)

"Cyber Bullying", "Bomb Threats", "Hurtful", "Commit Suicide" ...

That seems to be the use case.

</comment><comment><USER56> We are part of the problem. We incentivize creation of net-negative utility apps like this in the hopes of procuring the ever elusive VC funding (proof that you've _made_ it). We chant the lie of 'progress' and 'disruption' for it's own sake. We tolerate a nascent celebrity culture not unlike Hollywood.

What other app-trainwrecks are to come?

</comment><comment><USER57> Turn it off. Streisand effect again. The more people complain the more people hop on board and start the insults and the more people who read them. People need to learn to exercise good judgement and stop blaming technology for social problems.

</comment><comment><USER58> I wonder if this is what being a telepath would be like. Hearing all the vile thoughts of everyone in a certain radius. If everyone had the ability would we develop a sense akin to smell with BO standing for Brain Odour?

</comment><comment><USER59> I live by a major American university and all Yik Yak is used for is Greek rivalries ("Sig Eps eat butt") and recording their "tfm"s

</comment><comment><USER60> gossip apps are new but gossip websites did the same thing to college campuses. for example juicycampus and collegeacb

<comment><USER61> Ha I forgot about both of these. Yeah they were pretty vicious. There was some other app that facilitated anonymous on campus chat with fruit pseudonyms(i.e. "you are now chatting with Blueberry") but I can't remember what it was.

I was anti shutting them down, even though I think they were mostly posted on by horrible vindictive people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Can't you just uninstall the app and not worry about what anonymous trolls are writing in it?

</comment><comment><USER20> Gee... I didn't realize there was an app that could actually bring school to a halt. If only they had such a thing in my day...

Does the author maybe mean a bunch of people were gossiping?

I hardly see the alarmist tone as justified. But people need SOMETHING to write about I suppose.

<comment><USER63> Events like this do bring schools to a stop. Sure, attendance still happens, but no educating happens. Other events cause similar results: prom, winning state in some sport, or lockdowns for various real and imagined threats.

Given that the stated purpose of school is learning[1], things that massively interfere with that shouldn't be taken lightly.

1\. There are a lot of arguments to be made that this is really a much lower priority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> It's ludicrous for this to be anything other than hilarious.

Causes: kids are bored, kids are allowed to use cell phones in class (what?), they've never actually had to take anything seriously, and adults will always validate their shenanigans by acknowledging it, so: they search for drama, can get it from social media, "take it seriously" just feeding the drama, and they get their money shot of the principal and lawyers getting involved.

It's child pornography and the only sick part is the adults who are getting off to it, but apparently that doesn't matter either so I'm just sitting here hoping someone doxxes a pair of plots out of whoever this "M." chick is.</comment>


Vim-db: Modern database interface for Vim - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tpope/vim-db <comment><USER2> Should mention in the comments that this is written by Tim Pope, probably the foremost vim plugin author of the last decade. He also wrote pathogen, vim- surround, vim-repeat, etc etc etc.

[https://github.com/tpope?tab=repositories](https://github.com/tpope?tab=repositories)

<comment><USER3> Shout out to Tim Pope!

I follow his work since I started using Vim ~ 8 years ago, the absolute pinnacle for me being vim-fugitive, I can't live without it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't want to be Debbie Downer, but what's the usecase for this tool that isn't better suited for a client in a separate terminal? I am guessing that the two biggest answers would be the :%DB command and the variable setting, but given the ease of switching and copy-pasting between terminals, this seems superfluous. Maybe it's for easier integration into other plugins?

Personally, if I was looking for a DB integration with VIM, I'd be looking for an interactive prompt style buffer instead of per-command executions.

<comment><USER5> > I'd be looking for an interactive prompt style buffer instead of per-command > executions

> given the ease of switching and copy-pasting between terminals, this seems > superfluous.

This really makes me think you are a prime candidate for a plugin that can easily open an interactive prompt or make the whole copy, switch terminal, paste, copy response flow one command.

This is just repl-integration for db repls (interactive prompts if you prefer).

Many people are used to this workflow:

Open your editor, open a prompt in another terminal. Write the simple stuff in the prompt, the complex stuff in your editor and then copy/paste to the prompt. Write a simple query in the prompt that ends up pretty complex, so you copy it, switch to the editor and paste, fix it up then copy, switch to prompt and paste it back. Now you copy part of the query results, switch to editor and paste so you can extract some of the results for the next complicated query.

A lot of us know this workflow, an many of us aren't aware that what we are looking for is repl integration in the editor. Same workflow, goes like this: edit query, eval, edit again, eval, etc. It is not a different way of working, it is the same way but much better.

How do you know if you want this? If you use vim and set your readline config to use vi keybindings you want this. You already noticed that editing stuff in the prompt is worse than in vim, you just picked the wrong fix for that problem.

<comment><USER4> If you use tmux, the transmission of a command from Vim to another tmux pane is remarkably simple. It's just a shell out to the tmux binary with the appropriate arguments.

My problem with vim-integrated shells, prompts - anything inherently interactive except for editing itself - is that it's always worse. Be it performance, integration between vim and the interactive prompt, or an impedance mismatch between vim's modal editing and an interactive prompt's non-modal editing. I'd rather switch windows and use a native shell than a kinda-working shell in vim. Same with a DB prompt. Same with pretty much every other tool I pull up in the terminal.

Honestly, it's the same reason I don't use emacs with EVIL mode: it's not quite vim, and those speedbumps absolutely kill my "Flow". Any gains from a rich editing environment are lost (with interest) by trying to figure out how to get the non-editing part of that environment to behave correctly. And I even use emacs bindings in bash (no, not zsh or fish or...); because then when I go to remote servers, everything _just works_.

That's my opinion, at least.

