A Tale of Two Code Bases ... - <AUTHOR> http://www.sandywalsh.com/2010/01/tale-of-two-code-bases.html

<comment><USER2> I don't think it's a coincidence that the multiplatform codebase was cleaner. Very often, things will be written quickly and then you have to clean up a lot of the technical debt as part of porting it.

Your assumptions about the compiler/interpreter, file system and so on often break across platforms, so you have to revisit and repair that code as part of the porting process.

<comment><USER3> Quoting from "The Practice of Programming" by Brian W. Kernighan & Rob Pike:

 _Finally, and most important, a portable program is a better program. The effort invested to make a program portable also makes it better designed, better constructed, and more thoroughly tested. The techniques of portable programming are closely related to the techniques of good programming in general._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The major issue with creating clean code is that clean code requires a _lot_ of discpline, at least for me. Of course, if I am fresh and going, creating clean code is easy. Extract a method here, Invert that if, move that around and so on and so on and all becomes nice and cute. But if I am tired and annoyed by the code, I really have to force myself to extract that one convoluted condition, to remove that duplication and such.

Furthermore, I have observed that a lot of my co-students often struggle enough with getting stuff to work, and once they got it to work, uh, it works and no one really pulls himself together in order to get it into a nice, readable form, again, "Because it works, and I have other stuff to do.

So much to say, I had to debug a number of stuff in their code, and just by cleaning up stuff, I found bugs. _sigh_

<comment><USER5> It's a shame that most of my Comp Sci peers don't seem to take much pride in actually building readable code. Building something that works is important, of course, but so is how it looks on the inside. Kind of analogous to building a house: sure, you can build something that keeps the rain off and the sun out in a relatively short time, but building it to stand the test of time is at least as important as keeping out the elements, if not more so.

<comment><USER6> I think coding assignments should also include style check/marking. A university should pick whatever standards out there and follow it for most of the situations. Preferably a standard that is used by the industry (For Java, follow SUN/Checkstyle, for C++ follow Google or some other open source project)

Students should write assignment code as if it's their professional job to do so even if they're not majoring in CS.

They should:

\- Write unit-test (doesn't matter if they want to practice TDD or not, as long as when submitted, there should be minimum X unit-tests or so)

\- Be given access to source code repository, and they have to write informative logs

\- Write decent comments and learn how to use a template license at the top of their code (make all code GPL or BSD, doesn't matter, it's just an assignment and it's just a way to show them the importance of code license).

Yes, it sounds silly for just an assignment, but then again, they are students. Most of them needs to be taught/told.

And yes, sometime these things could be gamed as there is no hard-fast rule especially in terms or marking (i.e. subjectives), but the TA and instructor should mark them based on their effort (for the subjective parts)... even if it's just a checklist.

At least we're forcing a bit of a good habit to them.

<comment><USER7> Don't force a good habit, help it grow instead.

For example, ask them to fix bugs in a prepared project with a number of subtle errors without unit tests and comments, then another project with good tests and comments. After that, when you give them a _group_ term project, not only will they be graded by you according to the code standards you set, but their peers will demand and expect that they write the code well.

<comment><USER6> This'll work too. I like your idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Something that can happen is you keep to the standard of the current code when you start working on it, especially when something is contact freelance, no sense in undoing what is already there, just do the best you can to tack on what you need to.

One project I was working like this for a while, until it got to the point where it seemed I was going to be spending a lot of time on the code base. I was working around maybe 20% of the code that wasn't mine so I finally decided it would be worth the time to rewrite out the old bad practises.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's a bit of a downer when he end the blog post with a _cliffhanger_.

</comment><comment><USER10> "One feature I needed to remove, which was essentially a boolean check, touched over 40 files across four applications."

What does this mean? How does a feature span four applications?

<comment><USER11> Maybe it was a common utility function called from 4 applications that looked into 40 files to see if you had permissions to do something or to see if an operation was safe to do?

Seems excessive but....

