Ask HN: Are JS frameworks the future of web development? - <AUTHOR>

The development of server side and client side Javascript frameworks has got me thinking about the future of web development. Given that there are now well established JS frameworks for the full web dev stack, will they eventually supersede the non-JS frameworks?
With those frameworks, you run the risk of having "backend" guys who only know Ruby/Python/Java, and "frontend" guys who only know JS/HTML/CSS. I fall into this camp--I have experience in server side development (a bit of Rails, and Django), but have virtually no JS/frontend dev experience. It seems like this problem is mitigated somewhat by having both server side and client side frameworks in the same programming language (JS).
Why would someone new to web dev not want to go with the JS frameworks, since it's easier to become a full stack engineer? As someone who is still relatively new to web programming, would it be advantageous for me to learn node.js and one of the frontend frameworks deeply? Right now I'm developing in Django since Python is my favorite programming language, but I haven't gotten too deep into it yet. <comment><USER2> It's better to know a couple of languages - one mainstream and one non- mainstream. The JS developer's rates will gradually go down over the time due to oversaturation. Additionally I struggle to see the future where complete back-end including message queues, workflow engines, database API etc. are all in JavaScript. You don't want a language that dynamic for those stuff. Additionally JS as language is lacking innovation, it will be taking years for standards committee to release new versions. This is one of the reasons LLVM and asm.js are better ideas.

</comment><comment><USER3> This post could well have been written by me as I am also in the same boat as you :-)

Anyways, I have chosen to stick to Django for backend( and Ember for frontend). My reasons mainly are the relative unsuitability and incompleteness of Node when compared to Django. If you are onto learning stuff, and not doing some serious (shippable) stuff, I'd say relish the beauty of JavaScript from both ends.

<comment><AUTHOR> What made you choose Ember for frontend, versus Backbone or Angular?

<comment><USER3> I chose Ember mainly for its promise of supporting the creation of large, production level apps, through its robust architecture and well thought out library.

On the other hand, "AngularJS is a toolset for building the framework most suited to your application development." Both Angular and Backbone would have required me to learn other stuff for front end development, which I don't want to do right now.

I wanted a single cohesive framework which would be capable of handling all frontend aspects of a large app. Ember is made for that.

P.S Sorry for the late reply. I'm new to HN and didn't know old threads can be active.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're a web developer and can only learn one language, it should definitely be javascript. If I could only learn one frontend framework, it would be angularjs.

<comment><USER5> I would second the AngularJS recommendation. As to the original question I should think that very much depends on what you mean by "future".

Certainly in the foreseeable future Javascript provides almost the only practical method of delivering complex front-end applications. As a result of this, it's star has risen and plethora of great tools follow in its wake (AngularJS, Ember, Backbone etc...).

However we obviously have no concept of what form the web may commonly take on a larger timescale (unless you're a futurologist - but they seem to get it wrong as a pastime). My best bet is that in the more distant future Javascript (in whatever form it may take at the time) will be in use, but such use will be abstracted beyond the purview of many developers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You should definitely try out JavaScript. At least in the front end. Later on you can experiment with Node and see if you like it.</comment>


Show HN: The ugliest MVP ever because I know squat about coding - <AUTHOR>

http://bit.ly/18Aybks - right click save as to save .mov file or click to open in browser. Quicktime needed. It is interactive. <comment><USER2> So you trawl through a users inbox and look for confirmation email from paid services? How do you differentiate between free services and paid ones? And after you've identified the services how is your agent supposed to interact with them?

Getting that right is huge and involves some very heavy nlp. But if you can create it, then there are many much more exciting products you could create than just turning off paid services.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the response. What possibilities do you see with this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Regarding this form of mockup: it was not clear what else I could do besides clicking between the years from the dashboard view. In general, I think many will not have figured out that you're supposed to click somewhere.

So it's subscriptions management app, cool. It won't be so trivial to deduce the subscriptions from the users mailbox, wonder how you'll do that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the crudeness. In the MVP you can click between years and manually add a subscription.

Does "cool" mean "meh, cool" or "I'll sign up and pay when it's done, cool"

Thanks for the feedback and yes I know the actual app development will be much more difficult.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Definitely a cool concept. Now build it!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'm getting it as far as I can and validating it with people along the way. The goal is to show some traction in order to attract the right developer.</comment></comment>


Kung Fu, Once Central to Hong Kong Life, Is Waning - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/world/asia/hong-kong-kung-fu.html <comment> St-Clock Kung Fu means "hard work" so of course it is waning :-)

More seriously, a couple of observations:

1\. Most styles of kung fu require dedicating years of practice before one can be called skilled. Compare this to Systema or Krav Maga where one can become a killer very quickly and you can expect people with little time to train to prefer these more modern martial arts. This says nothing about the depth of these martial arts, just the way they are organized and taught. As a concrete example: one of the first block I learned in Flying White Crane Kung Fu is actually very difficult to use in a street fight. Once you're good with it though, the opponent is in a very bad situation. With Krav Maga, the first block you may learn is usually very basic, very effective to block a punch, but you get less counter-attack possibilities.

2\. Most of us do not need to fight for our life so of course, martial arts are waning as a whole.

3\. MMA is very popular and most Kung Fu styles are not suitable for MMA: again it takes time to become an expert and many techniques cannot be used in a MMA ring (can I put my finger in your eye? what about using pressure points while you are tackling me on the floor? can you hit the neck with a spear hand?).

4\. Kung Fu masters are usually very secretive and they sometimes die with most of their knowledge, especially if they do not find someone suitable to transfer that knowledge.

5\. Finally, a sibling comment mentioned youtube. Many kung fu schools hesitate to use Youtube and when they do it, they usually do not show the best they are capable of. When I was training, I remember a master asking to only capture the movements of the upper body and hide the footwork :-)

<comment><USER2> As someone who trains in BJJ (grappling), muay thai and boxing. I don't see much utility in spending time learning a skill that has no basis in reality (Kung Fu). I'm not staying that Kung Fu doesn't have techniques that work in a fight, it does like the side-kick (Google Bruce Lee's sidekick) but most of it is for a lack of better word useless in terms of usefulness in a fight. Even Bruce Lee realized that and created his own art because of this realization.

I agree that Kung Fu like all martial arts add discipline to one's life and is a form of meditation which is its greatest gift but in terms of martial use the world has moved on to more lethal arts.

<comment><USER3> And that response is why most of the skills you mentioned are not arts. They require some memorization but little mental effort. That is why boxers are paid more than MMA fighters there is less technique needed than artistic skill. Martial Arts are more focused on being a path for the whole of a person to interact with their world. And not simply to beat the piss out of it.

<comment><USER4> I'm confused. What are you saying requires memorization but "little mental effort"?

edit: BJJ tends to be the most creative and intellectual thing I do on a given day. I'm a software engineer

<comment><USER3> beating the sh!t out of people does not make you a martial artist just like using Stack Overflow doesn't make you an engineer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I earned a black belt in Karate last year, have messed around with TKD, Judo, and Kali, and this year got reasonably serious about BJJ by starting in a belted program.

It's impossible to overestimate the role MMA/UFC has had on martial arts in the past 20 years. The internet has allowed that knowledge to spread far and wide, but UFC #1 dramatically changed the face of martial arts forever. Before that, you could argue about which one was the "best". After UFC #1, it was pretty clear how dominant Gracie jiu-jitsu was if you wanted to win a fight.

All the traditional martial arts have a place. Simply analyzing the phrase "martial art" should give you some indication of its intent: discipline and beauty. Most traditional martial arts schools are on the decline and, for those that aren't, the caliber of student they get is nowhere near as high as it was 25 years ago. Point sparring tournaments are a shell of their former selves.

MMA and, to a lesser extent, BJJ are more a fighting system than a martial art. There's no bowing, there's little formality, there aren't any forms, and it's ruthlessly focused on the practical.

Toward that end, if you want to learn how to fight, study american boxing for punching, muay thai to lean to kick, and BJJ to learn how to grapple.

If you want a "martial art", then you're probably looking for something more traditional. You can learn decent self defense in them, but there's a lot of non-practical stuff you learn as part of the package.

<comment><USER6> Is Gracie jiu-jitsu really best for winning a fight, or just for the controlled environments in MMA-style competitions? I frequently hear Krav Maga cited as the most effective for real world fighting. Grappling with parties unknown seems dangerous.

<comment><USER5> It's a really interesting question. Jiu-jitsu unquestionably works in "uncontrolled" environments. I'd wager large money that if more police officers trained in grappling and submission techniques there'd be far fewer shootings.

I don't have specific experience with Krav _per se_ , but the self-defense I learned getting my Karate BB was kravesque. Krav is fine, but I think of it a little like crossfit; it's mostly a marketing thing. In my estimation, krav can be great for self-defense. But anything where you focus on one or two practical defense moves is great for self-defense. Get good at one or two things and drill it 10,000 times.

<comment> rm_-rf_slash Not to derail, but the #1 reason cops reach for their weapons is because they fear a suspect has a weapon. Its a split-second, life-or-death choice. No amount of martial arts training will change that.

<comment><USER7> Yes but BJJ instills confidence in you and your ability to handle a close range encounter.

<comment><USER8> I once saw a video of some experienced fighters practising some technique on an instructor who had a training knife they don't know about.