<comment><USER5> But this plugin is, framed in terms you might be more familiar with, a plugin that wraps the "shell out to the tmux pane then copy the output into the buffer I'm in" step. That's it.

This isn't a vim-integrated shell solution, it's a way to avoid those, for exactly the reasons you say. Repl integration isn't about embedding a prompt in your editor, it's about bypassing the interactive prompt because you already have a place to write and read text - an editor buffer. I should have used a different term obviously, that one is actually misleading.

Part of the reason I'm curious is I regularly do Clojure training and see this pattern over and over: "I don't like working that way, that sounds bad. [hours later it clicks] Oh! I see what you mean, this is great. This is the way I like working but easier! I thought you meant something different".

<comment><USER4> True, sorry, was just really wanting to point out how easy such a thing is, then got distracted on a tangent on why I don't want windows embedded in my vim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Everyone should probably be paying Tim Pope some sort of tribute for all the software that has been written more quickly because of his plugins. Companies working on other editors should be trying to recruit him!

</comment><comment><USER7> Shameless self-promotion incoming, but if you're mostly using postgres (like me), you can take a look at [https://github.com/martingms/vipsql](https://github.com/martingms/vipsql) as well.

<comment><USER8> Nice work! I use (a slightly modified version of) [https://github.com/ivalkeen/vim-simpledb](https://github.com/ivalkeen/vim- simpledb)

Looks pretty similar to yours. I definitely like that model of editing / execution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I see Tim Pope, I upvote. This guy has produced some of the plugins that have changed how I Vim forever (vim-surround, pathogen, vim-repeat, vim-fugitive, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd love to see a screencast. I'm mostly an emacser but I like vi ergonomics very much, and would love to see the approach here.

<comment><USER11> Why not just use evil-mode in emacs?

<comment><USER10> I'm not in the mood for learning UI right now. Also it's beside my question. I'm curious about vi culture and vi fanatics (or fetishists, or satanists, forgot the proper terminology).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a very nascent project but started by one of the best vim developers around, Tim Pope. As someone who has run into some of the rougher edges from time to time of dbext I applaud this effort and will closely watch progression

</comment><comment><USER13> It's a pity it doesn't support Oracle. Some corps force developers to use it.

<comment><USER14> So make the case for Postgres and show the business how much cash they will save. Don't submit to your fate, fight it.

<comment><USER15> In my experience, the organization is well aware how much they need to switch away from Oracle. They're reminded every billing period. By then it's just no small feat.

Look at Amazon, aggressively trying to move away from Oracle yet still far away.

<comment><USER16> We want to get rid of it for years now, but say that to the accounting dept. with their ancient Oracle Forms ERP.

<comment><USER14> Ironic that the beancounters waste the most money. Remember that when they want to make cuts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> SQlite support. awesome.

<comment><USER18> Not integrated in vim, but try visidata ([https://github.com/saulpw/visidata](https://github.com/saulpw/visidata)) on Sqlite. I tried after HN post last weekend and it was amazing... with Vim-like keys and interface.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is it hard at all to exit vim-db?</comment>


An Appeal to Google: Make ".io" a gccTLD - <AUTHOR> http://clay.io/blog/an-appeal-to-google-make-io-a-gcctld/

<comment><USER2> In defense of the current status: You are all misusing (or absuing) the DNS. Do you live in (or target) the British Indian Ocean Territory? No? Then this domain is not meant for you. This is a hack, and I don't like it. (For the same reason i don't like the new gTLDs) This sound a bit like a complain that reading Shakespeare in hexspeak is not very pleasant.

/Edit: Sorry for beating a dead horse. I know TLDs are not used the way I think they should be used. But I think it was important to point out once again that this is a dirty hack. It works, but when working outside of the spec you should be aware of it a accept shortcomings. Not saying you should not ask google to route around it. But it has it limits. ".at" are meant for Austria and not for email providers, that's something they just should deal with.

<comment><USER3> It turns out that we've got massive domain squatting, America somehow snagged .com instead of .us, England decided to use .co.uk for no apparent reason, there's seemingly some sort of massive corruption going on in ICANN 'selling' tlds, etc., etc.

i.e. the whole thing turned into a complete and utter farce long ago.

In the end it's not a perfect world and it's a hack because the very tld domain system itself was woefully broken even in conception.

<comment><USER4> England has chosen to split up their tld into .ac.uk, .co.uk, .gov.uk etc.: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>

Because the Americans owned ICANN, they got away with first-level domains for everything, .com, .gov, ... Other countries had to either put everything under one domain, or split it up like the brits.

<comment><USER5> That is some terrible revisionist history.

.com, .net, .gov etc. were the first TLDs created in the early 1980s (when the DNS was invented, before ICANN existed). Only later in the mid 1980s were country codes added to the repertoire, and each country was given one based on the ISO 3166 standard — including the US (.us).

The only domains with geographic prohibitions were .gov and .mil, being run by the US Government. People of all countries have always been able to register domains in .com, .net etc., not just Americans.

<comment><USER6> Anyone can register a .com, .net, .org address, but the registries are subject to US law. So, for instance, US courts can order a .com domain taken down, even if it points to servers in another country.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This topic is especially sensitive to me, so please enjoy the enraged rant below.

\-----

I have a better proposal:

STOP DOMAIN ABUSE!

Remember, back in the day, when .net meant you were a network services provider, or when .org was only used by non-profit organizations. Wasn't that confusing as hell?

What the hell happened?

The network had a beautiful, well planned design, and PEOPLE LIKE YOU threw it away.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT GOOGLE.

I recently had a conversation, with someone I respect greatly, about creating a series of informational sites very specific to US audiences, and he had a fit when I insisted on using the .us TLD. (Blasphemy, right?) He demanded I use .io, for a site that contained exclusively United States related information... Seriously?