<comment><USER12> More likely it was a call like:

        if (permissions["whatever"]) { Do code}

instead of

        if (has_permission("whatever"))

And the first if was copy/pasted across the entire app. So when you have to change the logic of that permission, you don't have a central, official, way of figuring it, instead you have checks all over the app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, that was pretty well it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 How is bad code not the original developers' fault?</comment>


Femto-Photography - using light echoes to take pictures around corners - <AUTHOR> http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/femto/

<comment><USER2> A report a day ago from the BBC - same story, different source, no comments:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1919117>

<comment><AUTHOR> Woops, missed that. Good article though.</comment></comment>


Chamber of Commerce's lobbyists solicited hackers to attack progressive groups - <AUTHOR> http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/10/lobbyists-chamberleaks/ <comment><AUTHOR> HBGary is in the news again.</comment>


Netflix's Fascinating Cancellation Questionnaire - <AUTHOR> http://ryanspoon.com/blog/2011/06/12/netflix-cancellation/

<comment><USER2> It's interesting what you can do with a questionnaire...

Back in the day (a few years ago) I worked as a full-time dating coach. As you can imagine, there was always a credibility gap for potential clients, and one way we'd try and mitigate that was to offer (and to absolutely honour) a complete money-back guarantee - if you didn't get $3,000 worth of value out of your weekend, you could have your money back, just by asking for it.

As a coach, with the way the business model set up, even one customer asking for their money back was a financial disaster - there were lots of sunk costs in terms of accommodation and flights.

Anyway, through sensible use of a questionnaire, I got my personal refund rate down to literally 0. None of my 600 students (over the timeframe I ran workshops) asked for their money back, and I attribute it to the questionnaire (and our being awesome dating coaches ;-))

The workshops were split in to 5 hours of seminar on each of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and 4 hours "in the field" on Friday and Saturday nights. We had to maintain a 3:1 student to instructor ratio, and could sell up to 12 places on the weekend. As a Lead Coach, I was responsible for all of it (and had laid out the cash from my pocket for all of it, too).

On both Saturday and Sunday morning, I'd give the students a questionnaire, although Saturday was by far the more important of the two. I'd start by asking them general questions, phrased to get them thinking about the positives:

* What's been your favourite aspect so far? * What's been your key learning point so far? * How many girls did you talk to last night? * Describe the best interaction you had last night... * What are you going to try and do differently tonight? (on the Saturday)

As Tony Robbins says, the quality of your life is determined by the questions you ask yourself. Students will typically have had a LOT of great experiences, but also a few blow-outs, and a few low points in the evening. What I wanted to do was to focus them on the best aspects of what they'd learned.

Our big worry was always that we'd get someone who'd come along, enjoy the program, and then ask for their money back right at the end because they were cheap. Now technically they weren't allowed to do this - the money-back guarantee stipulated that they had to tell us and give us time to fix anything they weren't enjoying.

So to me, the crucial questions were then:

* Which coach did you work with? * Would you be happy to work with them again tonight? (on the Saturday)

Now the coaches were great guys, and what's more, would all go the extra mile for students. Students would run, hide, tell coaches they didn't want to do it anymore, etc, but the coaches would stick with the guys and MAKE them talk to girls. And the students LOVED them for it. By capturing the student's enthusiasm for the coaches in writing, I got two things:

Firstly there was an implicit agreement that they were having a good time. And that was good, as long as the student /was/ having a good time. But also it gave us time to spot any problems WELL in advance. Every workshop, one guy out of 12 would have had a not-great time on the first night. Some students and instructors just did not get along, some guys had some really deep-set problems, and needed one-on-one love-bombing.

Without the questionnaires (and at first, I was the only Lead Coach using them), these were the guys who asked for refunds. By getting them to answer questionnaires early in to the process, we were able to identify them and take corrective action...

Anyway! That's quite a wall of text, so:

tl;dr: you can use questionnaires to change the way people think about things, and also to catch problems well before they happen...

</comment><comment><USER3> Netflix's number one problem is that the companies who own the content don't (for the most part) want them to succeed. They take too much power away from the content owners. Netflix would happily offer EVERYTHING via streaming. The content owners would rather Netflix weren't allowed to send disks out by mail, but there's that pesky problem that it doesn't violate copyright law.