With all the excitement and adrenaline, not only did every single student get 'stabbed' \- many of them didn't notice until the exercise was over and the instructor pointed out the 'stab wounds'.

I'm not sure there's any amount of BJJ that would make me confident to grapple a guy who could have a concealed knife.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Kung Fu has failed to adapt, by which I do not mean MMA, but changing market conditions. The quotes in the article more blame young people than having an idea of what's not working.

I've done many martial arts, but I'm not here to debate whether Kung Fu is effective. It's not, but there is no reason why it cannot be. What makes a martial art effective is simply having a large population of skilled practitioners. It can be institutional support like Judo in Japan, or wrestling in the US. Or it can be effective marketing like BJJ.

Anyone with real fighting skill can tell you that an art's effective has little to do with its techniques. Technique is only a starting point, that practitioners constantly improve upon. What is needed is a large number of highly competitive and athletic bodies to constantly test and improve on. It's brute force algorithm 101. Nothing can replace experience when actually fighting, because you don't have time to think.

Kung Fu will lose every time, unless they get institutional support, because you have practitioners who not only have questionable methods, they know nothing about building athletes either. Step on a wrestling mat or BJJ practice and compare the intensity versus a Kung Fu class. There's your answer right there. There is no 'kung fu' in Kung Fu.

I've got nothing against Kung Fu. I've learned some interesting concepts. But, similar to Aikido's flashy technique, I am able to put them to use from being a master in another art. Whereas its practitioners cannot.

Maybe a "high level" many year practitioner can do it, as they will tell you it takes many years, but that to me just tells me they are doing this the wrong and slow way. Even Olympic martial arts have shown that countries like Japan are far behind modern science in competitions. One can only image how backwards some random Nth generation guy in your neighborhood is.

Again, nothing against Kung Fu in theory, and maybe it had its heydey at some point, but a lot more needs to be done to save any of it. And it won't matter what style or what not - everyone is different even within a style.

<comment><USER3> Very true this has been happening since the 1950's Kung Fu carries with it eons of dogma. It would truly be a loss to humanity should the art be lost altogether...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The term _kung fu_ refers to anything that is acquired through determination and practice. A great artist, dancer, singer, or even a great janitor, all have kung fu. So a measure of kung fu in a society is really a measure of how many people choose to become great at the things they do.

This is more a commentary on martial arts capabilities, which is less relevant in a world where physical danger is increasingly rare. While I strongly advocate for practicing it (I have been a student of Wing Chun for 3 years now), it makes perfect sense why Asian millenials don't find it very important.

<comment><USER11> 'yoga', btw, has the same meaning in Sanskrit.

<comment><USER12> Yoga is a Sanskrit word, which means union. It is much broader and deeper than doing physical asanas. The asanas is just the tip of iceberg :) As you said, when you practice the asanas, your body and breath becomes more controlled. The next level is you control your thoughts - and not vice versa -> union of body, breath and mind. As you become more serene, your meditation starts getting deeper -> union of mind, body, breath and self.

I came across this video recently, where three "genuine" yoga teachers are asking questions about yoga and meditation. The format is initial 10-12 minutes, the yoga teachers talk about their experiences, and then in rest of the video, they ask questions to Sri Sri Ravishankar about deepening mediation with yoga: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7HEmsY29EU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7HEmsY29EU)

<comment><USER13> If you are interested in this stuff, check out Christopher Wallis's Tantra Illuminated. It describes the potent View of classical tantra and has a history section tracing it to modern yoga.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another casualty of the internet.

Before the web, you would pretty much only learn about whatever martial arts were available in your area. There was no objective truth. In the absence of evidence, comparisons between martial arts were done on a subjective level: does it look cool?

Now, anybody can look up kung fu on youtube, and if they do they'll see that it's a bit shit, compared with the others. No sane person is going to dedicate years of their life into learning something that is a bit shit.

In general the world has become a lot more factual in the last 25 years.

<comment><USER15> I think you are over-selling the internet's contribution. The growth of MMA has been the real driver. UFC1 (and even PRIDE, a bit) was originally billed as a 'meeting of martial arts styles', where different disciplines could compete. The fact that an undersized ji-jitsu master won the first UFC really demonstrated the efficacy of that martial art.

The present ascendency of Muay Thai and BJJ (Brazilian school of ji-jitsu) is a direct product of this sorting of martial arts effectiveness against competing disciplines. Karate and Kung-Fu's substantial drop are also related, as they are essentially unused in modern MMA.

<comment><USER16> > The present ascendency of Muay Thai and BJJ (Brazilian school of ji-jitsu) > is a direct product of this sorting of martial arts effectiveness against > competing disciplines. Karate and Kung-Fu's substantial drop are also > related, as they are essentially unused in modern MMA.

It's important to keep in mind that many of the most effective self defense techniques are illegal in organized fighting competitions. These include eye gouging, throat strikes, biting, joint breaks, stomps, kidney shots, downward elbows, etc. IMO this seriously limits the ability of these competitions to predict how various styles will fare in real life or death self defense situations.

<comment><USER17> I used to think that too, but to be honest, how many good MMA fighters leave those kind of openings?

<comment><USER16> I would say very often. For an example, let's look at the throat strike. Any time you could plausibly punch someone in the face, it could instead be a throat strike. It takes much less force to end a confrontation with a strike to the throat than it does to the face. This seriously changes the dynamics of the confrontation. This same reasoning also applies pretty well to eye gouges.

Now consider hits to the back of the head. If an MMA fighter exposes the back of his head to you, the quickest way to end it would be a palm strike to the base of the skull: lights out. But because that's illegal fighters will be a lot more likely to go for something like a rear naked choke, taking the fight to the ground and artificially inflating the value of grappling.

And that's just three of the many illegal moves.

<comment><USER18> > Any time you could plausibly punch someone in the face, it could instead be > a throat strike.

not really. If you look at a good boxer during a fight, you'd not see any opening for a throat strike.

Boxing, being one of the most practically efficient techniques at the "upper floor", is perceived and frequently really is missing at the "ground floor" and this is where Muai Thai comes in - basically extending the boxing for hands with the boxing for legs, as out of the many footwork styles - taekwondo, karate, kung-fu - the Muai Thai's footwork is the most similar to the boxing ideology and style.

<comment><USER17> That's my impression too. Gouges and the rest can create opening, and they're an edge if you're evenly matched with someone, but in the same way that sharpshooting might. It's a skill, an interesting one, but how often does a fight with pistols come down to really precise aim, rather than hitting the head or center of mass?

I think it's similar in physical combat, although some elements like the dropped elbows and kicking a downed opponent would definitely end a match _faster_ , you have to drop them first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've read some interesting comments on this post: some clearly from practitioners and many not. Here's a little extra background about Chinese Martial Arts.

They date back thousands of years: some scholars claim 2000 while others claim 4000. In either case, it wasn't martial arts at that point. It started as health exercises that we now call Chi Kung (Qigong). They developed into martial arts later when people became intrigued by the stronger, healthier bodies and quicker reflexes of the practitioners. In particular, military- minded people saw the potential benefits and contributed greatly to the development of Chinese martial arts.

Another major contributor was the famed monks - both Shaolin and Daoist (Taoist). As they traveled around Asia, they accepted challenges and worked out with martial artists from other cultures. What they learned was incorporated into Chinese martial arts. So, mixed martial arts is nothing new, it's been happening for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Martial arts competitions were considerably more brutal than they are currently. They didn't wear gloves and anything went. Deaths occurred and sometimes people were handicapped for life. Even training was much more brutal. My instructor's master recalled training on a beach in China. When they practiced throws, people landed on rocks periodically: no head gear or padding.

As someone mentioned already, kung fu is a generalized expression meaning any endeavor that requires prolonged, conscious effort to master. So, a skilled software engineer would be said to have "good kung fu". I'll keep to the popular use of Kung Fu even though it's not completely accurate.

Chinese martial arts divide into two major classifications - Internal and External. What we call Kung Fu is a collection External styles. There are thousands of them, many of which are similar. The Internal ones are Bagua, Xing Yi, Tai Chi, and Liu He Ba Fa. Other than Tai Chi, the Internal ones are lesser known, although Jet Li showed elements of Xing Yi and Bagua in his movie "The One". Again, there are probably hundreds of Internal styles.

In this era when people use their bodies less, what will preserve Chinese martial arts are the health aspects from which they derived, not their application to MMA.

</comment><comment><USER20> Sadly, you could also write a very similar article about Japan and Kendo, right down to the "the government promoted it for nationalistic reasons in its heyday, but now it's waning and most of the interest in it is overseas."

In 2006, the Japanese men's team placed 3rd (behind Korea and the US) in the World Kendo Championship, and it was the end of an era. It was the first time in the event's history that those guys didn't come in first.

Japan is still a Kendo powerhouse, but it's not like it was.

</comment><comment><USER21> The "X martial art vs Y martial art" thing is quite common, but IMO the best is to just learn several and integrate what you like though sparring and competition.

Kung Fu has a bad reputation, mostly for beeing fake and not effective. Personally I think a lot of instructors _are_ fake, but there are some which really know their stuff. The thing is, most "americanized" kung fu is not nearly as good as "original" kung fu. And even "original" kung fu will lose when sparring with, say, a Muay Thai guy. A lot of videos you see of Kung Fu guys fighting on a ring, they seem to just do Sanda (which is basically chinese Kickboxing). So much for traditional martial arts!