I will not participate in this madness, and the HN audience should know better.

It's really simple, you see: your new project has lots of video content? Considering .TV? Is your company based in Tuvalu? THEN DON'T USE IT.

.AM? That's Armenia .FM? Federated States of Micronesia .ME? Montenegro.

The list goes on and on. Wikipedia has a complete list of them, along with their intended uses and common abuses. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top- level_doma...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top- level_domains)

What makes this whole thing even more insane is that there are still tons of quality .us domain names, completely open for registration, and people insist on using TLDs of other random places! The Indian Ocean? Really?

I want some of whatever everyone is smoking.

"Only you can prevent domain abuse."

<comment><USER8> But why? Just because it was an unintended use 20 years ago? "People like us" didn't throw away the beautiful design. Squatters did. There are literally zero remaining good .com names that are available.

ccTLDs stopped being used exclusively for their original purpose a long time ago. People are already used to them. The market has already adapted, and it opens up a lot of good branding opportunities. If you want to stay pure to the ideal of the spec, you're just holding yourself back.

It's kind of like a language - the original meaning of a word may be different than how it's used now, but the only meaning that matters is what people intend it to mean.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Flame me down, but this is what you get when you "misuse" .io.

<comment><USER10> Because there are so many legitimate uses in the British Indian Ocean Territory.

(as a note, nic.io actively want the domain used as people are indeed using it)

<comment><USER9> So? Someone chose clay.io instead of claycorp.com or somethingelse.com, doesn't get found by Google and now wants Google to change the TLD to a gccTLD disregarding the locals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a complicated solution that will produce many false positives. The simpler solution would be to just give each customer a box in Webmaster Tools where they could select whether they wanted their domain (wherever that is) to be targeted generically.

<comment><USER12> False positives? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I can't find a single .io site that is actually intended just for residents of the British Indian Ocean Territories.

Edit: Checking the NIC rules, actual IO residents with servers in the territory can use the reserved third level domains like foo.com.io. I still can't find any that actually exist.

<comment><USER13> That's a problem with users of .io domains, not with the system. Every time I see a .is domain that is just from some ego-driven developer (mygreatname.is or similar) I cringe, just like when I saw nyan.cat (cat is the top-level domain for Catalan and Catalonia and supposedly has stringent conditions for granting its use)

<comment><USER14> Nyan.cat at least used to have an information page explaining their use of .cat; having a version of your content in Catalan (which they still do) is apparently sufficient.

<comment><USER13> Last time I checked in addition to having your content in Catalan, you had to do business or have some kind of "grounded" relation with Catalonia or the Catalan language.

Was one of the reasons I didn't buy Fatou.cat as a domain for my cat's blog (left it at tumblr), or thefancypuffin.cat for our handmade shoemaking business (in addition to the larger exposure of .com domains, of course)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Personally I've been against the 'abuse' of the domain name system in this way (using ccTLDs as if they were gTLDs) for years, but the world disagrees with me. So at this point there seems little point in hanging on to geo-targeting by ccTLD, might as well flatten the playing field.

But we do need some country-targeting and while we do have the Webmaster Tools thing (but that is only Google-specific, you'd end up having to do this for any and all search engines, if they offered it) I'd like to see control put back into the hands of the sites themselves, and have some way of tagging available in the HTML of the page.

It'd also get rid of the ridiculous assumption that search engines make that if your site is hosted at an IP in a country, then that's the country that should be targeted in their results (if there are no other signals, ie ccTLD). Here in the UK there are many web hosts which are based in Ireland or Europe, and at the moment I worry that using them would hurt the site's reach into a UK search result.

<comment><USER16> > I'd like to see control put back into the hands of the sites themselves, and > have some way of tagging available in the HTML of the page.

I'd like to think that, as a web dev/master/admin/whatever, I wouldn't have to tag each one of my thousands and thousands of pages with the exact same tag. This is just a tough approach - it would work for super small sites only IMO.

<comment><USER15> Point taken (though presumably you do tag other things about each page - language, direction of reading, cache length etc). Tagging each page would give you the ability to nominate that different sections of a site target different countries though?

An alternative then might be something akin to robots.txt - place a geo.txt (or whatever) file in the root of a site to indicate its relevance to particular country or countries?

<comment><USER16> Yeah, something like that would be more ideal than the tags. That way you could do it at the folder/subdir level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why are people arguing over the misuse of the .io TLD?

No one is saying not to use it - but if you misuse it, then you should understand the consequences. If you buy a domain in the .ly TLD and it gets removed for whatever reason, it's your fault. If you brick your iPhone while jailbreaking it, it is your fault. Go ahead and hack away, as is the spirit of everyone on this site - but don't think that it means everything will behave the way you expect it to.

</comment><comment><USER18> gccTLD = Generic Country Code Top Level Domains

[https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en...](https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1347922)

</comment><comment><USER19> I'd argue many TLDs present the same issue. I myself use the .es TLD (Spain) as a "novelty" domain name (geekeri.es), but Google won't treat its content as targeted towards international, and mainly english-speaking audience.

It's a shame and I would have prefered Google had chosen to look at the language of the content instead of merely the TLD. Anyway, I like my domain name and wouldn't change it for a gold bullion.

<comment><USER20> Ditto, same situation! Had I known this, I would have gone with an acceptably weird dot com..

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why was this even originally selected by tech companies? Trendiness? Because they saw the .io standing for input/output?

<comment><USER22> We chose it for forecast.io because of the input/output connotation. It is a concise way to imply "data service".

.io also allows us to use a short descriptive domain name. If we went with a .com, we'd be stuck with either something like forecastweatherapp.com, or a made up nonsense domain -- in which case we'd be basing the name of our app on the specific domain we were able to acquire.

<comment><USER23> But I/O is the communications between devices. forecast.io is mostly about using vast amounts of weather data and then processing it to forecast weather. What does that have to do with I/O? I'd take your company more seriously if you had a .com name. Your current name makes me envision a junky spam site.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input/output>

<comment><USER24> The current name makes me envision an edgy, cool site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> .de is also used in many hacks, maybe even more popular than .io, and Google does not allow to change the geographic target for those domains in Webmaster Tools.

Any idea why? Do they fear that this setting will be abused? Hope to hold the floodgate and have people use geographically "appropriate" TLDs?

<comment><USER26> Maybe because .de is still pretty well used in Germany? And .de is still marketed as a German TLD, not a generic one (like, for instance, .io is). To get a .de domain, you must have an address in Germany, so it makes sense to consider it a German ccTLD.

<comment><USER27> So? You should still be able to tell Google: "Hey this .de domain? I'm using it market to an international audience, so don't hide me from the world. Kthx."

<comment><USER26> Then shouldn't that be the case for _every_ TLD? Then surely we shouldn't go on a TLD by TLD basis, when we should 'petition' Google for revising their country bias per TLD.

Although, doesn't .de domains appear on Google.com given the right search (e.g. 'Der Spiegel')?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Had the same issue. Got a couple nice .io names for APIs, found they didn't cooperate with tools and ranked poorly, shelved them.

Thanks for bringing this up.

<comment><USER29> "found they didn't cooperate with tools" ..interesting, care to elaborate?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Kind of off topic, but I went to change my password for the IO NIC after reading this. Apparently they store it in plain text...

</comment><comment><USER31> Did you have to spam my .io mailbox?

</comment><comment><USER32> Most of the ten gccTLD's he mentions as being unpopular have, in the past, been associated with giant penalties in Google's rankings, especially .cc, .ws and .tk which hosted large amounts of spammy content for a really long time.

<comment><USER12> I've heard the same thing about .info but I have no idea if it's true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Use .co

There are plenty available. Google treats it as a GTLD and co is meaningful if you are using it for a company. It's also only around $15 for a registration. Some of those country codes have ridiculous prices.

</comment><comment><USER34> So you've bought something deliberately because it's the cheap option that comes with a downside.

And now you want to drop the downside. Maybe you'll even be successful, at least a little... good luck.

</comment><comment><USER35> .io is now in the list. See [http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...](http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1347922).

<comment><USER36> Whoa. Didn't really expect Google to respond to this and that too so quickly!

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> .io has a normalized meaning. Accept it, or simply don't use it :)

</comment><comment><USER38> I don't see how .io is different from .fm or .ly or .amillionothercountryTLDsthatpeopleusefortechnicallyinappropriatereasons in this regard.

</comment><comment><USER39> Looks like it has been added :

.fm .gg .io .la .me

</comment><comment><USER40> Why does it matter which country a site is located?

Seems like it would only be used for prejudice against certain countries.

</comment><comment><USER41> We need .js !!!

</comment><comment><USER42> Why appeal to Google? Appeal to ICANN and IANA.

<comment><USER43> What does gccTLD stand for?

<comment><USER44> Generic Country Code Top Level Domains</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Angular Starter Kit – Typescript, WebPack, Karma - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alamgird/angular-next-starter-kit <comment><USER2> That's a lot of pieces just to build web apps with JS.

It wasn't that long that we didn't need any of this stuff and I'm not sure that anything people are building with Angular/Ember/etc. is sufficiently more advanced than what came before it.

<comment><USER3> Actually, when 'we didn't need any of this stuff', most of the heavy lifting was with server-side frameworks(Struts, Razor, Rails, etc). The rise of web applications, and in particular single page applications, which are expected to behave very much like desktop apps, initially led to insanely complicated jQuery monstrosities that quickly became unmaintainable. This created the need for front-end frameworks, which led to a lot of churn as people tried to figure out the right approach. Something like Dojo is not all that different from Angular/Ember in concept, it's just an order of magnitude more difficult to work with, or scale an application with.

There's nothing here that seems superfluous when creating a web application. If you want to take advantage of advances to the Javascript language, you're going to have to go either with Babel/Traceur or some other kind of ES6 transpiler, or Typescript, which while ostensibly is it's own language, seems more and more headed to becoming defacto ES7.

If you work with a team of developers and want a modular structure for developing components as opposed to 10,000 line js files, you're going to need some kind of module system / bundler. This is hardly new, it's baked into .Net web projects (forget the name), and stuff like require.js has been around for ages. Webpack is just the latest iteration of that concept.

If you're building an app of any complexity, you're probably going to want to do some unit testing. For that, you'll need a test runner. Karma's a decent choice.

<comment><USER4> For a .NET package manager, are you referencing Nuget?

<comment><USER3> yes, sorry, that's the one. It's been a good 5 years since I left .Net-land.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've had a lot of success using System.js and JSPM to transpile and bundle my Javascript code. I've dropped Karma altogether and I am just using the Mocha CLI for testing. Testing Angular 1.x was such a nightmare that I kind of just gave up. I'm having a lot more success with other frameworks that are a bit smaller and do less.

<comment><USER6> I have been seeing a lot of talk about JSPM.

How is it different from NPM ? since I just use it to do everything.

<comment><USER7> From what I've come to understand, JSPM works a lot like NPM, except you can pull packages both from npm and git(hub). We're using it at our startup, and it works quite well. Had to do make a custom build script to make it fit into our Rails application.

Edit: JSPM biggest strength is possibly that it supports a vast set of module loaders (AMD, CommonJS and ES6 modules).

<comment><USER8> JSPM also normalizes importing in ES6 from AMD, CommonJS, and ES6 (not sure about TypeScript, probably though). It is built on top of System.js, which lets you import modules and allows you to configure the local global namespace.