I think the lack of sparring really hurts traditional Kung Fu, you can't just close yourself in your own little work and just do Chi Sau (Wing Chun) or Tuei Shou (Taiji) or whatever your style does. Sure, it's good to practice that, but learning a martial art without sparring with people of different styles is like reading about riding a bicicle and never actually ride it.

I've practiced Taekwondo (both ITF and WTF), MMA (Muay Thai + BJJ), some Wing Chun and now I'm doing Taijiquan (Yang). Out of all of them, MMA is by far the most effective, but it's not like my time with other martial arts was wasted. They give you some tools you can use to adapt to your own style. I think the most valuable thing I learned in MMA was sparring with guys with different backgrounds (Boxing, Karate, Kick Boxing, etc), you learn to be smart and adapt to your opponent, it gives you more tools.

I think devoting your whole life to a single style, it's nice if you want to just use it for health and as hobby, but not effective in a fight. I've never met a guy who practiced a single traditional martial arts style and was able to spar with Muay Thai, Kickboxing or Boxing guy, but I don't live in China, maybe there it's more common. Anyways, my point is that you need to actually fight to be proficient with any martial art, not just Kung Fu.

</comment><comment><USER22> > And its real estate is among the world's most expensive, making it difficult > for training studios to afford soaring rents.

It seems that everyday on HN there are articles showing examples of how cities are becoming increasingly unaffordable - this one makes me feel really sad.

</comment><comment><USER23> this can mainly be attributed to nationalization, the chinese government bringing all traditional elements under a single authorized form of martial arts. so, real esoteric arts will eventually disappear in favor of state- sanctioned 'wushu', which is still effective, just not as rare and revered, and more of a dance than something readily applicable to fighting or defense.

</comment><comment><USER24> The problem with Martial Arts is that you can just blow someone away with a nine.

</comment><comment><USER25> Kungfu mostly just for show. Karate or taekwondo is more practical in modern age. Have you ever seen any police department taught people kungfu? Have you ever seen kungfu as a competition in the Olympics games?

</comment><comment><USER26> There's a lot of disinformation about martial arts in any online discussion, especially because people are obsessed with determining which martial arts is "the best". That's a sort of reductionist argument that never takes into context the history of each martial art and why/where it is effective or ineffective.

Let's start with some history: Judo was never heavily practiced historically, because you had a sword. Judo techniques were used as a last resort in case you lost your weapon. In a society where the peacekeepers carry weapons, you are at a serious disadvantage with any kind of unarmed combat, be it BJJ (which I practice, for sport), Muay Thai (which I practiced briefly and is effective in 1:1 situations in a stand-up and clinch), even Krav Maga (I tried this), or Chinese martial arts.

So here's an argument for why certain martial arts are "better" than others, depending on the situation and the era you live in:

Kendo/sword martial arts - you are likely going to war. The Chinese martial arts fall under this category, where you can quickly use certain forms to train thousands of troops at once to be "more ready" in general warfare than your enemy. Your troops will have slightly more conditioning, and practicing forms lets you have a 1:many trainer to student ratio. Even if the martial arts are not the best for close quarter 1:1 combat, or ground fighting, it makes no sense to spend time training your troops for these situations if the odds are VERY stacked against them in a wartime situation.

Krav Maga is a great martial art to teach for modern, urban self defense because the movements are basic. If you might end up in a bar fight, for instance, Krav Maga teaches something called stacking, where your goal when you have to maximize your chances of getting away from multiple attackers is to quickly subdue one attacker, then using head control, using that attacker's body to defend your own while you create space so you can escape. There are more advanced techniques that teach knife or gun defense if you are caught off guard, but it should be noted that you are probably at a disadvantage unless you are highly skilled if someone with a weapon attacks you! Training Krav Maga takes a bad probability of survival and turns it into a less bad probability.

Back to Judo: judo and karate took off as effective when peacekeepers could not carry weapons, and had to learn to effectively do their jobs without weapons. The key here is that society had to chance so that weapons were only carried by the warrior caste.

Filipino martial arts - unarmed, sticks, knives. No swords or spears, because this isn't what they went to war with. Surprisingly effective now, because you are likely to have a cane or umbrella, and you will have a slightly better chance defending yourself against a knife attack, which a modern attacker is more likely to have than a sword or a spear.

Now where does Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, which many people talk about, fit in? Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is an extremely effective martial art for one-on-one, unarmed confrontations. For children, if a bully throws you to the ground and gets on top of you and starts to hit you, you can escape and get away. If ONE PERSON attacks you in public without a weapon and you both go to the ground, you can probably subdue or escape if you have practiced BJJ. If two people attack you, or if it's one group on another group, BJJ is probably not so effective. I saw a version of MMA on TV that was effectively a 5v5 team fight, and it quickly turned into who could tap or KO a another member first, then it became a 5v4, and 5v3, and so on. The effectiveness of BJJ in group fights is greatly diminished - now we are back to martial arts like Krav Maga where you might have learned to group fight or even the Chinese martial arts.

BJJ and Muay Thai have really taken off because of MMA/UFC. The rules used to heavily favor BJJ practitioners, who in that particular environment, thrive. Karate practitioners were not traditionally used to ground fighting, and the Jiu Jitsu fighters would stick to their strategy of taking someone to the ground and quickly submitting them. UFC is a 1:1, no-hitting-eyes-or-neck-or- groin fight. No stomping. In the early era of UFC, there weren't any rounds. This GREATLY favors BJJ practitioners, who can simply hold someone indefinitely on the ground and tire them out. If you've never grappled before, even if you are in great shape - HOLY MOLY prepare to get wiped out in minutes.

Many of you may disagree with some of the details of my interpretations, but the general spirit of my argument is this: different martial arts thrive in different eras because society changes. Claiming one martial art is better than another without adding context is disingenuous.

</comment><comment><USER27> (deleted)

<comment><USER28> _Maybe kung fu should pivot into being a dance style, like capoeira._

Modern Kung Fu has already 'forked off' a more practical fighting version, Sanda, and there are handful of decent Sanda practitioners in various MMA orgs.

<comment><USER29> There is Sanshou too, that resemble a more rulebound kickboxing.

And for routines there is a split between the "dancing" for presentation, called "modern wushu", and traditional routines, that are used to practice actual deadly fighting moves.

I used to train traditional routine, but for it to go beyond "dancing" the teacher regularly scheduled sparring session for students to attempt to use in actual combat the moves (the ones we could test... I made the mistake once of wanting to spar with a particularly weird and ugly move, only to almost get a broken shoulder. happily my partner knew enough to make the move against me with just enough force to hurt a lot without damaging me)

<comment><USER21> Sanshou and Sanda are the same thing :p

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's interesting to see the comments here on HN. It's like a compression of all the various things I've seen people talk about with martial arts. The same arguments, the same assumptions. There isn't really anything insightful. It tells me that as a society, we still have not figured out the role of martial arts.

<comment><USER30> It's interesting seeing everyone immediately sort themselves by their assumptions and then argue in those clusters.

Are martial arts supposed to be a way to defend yourself? A competitive sport? A way to stay in shape? Some sort of artistry?

These are all valid questions, and different martial arts answer different ones. Capoeira is worse than useless as a fighting technique, but entirely viable as a way to stay in shape and express yourself. Olympic-rules Tae Kwon Do is an excellent competitive sport that doesn't have much in common with versions of Tae Kwon Do taught for self-defense.

But because we're not agreeing on goals here we get the usual debates about whether MMA is the most effective way to hurt someone. Which has always sounded silly to me: we're talking about a sport. Using just your feet isn't the most effective way to get a ball into a net, but soccer is still a better sport than it would be if players picked up the ball and ran.

<comment><USER13> I kinda wonder if internet discussions around martial arts are the way they are because practitioners (whatever their motivations) tends to posture / step up to challenges more.

Japanese budo went through a similar decline and soul-searching when the samurai went on the decline, and modernization went on the rise. Sure, there was that guy (forgot his name) who wrote this beautiful fiction to try to sell Westerners on the ideas of Japanese culture, only to have it adopted by the emerging nation-state of Japan to drum up nationalist fervor. And then there are works like, _The Demon's Sermon on the Martial Arts_, an awesome book even if it was not written by a practitioner.

A older martial brother put it this way: the idea of the Second Amendment where you can take up arms against a modern, tyrannical government is a dream. Modern technology will overwhelmingly flatten any attempts at that. This is a guy who served in the armed forces, practiced the same Chinese martial arts I do, in addition to Aikido. At one point, he was pitching Aikido to a local Montessori school as a "means for resolving conflict", and he does not mean it in the militaristic fantasizing-being-a-badass way where "resolving conflict" is a euphemism for beating the shit out of someone.

It echoes what Scott Meredith mentions -- martial arts, even MMA, does not work well against modern and near-future weapon technologies. So what's the point of practicing if one is motivated by some fantasy of being able "defend oneself?"

I've been able to answer "what is the role of martial arts in my life." Among the key lessons are things like _grit_, and identifying how violence can be used through words and emotions. One of the martial teachers I respect (he is dead now) wrote about the connection between rhetorics and the deeper teachings of martial arts. Being able to keep cool and skillfully navigate through intense emotions that arises while people are shouting at each other seems more useful in the modern world than fantasizing, or even knowing a practitioner can break someone's bones.