Edit: Looks like there was a ninja edit since I started typing :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For reference: [https://github.com/mgechev/angular2-seed](https://github.com/mgechev/angular2-seed) A very nice project which goal is the same as this project, to relief the dev from unnecessary hassle.

</comment><comment><USER10> A really nice project!

It's now in my AngularJS list: [https://angularjs.zeef.com/harris.brakmic](https://angularjs.zeef.com/harris.brakmic)

Thanks for sharing!

<comment><USER11> wow, this is a great list! thanks</comment></comment>


Oyo valued at $10B after founder purchases $2B in shares - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/19/indias-oyo-valued-at-10b-after-founder-purchases-2b-in-shares/ <comment><USER2> Fascinating. I bet there is an interesting accounting story how the founder could buy out 20% of the company from sequoia while he himself only held 10% before (if the report is true).</comment>


Navigating a Startup as an Introverted Founder - <AUTHOR> http://blog.standupti.me/post/121594021259/navigating-a-startup-as-an-introverted-founder <comment><AUTHOR> This isn't the first time introverted entrepreneurship has been brought up, but I hope I can add to the discussion. Being introverted can lead to many days being drained doing 'marketing' and others on endless hour coding binges.</comment>


The Case for More Traffic Roundabouts - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/the-case-for-more-traffic-roundabouts/ <comment><USER2> It was a revelation when driving through the UK that driving could be enjoyable again. In light to moderate traffic, there was rarely a need to stop. In contrast, in the US, it's stop/go/stop/go. Even in heavy traffic, the roundabouts were better in terms of throughput and safety.

<comment><USER3> Roundabouts stop being useful once you get to "gridlock" style traffic, though. Because the traffic tends to work its way back into the roundabout and clog the whole thing up. I experienced that this spring in Scotland on a visit.

So long as the traffic flow is at least the double-digits (mph or kph) roundabouts are just fine. Below that though, and there be dragons.

People tend not to jam up intersections with stop signs unless there's a bit of space for them on the other side of the intersection. Same for stoplights, although there are some cases where traffic backs up into the intersection though that generally has more to do with people who are moving (albeit slowly) and then everyone jams on the brakes all at once, stranding several in the intersection.

<comment><USER4> In Sweden we have a lot of roundabouts (and we also love to brag about having the world's lowest road fatality rate) -- what I see a lot for big roundabouts is traffic lights before entry. Best of both worlds.

<comment><USER2> With the lights on the roundabout entry points, it flows better than a regular signaled intersection, as left turns are no longer an issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They missed out on the biggest problem with roundabouts: Their worst-case traffic behavior is cancerous. If any single exit is blocked, entry traffic will become blocked in all directions. And if the road grid is dominated by roundabouts, the problem grows in all directions.

It's not a problem when traffic is just congestion. It's hardly a common problem at all. But _when it is a problem_ , such as is the case with a traffic accident that blocks multiple lanes of traffic, it causes full-stop gridlock to grow outward to the point of full paralysis.

The worst traffic jam I have ever been in was not in NYC, Boston, Seattle, or San Francisco, but rather in Idaho Falls, Idaho on a normally empty country road that was running parallel to the road where a drunk driver caused an accident that blocked the roadway. That single accident caused me and hundreds of other cars to sit in the same spot for almost 4 hours.

<comment><USER6> One more problem is pedestrian crossings. With a traditional intersection, only cars changing direction cross the path of the pedestrian. On a roundabout, when you cross one of the exit arms, your path is constantly crossed by drivers going straight through, doing a right turn, doing a left turn and doing a U-turn. They are all driving at full speed too, rather than just starting from a stop. It is a delicate game where you gently put your foot forward to signal your intent, wait for the incoming traffic to stop for a moment, then dash to the other side. This is generally my experience, but maybe in other places drivers treat pedestrians on zebras differently.

<comment><USER7> _" your path is constantly crossed by drivers going straight through, doing a right turn"_

It's only crossed by the same amount of drivers than a regular intersection: those going on the same street as you.

 _" They are all driving at full speed"_

Actually no, the curve of the roundabout (for properly designed roundabouts) slows them down. In fact a traditional intersection causes them to drive even faster since many drivers go in a straight line.

 _" It is a delicate game"_

The nice thing about roundabouts is that you only have to check for cars coming from ONE direction, as opposed to a traditional intersection where cars can come from behind you, from your side, or from in front of you. So crossing a roundabout requires less cognitive bandwidth.

<comment><USER8> At busier intersections I find traffic signals much nicer as a pedestrian, because while the same number of cars do cross your path, they don't cross your path _when you have the walk signal_ , which is when you'd actually be crossing the intersection. It gives you a nice break in traffic rather than having to push your way out and hope traffic stops for you. This is assuming no right turns on red (as in most of Europe), and left turns only on left-turn signal (typical in cities, at least on major roads). In those cases, there is no traffic at all allowed to enter the crosswalk when you have the walk signal, so you have an exclusive protected crossing.

At lower-traffic intersections the difference is less pronounced, partly because it's easier to force your way across even without a signal, and partly because the signals at less busy intersections may not give pedestrians an exclusive period in the cycle anyway (e.g. by allowing left turns on a regular green).

This might be Copenhagen-specific, but in Copenhagen I also find roundabouts make the pedestrian/bicyclist interaction less clear. At regular intersections, bicyclists can't cross your path when you have a walk signal, but at roundabouts they seem to just go through and are less likely than cars to stop preemptively when they see a pedestrian wanting to cross. Roundabouts aren't very common though, so maybe this would be worked out if there were more of them.