I had been poking around at different philosopher's writings about this. Ken Wilber points to a different philosopher (I forgot the name) about modernity. That view on modernity is a fairly good description of what happens with anything traditional. The modernist (and post-modernist) view tends to deny some of the things learned in the traditions. Some folks have been finding that this is not working out very well for us. We're not a happy society, despite having access to medications, economic prosperity (for some of us), and technological conveniences. Our ancestral traditions are lost, trying to find a new place in our modern world. We need them as much as they need us.</comment></comment></comment>


Gab.com Booted from Hosting Provider Due to User Account - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056362626077220865 <comment><USER2> There is a lot of strawmanning when it comes to free speech. Virtually no one claims the 1st Amendment guarantees people a platform or that it applies to corporations. Yet, I see people clarifying that constantly...when no one is saying otherwise. Free speech as an American ideal, that's all people are really saying.

Anyhow, Joyent has every right to shut down their hosting services to anyone they feel...and no one really says otherwise on that point either. The sticking point is, are we headed down the right path on this issue? Are we setting the right precedent, because while we all likely agree that things like Daily Stormer and Gab are platforms for truly hateful people...are we emboldening them by driving them underground?

Likewise, as cloud providers beginning to show too much discretion over content? Let's take it outside of politics and into copyright. What if AWS hosted a new video streaming service, and some corporation XYZ claimed a (false) copyright violation. Amazon has a large contract with corporation XYZ because of Prime Video and kicks the video services off of AWS with short notice. Would that be acceptable, essentially putting that company out of business? Sure, it would legally not be a problem but would it be a moral problem?

Back to politics. Let's say GCS hosted DailyCaller or something, and employees internally find out and force it off because they find it as morally outrageous as the pentagon contract. It sounds crazy, but it could totally get to that point.

That seems like a bit of a leap from where we are now, but with cloud providers starting to show more and more discretion of what they host, I don't rule out that we could slip our way to things like that happening. It also seems increasingly likely that the more politicized the major players become, the more likely political disagreements could effectively ruin alternative platforms.

Gab might rightfully deserve being kicked off, but we do need to tread carefully on what type of precedent we are setting going forward as things like this become normalized.

<comment><USER3> >Are we setting the right precedent, because while we all likely agree that things like Daily Stormer and Gab are platforms for truly hateful people...are we emboldening them by driving them underground?

Yes. No.

I don't find the slippery slope argument compelling. As a society we can decide what is and isn't within the realm of reasonable debate and discourse. Whatever the lines are, the discussion of racial supremacy and systematic oppression and elimination of others seems like something we should all be able to agree is outside the bounds.

<comment><USER2> Since there have been large crackdowns on these sites, violence and seething has ticked up across the globe, and the "far right" has taken control of more governments (and I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about Europe/South America where there are open threats of violence and anti-Semitism.) I am just saying that perhaps driving these people underground where they can't be monitored is not the best approach.

I would argue that it is possible that cracking down on public platforms them gives them a platform in and of itself that once did not exist. It's similar to a Streisand effect. People become even -more- radicalized because they feel "oppressed." It sort of reminds me of how the ATF raid on Waco unwittingly played into their cult's idea of the apocalypse and has since bred people like McVeigh.

THAT is the slippery slope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Joyent, the hosting provider, has a history of pulling the rug from under people.

Here's an HN discussion of Joyent ending lifetime hosting accounts: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4391669](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4391669)

I also knew someone who was using BingoDisk and was left hanging when it was sold to another company.

</comment><comment><USER5> I have been following the issue of Internet polarization since 2014 [1], and I propose two different ways to mediate the situation on a societal level:

\- Have a neutral platform to facilitate discourse and mutual understanding. This is hard as it requires a largely informed populace.

\- Complete segregation of groups having different opinions. This proves to be also hard because of incidents like this.

[1] [https://paradite.com/2014/11/11/internet-polarized- society/](https://paradite.com/2014/11/11/internet-polarized-society/)

<comment><USER3> What if, instead of either of these, we made it clear as a society that advocating violence against or the elimination of a class of people is unacceptable and we gave no venue for that conversation whatsoever?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The real question is, was there external pressure applied to the hosting company or was this entirely their own decision?

<comment><USER7> What is the "external pressure" in this case?

<comment><USER8> The usual lynch mobs (which FB & Twitter allow on their platform) reported it en masse I'm guessing. This works well for getting conservatives banned on social media because their report systems are somewhat automated, but it also works for domains and email providers. I think they recently got Gab booted off Azure too.

<comment><USER9> "Lynching" is a terrible term to use for filling out an online abuse form, while there have been 11 people murdered by a white supremacist.

<comment><USER3> Yes. The victims at Tree of Life today were victims of lynching, not the platform on which the lynching was promoted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't visit Gab, but I will definitely be closing my Joyent account.

If you're not a courageous and principled defender of free speech, you should get out of the cloud business.

<comment><USER3> The US standard for what is legally free speech is absurdly low. Why should companies hold themselves to it? Why should they force themselves to support organizations that promote the wholesale elimination of other classes of people?

<comment><USER11> The 'US Standard' for free speech is exactly where it should be, and applies to the government's role in censoring citizen speech. Joyent, as a business has no obligation to support anything outside of their own policies.

<comment><USER12> The "US Standard" generally means the standard by which the people of the US value the concept of Free Speech, which extends beyond that of the 1st amendment. We the people of the US codified our position on speech in the 1st amendment of our governing document to ensure that our government would never infringe upon our most vital right as free humans.

This however does not in anyway mean we believe others including large corporations should have the right to infringe upon said rights simply because "its a business"

There are many avenues one could seek to hold Joynet and others like them that proclaim to be open to all in their advertisements then reject many they disagree with. First and foremost would be Truth in Advertisement laws, Fraud, and other legal regulations which if they were properly enforced these companies would be clearly violating

No the "US Standard" of Free Speech is not just about government censorship, that is ignorant and naive view of what Free Speech is as a concept. Free Speech is concept where by a person is free to express themselves with out fear of censorship from either government or society at large. Free Speech today is under massive attack not by government in the US (yet) but by society at large.

//Edit for the record. I do not have nor do I plan to sign up for a Gab account (or twitter Gab's competitor) this is not about Gab as a service, I honestly could not care less about Gab it is about the precedent this sets when it comes to cloud and other internet infrastructure

<comment><USER13> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I suggest you re-read that and point to where it says "society at large". The 1st Amendment is a restriction on the government, not on the people (except maybe the "peaceably" bit).

<comment><USER12> The Constitution is a document establishing and limiting government power. It has nothing to do with what I am talking about

Freedom of speech exist beyond and outside of the 1st amendment, that fact that many people believe all free speech issues are limited only to the 1st amendment and government censorship is part of the massive problem we have in society at large

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Isn't @Joyent part of Samsung ?

[https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires- joyent](https://www.joyent.com/blog/samsung-acquires-joyent)

This should be really interesting in days to come.

<comment><USER7> Er, why? That seems unrelated.

<comment><USER14> A private american company imposing its standards on "free speech" does not have same ring as Korean conglomerate imposing its standards on "free speech" in America.

This may be or may not an angle of attack. I am speculating it would be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The irony of a bunch of Rand worshipping free market libertarians being outraged and indignant when another private business no longer wants to take their money.

<comment><USER16> I am find Rand an invaluable philosophical resource. While I wouldn't count myself an Objectivist, I certainly find more correct with Objectivism than not.

From this perspective, a few observations. Joyent should be able to do business with whomever they want, period. So long as they don't commit fraud or infringe on the rights of others in so doing, then they are within their rights AND within their moral prerogative to not do business with Gab. Note also that there is no moral obligation of Joyent to give Gab a platform and they're not doing so is not censorship: Gab's right to free speech cannot rightfully compromise Joyent's right to speech or association. The only way Joyent would be in the wrong here is if they represented to Gab that their business was acceptable/welcome and they did so with fore-knowledge of that business; and even then they'd only be in the wrong due to the short notice of termination given and the resulting damage to Gab's business, not because of the change of heart. To suggest that those that think like me might think otherwise is to speak without the requisite education to comment or is simple intellectual dishonesty.

Regardless the degree to which you hate Rand and those that think like me, the ridiculous and ill-informed hyperbole that your message contains is unwarranted and leads to the very state of affairs in which we find ourselves. It doesn't matter toward which "team" you express unmitigated hate, it only matters that you and those that shout disparagements (regardless of which side they sit) advocate acting on raw emotion rather than reason... indulging in hate over disagreement and debate. The facts, the truth, and the legitimate back-and-forth of competing ideas tested by reason seems to matter not once that's done. It may play well to the home team, but it does nothing to advance the discussion in the more general sense.

Very sad.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The "Gab.com banned from PayPal" post is still up. But, this post has been hidden.

</comment><comment><USER17> Let's get real for a second here: gab courted neo-Nazis and became a refuge for anti-semitites and racists precisely because that was their target user base. Gab's pearl-clutching about anti-semitism is about as genuine as an arsonist's complaints about smoke. I will not miss gab, nor will I miss it's fetid assortment of wastrels. The best thing I can say about gab is that their pathetic shrieks at least made me laugh.