<comment><USER7> _" I find traffic signals much nicer as a pedestrian"_

You may find them nicer, but they are not safer. The data already shows roundabouts are safer. As the article reports: _" researchers have found that roundabouts reduce [...] pedestrian/cyclist incidents by 40%"_

<comment><USER8> That study was specifically in the USA, whose signalized intersections are not really pedestrian-friendly to begin with. For example right-on-red is permitted almost everywhere (except NYC). In that context, I could believe that roundabouts are less bad. I would be interested to see how the comparison generalizes, for example a study of roundabout vs. signalized intersections in Denmark or Germany. It's still of course possible my feeling of more safety at signalized intersections in Denmark is wrong.

Sweden takes an interesting approach in combining both. There are a lot of roundabouts, but most of them _also_ have a signal at the entrance. This makes it easy to cross as a pedestrian, because your crosswalk at the roundabout entrance is protected with an exclusive signal cycle. That forces a gap in traffic instead of you having to force the gap by trying to step out. Possibly even safer than either option alone?

<comment><USER9> I don't have a study at hand, but in Germany, too, it is generally accepted that roundabouts are safer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Denver has a handful of growing roundabouts in newer neighborhoods, but unfortunately they keep installing them in all the wrong places. I'm convinced they are "testing the waters" by placing them in residential neighborhoods with very little traffic, which honestly just makes people annoyed by them, rather then appreciate them.

Roundabouts aren't a replacement for stop signs, they are a replacement for stop lights.

<comment><USER11> Some of the most egregious roundabouts I've ran (heh) into have been in Aspen. They're right after you get off 70 (ie going 65/70 mph) and are often overgrown with bushes and trees. I'm all for roundabouts, I think when done right they're great, but I don't know what they were thinking when putting these in.

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-106.3776606,248m/da...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-106.3776606,248m/data=!3m1!1e3) (2008 footage) [https://email@example.com,-106.4200775,185m/da...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-106.4200775,185m/data=!3m1!1e3)

<comment><USER12> That's actually Vail, not Aspen.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, you're right. I had the maps right, but name wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I live in Victoria, Australia, and we've had roundabouts for ages. I think they are very good for a certain scale of road/traffic. Mostly intersections with moderate amounts of traffic on average, and not high-speed. e.g., the main intersections within housing estates. Having too many of them instead of give-way signs drive you a little batty (I'm looking at you, Warrnambool) while really heavy traffic, major intersections work better with traffic lights.

My daughter recently got her learner license, and she has found roundabouts one of the trickier intersections to navigate. You have to read the traffic flow. This person about to enter on your right is going straight ahead, so will block you entering the roundabout[1], but they have to wait for that person coming the other way from you and going straight through, so you can slip in the gap that creates without cutting anyone else off. As with many things it is familiarity and practice that makes them work[2]. I think roundabouts work very well here for the most part, and my daughter is getting pretty good at reading the traffic. It's not rocket science[3].

The science of roads and traffic I imagine is a surprisingly nuanced expertise involving a lot of physics and psychology. I find when I cross over the border to New South Wales I feel like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I eventually figured out it was because the signage was a different distance before the intersection compared to my home state. Once I was aware I could adapt.

[1] We drive on the left side of the road because Australia is in the southern hemisphere.

[2] I bet the first traffic lights caused an uproar. "Why the hell should I stop just because there's a red light?!"

[3] Oh wait, actually, it _is_ rocket science.

<comment><USER14> > _Having too many of them instead of give-way signs drive you a little batty > (I'm looking at you, Warrnambool)_

My parents just moved to Warrnambool from Mildura. One of their first comments was on the lack of roundabouts :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You can't discuss roundabouts without a mention of the magic roundabout in Swindon, UK. A big roundabout made up of 5 small roundabouts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_\(Swindon\))

I encountered it once and don't ever intend to do so again.

</comment><comment><USER14> I grew up in Australia in a town nicknamed "The city of roundabouts", I know a thing or two about them.

Upon moving to North America, it was shocking to encounter my first 4 way stop. To this day I still shake my head every time I encounter one. They are non-existent in Australia.

It's been amusing watching the resistance of North Americas to roundabouts, I think, because they are never taught how to use them. Sometimes I ask people the correct way to signal in a roundabout, and I swear I've never had two people in the same room agree.

The city of Calgary installed one, and it was taken out soon after because of a public outcry. In another city in North America I lived in, they put one in, and a lady promptly drove straight through it, crashing her car. She sued the city and one, because it wasn't fair to go and put in a roundabout like that.

<comment><USER16> There's a bunch of roundabouts in Calgary, though admittedly they're not common.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the odd things about moving from Italy (where they've had them for a while) to Bend, Oregon is that there are actually a ton of roundabouts here in Bend, for whatever odd reason. People seem to handle them just fine.

</comment><comment><USER18> There are two problems with roundabouts in America.

The first problem is the people who don't know how to drive. I cannot count the number of times I have seen people stop in the middle of a roundabout to let cars in, or stop at the entrance and stare in confusion when there is absolutely nothing coming.

The second problems is inherent in the design. A line of traffic that is going straight can, effectively, prevent any cross traffic from entering the roundabout, due to the small radius of most US traffic circles. This is a trade-off, of course, and is still safer than traffic lights or a 4-way stop, and usually more efficient.

<comment><USER19> I see the first problem all the time, especially at stoplights. Often when there is a line of cars waiting at a red light, when it turns green someone will remain stopped so that a waiting vehicle on a perpendicular street or nearby business can pull onto the highway in front of them.

They think they're being polite, but they're forcing dozens of cars to wait for an additional cycle of the stoplight, whereas if they had just pulled through the light as normal then the waiting car would get a chance to merge as traffic either cleared or came to a stop again.

<comment><USER20> "dozens" is quite a bit of hyperbole. I generally only see behavior like this when traffic is dense and the speed of traffic is limited. In those cases, letting someone in doesn't decrease the number of cars that make it through the light. Additionally in those cases, it's quite possible that if nobody lets in the the car trying to merge, they will never be able to merge.