Oh, and "Free speech" has nothing to do with forced hosting for assorted terribles. This is one of the most persistent and irritating misinterpretations of the first amendment. "Free speech" covers the government and the government alone.

</comment><comment><USER18> > Big tech can not stop us. The mainstream media can not stop us.

> The People will defend freedom against tyranny as they always have and > always will.

> God bless you all and God bless...

These comments are kind of partisan, no? A neutral company would just say "hey, we're going to a new service because of X, back soon!". Let the users cry "free speech, god bless".

</comment><comment><USER19> I like free speech, even if I do not agree what they are saying. Although, a hosting provider could stop their service if they do not like it I suppose, although I think they should not do so unless it causes technical problems such as 100% CPU usage or stuff like that, although I am not saying they do not have the right to ban them, only that my opinion is to don't. But, you could just use a different hosting provider, I suppose. One hosting provider will not necessarily be available forever anyways.

</comment><comment><USER20> Irregardless of what you think of Gab etc.. Unless the platform is being used for illegal activity and or it is engaging in something that breaks the law these service providers can and should be treated like the phone company. In other words the phone company does not turn off your phone because you are a nazi, racist etc.. Also, and this is an important distinction, there has been no established link between the shooters activity on Gab and what he did. IE: it does not appear that he collaborated with others on it to plan things etc. on the service... and if he had, odds are he probably also used other providers more extensively such as gmail etc..

Hosting providers policing things like this is akin to vigilante justice vs letting it go through the legal system where there is actually due process for everybody, not just the people that the mod likes.

<comment><USER21> Setting up your own hosting provider (read: servers) might be a bit of a hassle, but it's nothing compared to setting up your own telephone network. Gab is free to purchase their own servers and provide the necessary facilities.

<comment><USER22> Sure, you don't need shared hosting, just setup your own servers. Until someone kicks you out of there server space...

Sure, you don't need shared server space, just setup your own co-location facility. Until someone decides not to give you backhaul...

Or until someone decides they won't provide you with DNS. Or DDoS protection. Or Payment gateway. Or... or... or...

The reality we are facing is that some political opinions (even relatively benign ones) aren't allowed access to the same resources as others.

Gab is benign, they started based on people getting kicked off Twitter - because you don't need Twitter, just start your own. So they did. And now they find themselves being booted around, because of virtue signalling tech companies.

<comment><USER23> > Gab is benign, they started based on people getting kicked off Twitter

Read the official twitter profile (what they write and reteweet). And then tell me again that they're not explicitly reaching for the racist fringe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For all of the people saying that Joyent can do this because they are a private company that statement there is a catch to this. All service providers are exempt from being sued for content on their platform under safe harbor under the argument that they were neutral platforms. If they are going to start to curate content by kicking companies like Gab.com off then it is time that a few copyright, libel test cases against these companies make their way to the courts given that it is in violation of the spirit behind safe harbor as it is stated in section 230 of the communications decency act.. It also is going beyond the "good Samaritan" definition.

<comment><USER24> This is incorrect on multiple levels.

The term "safe harbor" is typically used to refer to the provisions of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), not the Communications Decency Act you're discussing. OCILLA protects hosting and network providers from liability for copyright infringements committed by their customers, so long as they aren't aware of the infringement and don't directly benefit from it, and so long as they comply with the DMCA takedown process. This is, obviously, completely irrelevant to this situation.

The CDA actually does the exact opposite of what you are claiming here. It explicitly _indemnifies_ service providers for blocking content, regardless of whether that content is constitutionally protected or not -- it reads in part:

> (2) Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service > shall be held liable on account of—

> (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or > availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, > lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise > objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected > […]

<comment><USER20> Yes, but the preamble tells a much different story as to the intent of the act.... There is also talk about updating the act as well which is a better solution IMHO because a lot has changed since it was written.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Joyent is a private company, they can choose to refuse doing business with anyone they like to, I think this was confirmed (by supreme court) a few weeks ago when some baker refused the business of a gay couple. (That decision is protected by the same first amendment that Gab claims to be protecting! Brilliant really.)

However, for everyone looking to host at Joyent: Beware they might cancel on you, too. And giving a company 2 days notice is far beyond comprehension. I wouldn't want to deal with this. I think it's really poor business standards.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't seem like this scenario should make you nervous unless your platform is a venue for discussing genocide.

<comment><USER25> There were many cases in which hosting companies decided to terminate accounts for whatever reason. And that's generally not a big problem, but 2 days notice on a weekend is just outright shitty behaviour. I can understand Joyent trying to cut ties to Gab, but seriously guys, give them time to migrate.

<comment><USER3> 11 people died and this is where you want to make a stand?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Potential of Digital Communication - <AUTHOR> http://milesmatthias.com/post/26347656867/the-potential-of-digital-communication <comment><USER2> I very much appreciate this post, and the understanding the poster shows of people outside the digital and social ideals. I'm not what anyone would call autistic, but I struggle to make more than superficial friendships. The idea that a social app could help people like me bridge the divide I feel with other humans is compelling. I was hoping for a solution and was disappointed when the post ended without one, but I can't help but feel pleased that someone recognizes that social apps don't fit everyone. It's not the fault of the apps, they're probably appropriately focused on the majority of socially adept users, I just don't belong in that crowd, so I'm not demographically right for their app.

Anybody know of a social app for the socially inept?</comment>


How I increased conversion on my checkout form by 60% - <AUTHOR> http://pud.com/post/87930228516/how-i-increased-conversion-on-my-checkout-form-by-15

<comment><USER2> And the user still has no way of ensuring the safety of the underlying transport. How do I know the form is going to be sent over a secure link after a push the button? Who will get this credit card? It doesn't say anywhere. But the blog post tells me the info is going to be sent to a third party, but that is not explicit in the form. I hate that "security" is all about meaningless icons, not about being transparent to the user.

<comment><USER3> Security has always been mostly illusions to help us overcome our fears to get through the day rather than real defense. So what if we all have our security blankets to chase away the monsters?

The real security is using a credit card where you can undo the transactions after the fact, which is amazing if you stopped and thought about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting to see that adding a useless drop down card type selection has a positive effect. Would be curious to see A/B results for that aspect alone.

<comment><USER5> It would also be interesting to see the volume that produced a %15 uptake. That's not statistically significant as a number in itself.

Also, enough things seemed to have changed at once that its hard to measure what the true impact of any one change is.

Now, if they are sustaining 15% in 6 months, and it drops if they roll back, then I'd be sold.

<comment><USER6> Yes, seeing volume numbers would be useful, but I don't need to calculate statistical significance to understand that their second form is much better. So I have no gripes with the "60% increased conversion" or "15% increase in conversion rate" statement.

Guessing game: I guess that the lock symbol and random GoDaddy SSL cert image were the most important factors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can you simplify the form and save user's time by figuring out the type credit card from the number? (IIRC, all Visa cards start with 4)</comment>


Analysing C# code on GitHub with BigQuery - <AUTHOR> http://www.mattwarren.org/2017/10/12/Analysing-C-code-on-GitHub-with-BigQuery/ <comment><USER2> 1\. ArgumentNullException, 2. ArgumentException and 5. ArgumentOutOfRangeException shows how badly C# needs more ability to specify/enforce contracts.

It's awesome that C# 8 will address the number 1 problem, with non nullable references but number 2 won't be addressed until records post C# 8 by the looks of things and number 5 not until exhaustive pattern matching which doesn't look to be on the cards at all AFAIK.

<comment><USER3> Seriously. Contracts. I inherited a relatively substantial C# WCF business line app with a large number of classes each with many nullable properties. The null handling was awful, but there were too many classes to easily refactor to apply data contract attributes across the board (at least given that I am the sole available resource to do so). Instead I tried selectively applying the null object pattern to some of the most common troublemakers. It's improved things but god I wish the original dev had used data contract attributes from the beginning.

Similarly, it's staggering the number of times I've seen someone wrap their entire method (or worse yet their entire program) in empty try-catch blocks just to avoid responsibly handling null and out of range exceptions. To me, it seems like the ubiquity of this antipattern indicates that there's something inadequate about the language, tooling, or developer culture. Or some combination thereof.

I'm not enough of an expert to say what the problem is or how to fix it, but in my relatively limited experience I've found requiring data contracts up front smooths over a lot of the pain points. But it comes at a cost. I've never used an equivalent in any other language, so I don't how C# and .NET compare, but it does seem like a lot of boilerplate code that can limit decoupling if misapplied.

<comment><USER4> Well this is the problem Option classes are meant to solve but it's pretty tough to make that work without breaking all the old code where any reference value can be null

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _C# developers overwhelmingly prefer putting an opening brace { on it's own line (query used)_

Putting it on it's own line seems like a waste of space to me and doesn't contribute to the readability.

<comment><USER6> If I am not mistaken, Visual Studio automatically places an opening brace on the next line. When setting up coding standards, I asked my team not to fight Visual Studio. It generally has good auto-formatting functionality, but even more important is the uniformity and consistency of the code.

<comment><USER7> Opening brace on a new line is the default, but VS has excellent granular settings in this area. I was tired of having different standards for C and C#, so at one point we switched our defaults and ran a utility to convert all our C# code. We use a new line for namespaces, classes, and methods and the same line for everything else. VS handles it flawlessly and we haven't looked back. Thinking back, I have not seen any inconsistencies committed in that time. VS autoformat is that good, with braces and white space.

<comment><USER8> > a new line for namespaces, classes, and methods and the same line for > everything else

accidentally, we arrived to the same code style for both C# and C++...

<comment><USER7> Probably accidental here, too, in that the C code was older and larger. There was no good answer for the question of why C# was different, so the change was made.

The only downside would be if I worked on someone else's project with different standards. I don't think VS can figure out autoformat at the project level, like, say, python mode in emacs.

<comment><USER9> Have you looked at editorconfig?

<comment><USER7> I hadn't seen it before, but that looks great. It has such a wide variety of plugins. Thanks for the tip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting to see 'var' isn't used as much as I thought it would be.

<comment><USER11> Back when I used to work at a large enterprise the use of 'var' was banned in our coding standards.

Using Linq was heavily frowned upon. It took quite a few years before it started to be accepted..

At one point we were also strongly encouraged to place a #region around every single method! I never understood why, and luckily that one did get dropped.

<comment><USER12> What's the point of not using stable language features? I don't get it.

<comment><USER13> While it shouldn't be banned, it should be used appropriately. We have some areas of our project that communicate with hardware where we cannot use it because of the performance hit.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I agree. You can make some seriously shitty unreadable code using LINQ just to look smart. But that's what code reviews are there for.

<comment><USER4> Sometimes ReSharper makes some seriously wild, unreadable suggestions for converting code to Linq.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, but IMO after Roslyn I don't see the benefit of ReSharper, definitely not for the 100 dollar price per year.

<comment><USER4> That happened right when I started a new job so I haven't touched it that much. R# used to be absolutely essential though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting how 'css/style.cs' is number 10 on the size list. Is this just a style sheet with the wrong extension? I always assumed GitHub's language detection was based on syntax rather than just extension. Does anyone know if this is the case?

<comment><USER15> By the way, GitHub's language detection is powered by their Linguist library [1].

[1] [https://github.com/github/linguist](https://github.com/github/linguist)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link, I've always wondered how GitHub does language detection

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm surprised to see so little var, especially when ReSharper by default scolds you for not using it.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's always nice to see BQ-based research like this!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah BQ is basically magic, it's so impressive how much data is can process in 30 secs or less.

(I know under-the-hood it consists of some very impressive algorithms/hardware/programming etc, as explained in [https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2016/08/in-memory- que...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2016/08/in-memory-query- execution-in-google-bigquery), but it feels like magic!)

<comment><USER17> Some good reading on BigQuery: [https://medium.com/@thetinot/bigquery- required-reading-list-...](https://medium.com/@thetinot/bigquery-required- reading-list-71945444477b)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that list, I've seen a few of those, but quite a lot of new ones in there, reading my way through them now!

<comment><USER17> I'm glad it was helpful. I found this list (a very helpful list, with good posts!) during $DAY_JOB. Following your comment, I've shared this more widely here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15464921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15464921)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Finally, an interesting list is the top 10 using statements that aren't > System, Microsoft or Windows namespaces:

> using System.Web.Mvc;

But... that is a System namespace.

<comment><AUTHOR> LOL, yeah I completely missed that one!!

I've just updated the post, 'log4net' makes in into the top 10 now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> using UnityEngine;

Is the second most used 'using' that's non-Microsoft (after Nunit). Shows how important Unity is for C# take up. And presumably most people using Unity to write games are not going to be sticking their code on GitHub either so this must be a fraction of the real use.

<comment><USER20> IT's important to _open source_ C# take-up, but I'd wager the vast majority of C# usage is closed-source shops.

c# just isn't favoured by hobbyists except for game-programming. But in business world (at least from my UK perspective) where nothing comes close to github, c# still seems as healthy as ever and that doesn't depend on unity at all.

<comment><USER19> Oh yes for sure, but that's always been there. .NET has always been used widely for business internal stuff and that's what kept it alive. But the recent C# renaissance seems to be about app building stuff like Xamarin or Unity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm really confused why you think #regions are terrible. I use them generously to collapse sections, and they objectively make code more organized. I would not be as productive without them.

</comment><comment><USER22> It always disappoints me as a C# dev is the lack of top level application products like WordPress and friends. All the top lists in Matt's post are either infrastructure or development tools.

<comment><USER23> Iguess it's the pre-compilation requirement. Might change with the new version, but I think the inertia was lost for the language long ago.

Here in the UK C# seems a lot more popular than Java, but I must admt I'm getting more and more js jobs these days, which fills me with a slight dread for the future as I really dislike programming in it.

I think Unity has helped C# become more popular for the masses again.

<comment><USER22> I am not worried about C#. It just lacks open source applications. There are tons of poster boy closed source applications :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Surprised there wasn't more Class1.cs</comment>


Facebook Investor Peter Thiel: Palantir Is The Next Facebook Or Google - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.forbes.com/oliverchiang/2011/02/28/facebook-investor-peter-thiel-palantir-is-the-next-facebook-or-google/ <comment><USER2> I interviewed with Palantir last fall. After failing to impress me (and honestly coming across as a bit too evil for my taste), I brought my job decision down to being between two other companies and told Palantir that I was appreciative of their time but I wasn't interested in any more interviews. A.G., a senior engineer there -- who I guess has some involvement with recruiting -- called me up to try and convince me to do an onsite interview. He told me that while I might have been the smartest person in groups at college and even at Facebook (where I have interned previously), and thus been on such a higher plane of thought that I had trouble explaining my ideas to the lesser peons, "that sort of thing doesn't happen here at Palantir". He also noted that if I needed more time to make a decision, I could always accept my Facebook offer and renege on it later if I decided to go to Palantir. Yeah... asking me to be dishonest while simultaneously insulting all of my friends and everyone I've ever worked with is _not_ a good way to get me to join your company. After that and after the Palantir/Wikileaks thing recently, I'm quite glad with my decision to stay far, far away from Palantir, "next Facebook or Google" be damned.

<comment><USER3> What was it about their vibe that read "evil" during the interview process?

<comment><USER2> When I had dinner with a bunch of engineers, they talked about some examples of things that their code was used for. It assists our military, for example, in collating data and mining it so that they can more effectively kill people. They also assist the government with other tasks, such as (by I assume analyzing tax returns) helping the IRS track down tax evaders. Finally, they have a new product which helps hedge funds manage unfathomable amounts of money. None of these things are projects I particularly want to dedicate my time to.

Aside from this, other issues popped up during the interview process. Their interviewers were way too impressed with me (which makes me question the caliber of engineer the interviewer is typically in contact with) and were way too convinced that their company had "nowhere to go but up" and that their equity was a sure thing. No company is invincible.

That said, I know people who have interned there and people who work there full-time now. They are good people, so despite my terrible experiences with Palantir they aren't _all_ bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What?! First of all, I highly doubt this "PR flap" doesn't create significant problems for their bottom line. Secondly, why would anyone think an analytics platform will become the next "Google or Facebook". It's a B2B function, not an end-user/consumer site. It's not even really a Web 2.0 company, as noted in the article, the main competition is 20 years old. I seriously question Thiel's judgement, but will happily eat my hat if time proves otherwise on the value of it.

<comment><USER5> I think he means it has the same potential market value. Palantir is exactly the kind of company that we need in the 21st century. One that can can answer questions about big datasets, be it climate data, market data, corporate data, social data, etc.

<comment><USER6> _Palantir is exactly the kind of company that we need in the 21st century. One that can can answer questions about big datasets, be it climate data, market data, corporate data, social data, etc._

Unless they use Magic to answer those questions, there will be lots of other companies that can give you the same answers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1\. Peter Thiel is an investor in Facebook, the platform where 500+ million people upload all their personal info.

2\. Peter Thiel is major shareholder in Palantir, offering information analysis to governments.

Just saying...

<comment><USER8> For someone who espouses libertarian ideas it does seem strange to be investing in companies which erode privacy.

<comment><USER9>
      Libertarianism = max$(Wealth, Freedom)

             dollar  x  your-freedom  = dollar
      max$ {
             dollar  x  my-freedom    = my-freedom

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think I would have a hard time working in good conscience at a place like Palantir, no matter how interesting the underlying science might be.

<comment><USER11> Palantir presented during a DevHouse they hosted a year or so ago, some of their statistical trend analysis that implicated a certain cohort of mortgage lenders in/around Chicago. The results of their findings were pretty much proof of criminal activity and corruption in some very big names in the real estate market. The most fascinating thing was that they applied this theory to one specific geographic area (Chicago); applying it to other areas would almost certainly have revealed a larger trend.

I was impressed, and even applied there a number of months ago, mistakenly thinking they are on a mission to do good in the world. Was disappointed by the rejection email. Given this new information that they are likely using their findings as a sort of blackmail to sustain evil and corruption at the source, I'm actually not disappointed. The fact that they are in bed with entities like Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, _et al_ is very disconcerting.

"Palantir signed a multi-year contract with the bank in December 2009 in the $5 million to $20 million range, and JPMorgan Chase Chief Information Officer Guy Chiarello gushes about the company, calling Palantir "the best bet I've made in quite a while.""

Yeah, $5M is pennies in a hat for senior execs who risk decades of prison time when/if the realities of the sub-prime lending ever really get exposed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Palantir is a company well worth knowing about [1] and one TC has written about like twice in 6 years, despite it being a billion dollar company actually doing stuff.