Obviously, optimal behavior is dependent of the traffic conditions.

<comment><USER19> "Dozens" is not hyperbole at all, my account is an accurate and truthful statement of the traffic conditions in my area and the consequences of those bad actors.

Cars looking to merge should do so as the traffic comes to a stop. A car already on the highway they are looking to merge onto need only stop sooner than they otherwise would, allowing them to pull out into traffic that is already at a standstill.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure I understand the traffic conditions you are describing.

Lets take "dozens" to mean "atleast 18" (a dozen and a half). The average car is 15ft so this means to fit the 18 cars bumper to bumper there will need to be at least 270ft between the car you let in and the car in front of it when it passes out of the intersection.

If you leave half a car length between cars and allow the full 2 dozen this number quickly becomes 528ft.

If people are really this slow in pulling out, I feel your pain. However it is these numbers that caused me to judge your anecdote as hyperbole

Additionally, you suggested blanket solution sounds more dangerous as well as completely unworkable in bumper to bumper trafic: "Cars looking to merge should do so as the traffic comes to a stop."

It's far more dangerous to pull out in-front of a moving and already braking car that may or may not see you then to pull out in-front of a stopped car that has indicated that it does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The most straightforward designs of roundabouts don't have a good safety record for cyclists. This post gives some hints based on the Dutch experience [http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/05/the-best- rounda...](http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/05/the-best-roundabout- design-for-cyclists.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> Roundabouts are unfair. They don't balance traffic loads symmetrically.

Here is what I have observed at one near my house: as you approach the yield line, you can't enter the circle if someone has just entered it on your left. So, if you have lots of cars approaching northbound, and lots of cars approaching westbound, the northbound cars will be on the left of the westbound ones, and will block their entry. You end up with a huge queue on the westbound lane.

This is exactly what happens every day at the evening rush hour (and of course the southbounders block the eastbounders in the morning).

A traffic light would be much better, because its red/green intervals can be tuned to observed traffic tendencies for the time of day.

</comment><comment><USER23> There's two types of round-abouts: the Continental European kind and the UK/Australian kind. The UK/Australian kind are designed to keep traffic moving, so the angles are arranged to make entering similar to a merge. European ones are designed to slow traffic, so you enter at a right angle and have to turn hard to enter.

The UK/Australian kind kill cyclists[1]. I understand the European kind are safer, but I don't have personal experience with them (OTOH, I have been hit at a roundabout, and seen another 2 car/cyclist accidents).

[1] [http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/Cumming%20-%20High%20rate%20...](http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/Cumming%20-%20High%20rate%20of%20crashes%20at%20roundabouts%20involving%20cyclists%20can%20be%20reduced.pdf)

[2] [http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=38012654206...](http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=380126542062424;res=IELENG)

<comment><USER24> Roundabouts don't kill cyclists, unobservant drivers kill cyclists. They kill cyclists on the straight and at intersections too. Don't blame the roundabout for it.

<comment><USER23> That's correct of course. However, roundabouts increase the risk enormously. I assume you read the stats in my links?

 _49% of crashes at roundabouts involved cyclists_

It specifically addresses the "look but didn't see" problem, and how the Australian design makes that worse: _Herslund & Jørgensen videoed cars and cyclists at roundabouts and noted that bicycles are often located in drivers' peripheral vision. They suggest that experienced drivers use fast search strategies such as concentrating on where cars usually are, so may be more prone to LBFTS collisions than less experienced drivers._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Roundabouts are great, dependent on traffic flow. If you have large amounts of traffic moving in one direction, it will prevent traffic flow from the direction that has to give way to it. In New Zealand, we use a lot of roundabouts, but often congestion easing requires replacing roundabouts with traffic lights to merge two incompatible streams of traffic.

</comment><comment><USER26> I live in upstate NY, where the DOT is very passionate about installing roundabouts everywhere there is development, as they optimize use of undersized roads, especially in sprawly suburbs. (Search for "Malta, NY" on Google maps and check out the 6 consecutive roundabouts around the I-87 exit)

The problem is they are a cyclist/pedestrian death machine, and the bigger ones cause lots of small accidents. Looking out my office window, I've personally seem a strategically placed streetlight get plowed over about 8 times due to some of the engineering defects of this particular roundabout.

The roundabout in China pictured in the article included an elevated pedestrian walkway -- a feature nearly completely absent in US implementations.

</comment><comment><USER27> The case of France is a quite simple. Governement wanted to lessen road related death, so they actually subventionned city and state to build roundabouts.

They are flourishing everywhere, but at this point there is not much need for it anymore. But they keep building them to keep their subventions, it redistribute money to local company (and also keep mayor in their place).

Sometimes you can drive 100Km without encoutering a single crossroad but hundred of useless roundabouts, it actually reduce speed on main road and provide little but no value to actual cross section.

<comment><USER28> Half* of the UK's roundabouts are in Skelmersdale, and they provide little function because there are so few cars on the road in the area. They probably increase emissions because you've got to drive that much further to get where you want (The largest of these roundabouts is half a mile in circumference) - and with nothing but grass, woodland and strange "art" sculptures in the middle, they're a huge waste of land.

*Approximation

<comment><USER29> The most curious definition of 'waste of land' I've encountered in a while. Are national parks also a waste? How about wildlife refuges? Oh! Scotland! That may also qualify.

<comment><USER28> National parks are places of outstanding beauty. I can assure you Skelmersdale is not.

By waste of land, I mean the place was built using several times more land than was needed for the relatively low population, but some clever fool with government money decide they'd build a bunch of small ghettos separated by large roundabouts.