Now compare that to all the fawning attention given to Facebook meets Yahoo Answers that is called Quora....

EDIT: haha wow, it's now become politically incorrect to criticize TC's baby, Quora?

[1]: [http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/25/palantir-the-next- billion-d...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/25/palantir-the-next-billion- dollar-company-raises-90-million/)

<comment><USER13> [http://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-get-voted-down-on- Hacker-...](http://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-get-voted-down-on-Hacker-News- for-not-fawning-over-Quora)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _Other analysts and companies in the space agree, saying that Palantir's revenues were probably around $25 million to $50 million last year...the market for "situational awareness tools" like Palantir's is in the tens of millions of dollars...

But Karp says that he sees a "clear path" to $1 billion in revenue within the next five years. How close is he to that? Palantir's 2010 revenue was "significantly north of $80 million", said a highly reputable source...

Still $80 million or so is a long way from $1 billion. A lot will depend on how Palantir expands beyond its cyber-security niche...Palantir has already been able to line up a number of other top banks and hedge funds..._

[edited for specifics]

Depending on who is right here, analysts or "undisclosed source", it makes me think that this whole business of supplying tools to the government is not where they are going to make their fortune. A look at their web page seems to indicate they sell 2 different products, one aimed at the government and one aimed at finance. The government product may be close to saturating the market unless they start to penetrate law enforcement more (there are a _lot_ of police). Their single deal with JPMorgan is worth something like 20% of their revenue (depending on how you figure it).

With 330 employees they have to make just south of $70mil/year. If the analysts are right, they're losing money. If "undisclosed source" is right, they're _just_ making money. My guess is that the analyst figure doesn't include the JPMorgan deal. My bigger guess is that a lot depends on how quickly they can distance themselves from their sketchiness of the last 12 months.

Either way...

"Still $80 million or so is a long way from $1 billion."

I'd say $1billion is a long way to go from Facebook or Google money.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't write for a living, but this might be the worst constructed sentence I've ever read:

"But recently, Palantir has found itself in headlines for putting together a proposal, along with HBGary and Berico Technologies, to launch cyber-attacks and other "dirty tricks" against Wikileaks and its supporters, on behalf of Bank of America, and against website ThinkProgress on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

After reading that, I tuned out. All the investment banks are hyping all this shit to get some underwriting fees on IPOs. 2011 looks to be another big bonus yr for M&A and IPOs if they keep on successfully getting their HNW individuals to hype this shit only to tank it off to the common shareholders once it goes public.

The game is fixed!

</comment><comment><USER15> Well, is Facebook the next Google, yet?

</comment><comment><USER16> I think there are parallels between the art markets and the emerging start-up markets.

In both of these fields, the actual products created support financial markets largely supported by opinion.

Both involve gatekeepers who select artists (or start-up companies) as important. The decisions made by these gatekeepers help to influence each relevant market.

Both involve attaching value to an artist (or company).

I think the difference is, in the art world - the curation (or moderation) process has been developed over time to ensure that there aren't too many new (highly hyped) entrants to the art market at any one time.

Surely, without this kind of restraint, bubbles are likely to develop?

</comment><comment><USER17> If you can't determine what Palantir is all about by looking at their home page, they will NEVER beat Google or FB. Right now, the first slide asks the nebulous question with no answer, "What powers your intelligence infrastructure?"

Marketing, people. Its not that hard...

<comment><USER18> Palantir is B2B; it's a different sales cycle. You're not likely to work with them because you saw the homepage--you'll probably see the homepage after getting referred to them by an executive you know, getting a cold-call, reading a whitepaper, etc.

<comment><USER19> If they're B2B they're certainly not the next FB/Google.

<comment><USER20> Microsoft is largely B2B - it sells software licenses to OEMs for the hardware, and licenses to large corporate customers for productivity software like Office and SQL Server and so forth. Most of Microsoft's sales aren't people buying Windows in stores.

Salesforce.com is another example of a B2B startup which grew explosively.

<comment><USER21> But Peter Thiel didn't say that Palantir was the next Microsoft, did he?

It appears Palantir is doing well for themselves (although, who knows, maybe not), but calling themselves the next Facebook or Google smacks of hubris.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> "... Of course, Thiel is Palantir's largest stakeholder, and his venture capital firm The Founders Fund has bankrolled much of the startup's initial costs."

This counts as news?

<comment><USER23> "Of course..." means they're just trying to fill the gaps in the story for people who aren't already aware of it (I wasn't).

<comment><USER22> Ah you've misinterpreted my point. I'm not assuming that people know who Theil is, rather that Palantir's biggest shareholder waxing lyrical in some PR-blurb article - calling his investment 'the next facebook', no less - counts as news on HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What does Palantir do?

<comment><USER25> > But recently, Palantir has found itself in headlines for putting together a > proposal, along with HBGary and Berico Technologies, to launch cyber-attacks > and other "dirty tricks" against Wikileaks and its supporters, on behalf of > Bank of America, and against website ThinkProgress on behalf of the U.S. > Chamber of Commerce.

<comment><USER3> Don't forget settling a lawsuit with one of their principal competitors (i2), conducted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO, yes the _same_ law that Mob bosses are charged under, the judge in the case threw out all of their defenses not to be sued under RICO since what they did was so brazen) which would have resulted in triple damages -- they virtually had to settle or go out of business.

[http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/16/palantirs-third-black- eye-...](http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/16/palantirs-third-black- eye-i2-lawsuit-settled/)

The initial complaint reads like one of their sales/marketing demos.

Very sketchy company IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Not after the Tolkien estate gets done suing them...

<comment><USER27> As someone who grew up loving Lord of the Rings, I definitely love the name they chose. I am curious though, was that all joke or is a lawsuit a possibility? I know the Tolkien estate is very careful regarding their copyrights.

<comment><USER28> I find it pretty humorous that the company's namesake is generally associated with corruption and deception through the false promise of great knowledge and/or power.

<comment><USER27> I didn't think of that, it's pretty funny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A better headline would have been

"Palantir founder and lead investor: we're the next Facebook or Google"

Film at 11.

</comment><comment><USER29> Been saying this for years! Go Palantir!

</comment><comment><USER30> Does the world need another Facebook or Google? How bout a cure for the common cold or something useful?

<comment><USER31> Go right ahead kid.

<comment><USER30> My comment was not really so as glib as all that. We see hundreds of billions of dollars worth of speculative investments in "technologies", recalling the heady days of the dot-com era and the now iconic pets.com. Cures for common viral diseases, while surely not as monumental as daily groupons or facebook status changes, would be a boon for the billions of people who suffer from their effects.

Look, a hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. Enough to secure progress on major scientific fronts. Enough to launch half a dozen Human Genome Projects. If groupon is worth $15 billion, and facebook is worth $70 billion, it's not so absurd to wonder if the way we are valuing technological and intellectual resources has gone off the reservation. Memory of the dot com bust seems to have completely faded from the valley. The valuations we place on forms of innovation, intellectual achievement, affect where we are going.

Yes, I would rather pursue the cure for the common cold, flus, and other viral diseases, even with a low probability of success. The odds of creating the next Facebook are similarly astronomically low, and even if I succeeded, it would be less meaningful than even advancing the solution of the former. I would credit myself if I merely convinced a few smart people that this was a worthier goal towards which to apply their energies and abilities.

Imagine a world where (more than a few) hackers thought and communicated about the structure and meaning of dna. Wrote programs which probed protein structures and revealed their dynamics and interactions. That seems far fetched now, but decades ago, computers were extravagantly expensive devices maintained by a relatively small priesthood. The ecosystem of software which has evolved since the democratization of computing brought about by the personal computer and Internet revolution represents billions of man hours of work by smart, dedicated (and even not so dedicated) people. My point is that hackers can and do contribute a great deal to solving very difficult, truly important problems, and that we shouldn't be so obsessed with trying to create the next twitter or twaddle, because twaddling is so ab$urdly overvalued at the moment.</comment></comment></comment>


The secret to learning anything - <AUTHOR> http://braksa.com/how-i-learned-what-i-learned/

<comment><USER2> Well that was insightful...

</comment><comment><USER3> Very true ...</comment>


Birth rate for unmarried women declining for first time in decades - <AUTHOR> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/13/birth-rate-for-unmarried-women-declining-for-first-time-in-decades/

<comment><USER2> [http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/08/FT_14.08.13_NonMart...](http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/08/FT_14.08.13_NonMartialBirths_1-3.png)

What a wildly misleading graph. The scale for "non-marital birth rate" is adjusted to make it look higher than _total birth rate_.</comment>


Show HN: Search supplements by the words people used in reviews (see Comments) - <AUTHOR> https://www.supplementdb.org/search/ <comment><AUTHOR> This started as a little data science experiment. I analyzed 15,000 reviews and was surprised by what I found. A lot of reviews contain phrases like, "I took this [probiotic] for my gut health but then I noticed my eczema went away." The top 10 lists I was generating suggested supplements that weren't always suggested by the lists you find online when you google "supplements for eczema". I suspect this is because those lists are generated based on mechanisms we already understand while working backward from reviews also reveals effective supplements whose mechanisms are still not understood.

The ranking algorithm is still flawed and my database is still too small, but please check it out! I will improve both over the next few weeks.

Please let me know your thoughts, feedback, and suggestions. Especially if you have ideas for where I could promote this.

I know how to monetize it, I just don't want to yet.

On the backend, I use supervisor and gunicorn and a web server to manage and serve a python/flask API that uses flat files as a database. The scraper uses scrapy. Part of my motivation for this project was to learn new technologies, and so I built the front-end in Gatsby, which uses React.</comment>


Target: PINs taken but not plundered - <AUTHOR> http://www.startribune.com/business/237508251.html

<comment><USER2> > Target acknowledged the breach Dec. 19 after an IT security blogger reported > that customer names, credit and debit card numbers, expiration dates and CVV > codes were stolen from the company. In the days that followed, Target > repeatedly said PINs weren't compromised or affected.

Why do they need to keep PIN and CVV data beyond an individual transaction?</comment>


What are some libraries that exist in R/Matlab that you wish existed in Python? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> sqldf

</comment><comment><USER3> ggplot2 most definitely</comment>


Ask HN: Is it too late to profit from Bitcoin? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I think the future is in this TYPE of currency, but I think the premise that bitcoin is using to "generate" through mining is the wrong approach.

I've had in the back of my mind an idea for a long time that will take alot of ingenuity to implement, but I'm fairly confident it will be the kind of electronic currency that will sustain itself well after bitcoin.

The concept is based on the idea that there is no centralized or distributed mechanism for determining who has "mined" the currency. Each individual just creates an account, and over the lifetime of that account sustains itself based on comparisons with others whom they've transacted with. The algorithm would need to adapt to attempts to defraud it, but think about this.

If I am transacting with someone who has been spending the currency like a mad man, their currency can be seen as less valuable to the overall population (since they may be a statistical outlier in usage of the currency). When someone has spent too little, this can also be a negative, since new and unestablished accounts mean the person may be less trustworthy, etc.

I think the key to this may be in the ability to tie an account to a person's real identity somehow.

The concept around it really puts everyone on even footing when the currency first hits the market. None of this madness. Sure you can probably make money for a while with Bitcoin, but I'm not willing to bet too much on the long-term sustainability of it, just because it will be like most currencies in the past. Some will start with alot, and some will be left out to dry with none. It's simply not as appealing as a self-regulating currency.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm tempted to say yes, but then I thought it was too late at $1, $33, and $266.

<comment><USER4> Given the short albeit brief history, although there is no way for me to know for sure, I'd say it still has a lot of growth to go for a long time considering Bitcoin's market position or lack thereof. Meaning, its only the beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm mad at myself for not having balls/faith in Bitcoin ~1 year ago. The price was around $10 per BTC and I debated if I should buy 1 coin per month just in case the price went up, but I didn't... I could have had a ton of money now if I just had got the balls...

</comment><comment><USER6> 21 million BTC divided by 7 billion people yields .003 BTC per human. That's 1 BTC for every 333 people.

There are fewer than 11.5 million addresses in use, so fewer than 11.5 million people have any BTC. There is a lot more growth to come.

</comment><comment><USER7> You have to do your research.

Peter Blodget in the PandoDaily talk was pretty pessimistic about it. See: pandodaily.com/2013/11/18/blodget-and-the-rarified-air-around-bitcoin/

I, for one, am somewhat pessimistic about it since it doesn't tie to a national currency. Noble cause, but naîve, IMO.

Tech is about creating value for the long-term.

</comment><comment><USER8> If I knew the answer to that I wouldn't be posting on HN :)

Seriously, though, you need to predict the behaviour of others - will they think that it is going up?

</comment><comment><USER9> there is no such thing as "too late".. the only thing you should be deciding on, is how high/low will bitcoin be, end of next year. If you think the price per BTC will soar up to $2000, then was it too late to buy now? Absolutely no!

<comment><USER10> The upside is much lower though if it goes to 2K at this point. I think a bunch of us want to kick ourselves because the insane upside is gone. i.e. 100x. Those crazy returns were usually reserved for VCs :-p

I bought a small amount now. Total speculation. Not enough to ever make a difference to me. I guess I'm like an entrepreneur who got heavily diluted.

My total guess is that there is a lot of pent up demand right now. A lot of tech people have already got into it but a lot more "normals" will take time to figure out how to get into bitcoin. Again, my guess is that it could collapse once the last of the "normals" has gotten theirs. Some chance there will be a day trading platform come out of it. Some chance it will become a lot bigger ... global currency level big. Who knows?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Given the volatility of Bitcoin, isn't this more like gambling rather than investing?

<comment><USER12> Short-term volatility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's what they said every month for the past 3 years.

</comment><comment><USER13> is it too late to profit from [insert currency here]?

<comment><USER14> yes.

<comment><USER13> lol. on a more serious note, op's question is incomplete. i assume the question is: "is it too late to buy and hold btc for a profit?," which is what most of the answers here seem to be implying, but that's the not the only way to profit...</comment></comment></comment>


Dash author is lying? Pusher of shovelware - <AUTHOR> http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-says-1-000-fraudulent-reviews-were-detected-across-two-accounts-owned-by-dash-developer-update-developer-responds.2005850/page-12#post-23708918 <comment><USER2> Just to confirm my otherwise vague memories, has OSX always supported cmd + x and cmd + v in the finder. Basically I'm asking Did the software basically do nothing or was that functionality missing?

If it was missing I would say for $5 for a quick fix for those that don't want to look any further for a solution, this is not robbery is it?

<comment><USER3> _Just to confirm my otherwise vague memories, has OSX always supported cmd + x and cmd + v in the finder_

I'd have to start bisecting versions of OS X to find exactly which, but up until a versions ago cmd-x didn't do anything in Finder. Cmd-c worked, but not cmd-x.

<comment><USER4> i'm on macOS Sierra and cmd +x does not work. Well under the global menu there is "cut", but it's greyed out for files/folders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Original discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12646919](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12646919)

<comment><USER6> In the original discussion, a lot of people were certain that Apple, Google & Co constantly abuse their powers. Good to know that's perhaps not that worse after all.

<comment><USER7> HN likes to go on tears about some big service hurting some little entrepreneur via random, unexplained mistreatment. And yet, most of the time, these stories turn out to involve blatant breaking of terms of use. At this point, whenever I see these stories, I _assume_ that I'm reading a self- serving account by someone who knows exactly what they did wrong, and then I look for any sign that this isn't the case.

It's gotten a little better over time, at least. There was a point, years back, where it seemed like every other day there was a front-page post by some guy running a linkfarm complaining that Google had mysteriously and unjustly weakened their God-given search rankings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This guy has taken a page right from Ryan Lochte. He should have owned up to it instead of deflecting.</comment>


Jim Gilliam, the founder of NationBuilder, has died - <AUTHOR> https://civichall.org/civicist/jim-gilliam-1977-2018/ <comment><USER2> I was lucky to have traded ideas and brainstormed many times with Jim about how technology could create a better society. He had a unique mind that inspired many. For those of you that didn't know him, watch his speech "The Internet is My Religion" [1]. If you like that, read his book of the same name [2].

1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4WKle- GQwk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4WKle-GQwk)

2: [https://www.amazon.com/Internet-My-Religion-Jim- Gilliam/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.com/Internet-My-Religion-Jim- Gilliam/dp/0996110402)

</comment><comment><USER3> Notwithstanding all the criticism of technology and technologists it's important and heartening to realize that there are people who genuinely try to make a positive difference even in the face of their own burdens. Rest in Peace.

</comment><comment><USER4> Jim Gilliam backed an idea we had to make finding out what you could run for and how to get on the ballot. It developed into the free site runforoffice.org

He was brilliant, fierce, opinionated, and amazing to work with.

He will be dearly missed.

</comment><comment><USER5> Rest in peace Jim. Your legacy will live on.</comment>


When will we have LINQ in Java? - <AUTHOR> http://java.dzone.com/articles/when-will-we-have-linq-java

<comment><USER2> Sincerely? I hope never. And I don't even like Java very much.

For Microsoft, who makes a lot of money selling a relational database server, marrying their flagship language with SQL makes sense, but I doubt it benefits anyone else.

Not even the developers who use it.

I can easily imagine all the programs that now rely on a relational database (or something hammered into a relational model) when any number of other data storage strategies would be a better fit. When all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

<comment><AUTHOR> LINQ is a query/update language for data structures. The beauty of it is that it can be used to read/update/modify vectors, lists, maps, etc. So, you just have one API to learn. And this API is easy to learn because it is modeled on SQL.

<comment><USER2> > because it is modeled on SQL

And that's the problem - you have a very Java-like syntax for the rest of C# with intrusions of SQL-like syntax. I'm not sure it's a good idea.

A solution more like the comprehensions you find in functional languages would probably be neater and more flexible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Adding a Haskell-like list comprehension (or Python-like) is not Java-ish anyway. You anyway need to add new syntax and since SQL is already known to most developers, I think it will be easy to learn for the most.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Does Piracy Harm Sales? - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitopoly.org/2012/09/13/piracy-harm/ <comment><USER3> Why should these studies be taken seriously when - from what I can tell - <USER2> do not take digital sales into account? CDs seems like a dubious metric. Wouldn't they have been hurt by digital purchases as well?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> An interesting article, because it points to, and discusses actual economic research.</comment>