<comment><USER29> Sounds miserable. I was imagining a bucolic wonderland of natural beauty, with birds nesting and ancient oaks over shady glens.

My local town is in the process of sticking 'roundabouts' everywhere. Mayor visited someplace and liked them; he's pushing them on us now. Sometimes its just a dumb island in the middle of an intersection; you have to crank around it at microscopic speed which benefits no one.

The worst one has two lanes halfway around; one lane the rest of the way. From the south you can take the right lane and exit north without turning (much). But nobody understands the point; everybody stops and creeps around. So they put up a map(!) so you can figure it out. And 13 arrows and warning signs. All in the interest of 'efficiency'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> A large problem with roundabouts is that municipalities tend to build them as poorly or put them places where a light should be.

>filling the center with landscaping that obstructs view

>putting them where a computer controlled light should be (small road meeting large road, stays green toward large road the vast majority of the time)

>put them where a flashing yellow/red should be (tiny road crossing main road

>putting roundabouts in areas that see a large volume of heavy trucks

Roundabouts don't work very well on roads with highly differing traffic volumes

</comment><comment><USER31> I love roudabouts. I've seen the great use of them the very first time I've used them. I've always thought of traffic patterns as being the largest time suck of our modern lives. Two solutions to this. Install roundabouts or take over the stop light manufacturing and production in America with a startup. Sadly neither have happened due to the large need of capital to make either happen.

</comment><comment><USER32> I hear the argument "Americans don't understand roundabouts, therefore we wont build any" quite often in these kinds of articles. If you survey people about something they've never comes across before, of course you're going to get negative results.

If Americans can drive and talk on their cell phones, they can handle a roundabout.

<comment><USER33> Somebody gave me the argument in NASA that the US didn't switch metric because the cost would be too high because they are so big. Ireland and UK have gone metric in our lifetimes.

I mean, there are lazy people throwing out platitudes to justify doing nothing wherever you go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> More, but only those little ones where the island is smaller than the road so that motorcycles can fly strait through.

</comment><comment><USER35> Small roundabouts do not work. Here in San Francisco the small ones (out in the burbs) jam up with few cars and are littered with minor car debris.

<comment><USER36> Obviously it will vary, but my experience in the suburbs of Minneapolis/St Paul (and driving in Europe and Australasia) has been the total opposite. Instead of stop sign hell every block causing gridlock during busy times traffic actually flows. "Minor car debris" likely comes from drivers who don't understand driving etiquette (use your bloody turn signal!) rather than road design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The Case Against Traffic Roundabouts.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgX6qlJEMc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgX6qlJEMc)</comment>


Ask HN: Procrastination tools for sites/apps other than HN - <AUTHOR>

I have enabled the procrastination settings for HN over the past week and love it.  It keeps me focused when I am logged in and keeps me from coming back to waste time.<p>I would love programs that are similar, especially for email (I use Apple Mail) or Reddit & Digg.  Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> I've been a big fan of Concentrap <http://getconcentrating.com> It lets you set periods of time where you'll be focusing on a certain task, and lets you perform actions when you start and end that period.

For example, when you start a "Work" concentration period of say, 50 minutes, you can have it block a list of domains (HN, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, whatever you choose), have it quit your IM apps, and launch your Text editor, for example. It's a wonderful and effective app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that looks awesome. Thanks for the suggestion. Have you setup any scripts to run with it? If so I would be curious what you setup?

<comment><USER2> I don't use any external scripts, I just set mine to block problematic domains for me (places where I find I sink a lot of time, HN, Reddit, Twitter are the primary ones), and usually I make it close my IM client (or sometimes set my status to Busy), close Twitter, and my feed reader. Then I'm good to go.

I find 50 minutes is a good duration for me. During the ten minutes downtime in an hour, I let myself read Twitter, and get up and walk around the office. Then back to work.

It's marvellous for staying on task.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you tend to use it everyday or only on the days you are having a hard time concentrating?

And while we are at it, any other great anti-procrastination/focus apps or tricks you have found lately that work really well?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> addon for firefox: <http://www.proginosko.com/leechblock.html>

and chromium: [https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/laankejkbhbdhmip...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/laankejkbhbdhmipfmgcngdelahlfoji)

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.rescuetime.com/></comment>


College Drinking Game Spurs Cottage Industry; Mr. Best's Backup Career - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118834341517511527.html?mod=mostpop <comment><USER2> Anecdotally, I've heard that the local Home Depot has started grouping funnels, plastic tubes, and valves next to each other because they're sick of people asking.

<comment><USER3> Next they'll be opening locations closer to colleges.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Where I come from (UCSB) we had a different take on the nomenclature. The game the article describes was called "Beirut", as the article notes. "Beer Pong", by contrast, was much closer to an actual game of ping pong, paddles and all, each player having a beer on the table that served as a target.

<comment><USER5> When did you graduate from UCSB? I'm a fourth year Gaucho and the naming is exactly as the article describes. I haven't seen anyone play "Beer Pong" as you describe (although it was featured in Beer Fest).

<comment><USER4> I graduated in '03. Interesting, but not all that shocking. I would not be that surprised if there was variance in a given year.

"Beirut" did make a little more sense when we lost all the ping pong balls and had to play with pennies. The copper (and zinc?) flavored beer also provided some extra incentive to win.

Also, I have no recollection of "wash cups" being used at any time.

<comment><USER5> > "Beirut" did make a little more sense when we lost all the ping pong balls > and had to play with pennies. The copper (and zinc?) flavored beer also > provided some extra incentive to win.

All the things we do to make drinking fun. I hope I never play with pennies, that just sounds gross (although I have been know to do disgusting things while intoxicated).

It's good to see a fellow Gaucho on News.YC.

<comment><USER6> Another gaucho here, class of '02. With my group, we would just drink the beer as we got it, no games or anything.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>