Maybe Congress will create compulsory licensing for streaming like the compulsory licensing that makes radio possible. Or maybe they will allow content owners to license DVDs instead of selling them and Netflix will cease to exist.

I have dealt with cable companies and I have dealt with Netflix, and I know which side I am on.

</comment><comment><USER4> It's refreshing to see that Netflix acknowledges their shortcomings (picture quality, streaming catalog, etc) and recognizes these might be reasons people would quit. And that they recognize that some people may be quitting to go to Hulu -- which they even point out right on the survey that it's cheaper -- or to Pirate Bay.

It's like a 12-step program: to solve problems in your service and compete, the first step is to admit you have problems and high competition.

Then you can figure out which ones are driving people away and to where, and target all your work to that.

<comment><USER5> The most interesting bit is the way they even go and tell you __in bold __exactly how much all of the competing options cost.

My reaction: "Wait, I can get free TV episodes and free shipping with Amazon Prime for $79 a year?"

Not that I'd give up Netflix, mind you. Though I have recently downscaled from three to two discs at a time since I figured out I was watching far more streaming stuff than disc-borne stuff.

<comment><USER6> I'm already a Prime customer -- and a Netflix subscriber. Amazon's "free" category for Prime movies is thin - very thin.

And I'm afraid Netflix warped my brain with subscription fee -- it seems exorbitant now to pay $3.00 to watch a single streaming movie. So personally, I don't find the promise of a few free shows, designed to lure me into paying a la carte for the premium ones, very compelling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Am I the only person that thinks that's a pretty complicated looking questionnaire to give a user when leaving your service, or does Netflix have unusually intelligent/savvy customers?

<comment><USER8> It looks like this is shown after the account is currently canceled, and is completely optional. It doesn't look complicated, it just looks a little time consuming because they want the details. I think they did a good job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One option that I noticed is missing-and because of which I considred cancelling my netflix account- is that streaming is not available on your account if you travel outside the country. Even though I know how to get around it, why do I need to feel like I'm doing something illegal to access something I paid for?

</comment><comment><USER10> For $8 bucks a month I find it to be a great value, even if I only watch 5 to 7 things a month. To use OnDemand I would need Cable TV and have to pay $50 to $60 more.

<comment><USER11> I found the author's criticism of the Netflix Instant catalog surprising. I would be set for weeks if I watched my instant queue straight through. Granted, I'm not overly discerning when throwing something in there, but Roger Ebert recommends Netflix instant movies on his Twitter feed faster than I can watch them.

<comment><USER10> Maybe it's where the OP is in his life ...looks like he has a family. I think that would be an interesting survey/study. How many Netflix subscribers have no cable and are single vs. how many have no cable and are a family unit?

I can imagine many wives not wanting to get rid of cable TV and just have Netflix. Maybe this was another factor why the OP canceled it or maybe he was just wanting to write an interesting blog piece and resigned up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Blizzard has a similarly comprehensive questionnaire for canceling a World of Warcraft account.

</comment><comment><USER13> Netflix instant selection is too limiting. Also, I wish it were better organized. But all in all a great product. I am seriously considering canceling my cable and replacing it with Hulu or Netflix. Charter wouldn't have a questionnaire like this that's for sure.</comment>


"I have let Whitman alone" - <AUTHOR> https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/04/18/walt-whitman-alone/ <comment><USER2> > "I celebrate myself,/And what I assume you shall assume,/For every atom > belonging to me as good belongs to you." Whitman was unequivocally declaring > his own independence from poetic conventions and niceties.

This is why I always struggle communicating in the arts. This author speaks with such conviction that she understands Whitman's intent and yet I can't find a shred of it for myself.

<comment><USER3> That's the opening stanza from _Leaves of Grass_ , the Ur-text of American poetry. The opening stanza doesn't convey Whitman's break with convention fully, but it stands in for the rest, which does. And certainly these lines -- self-celebratory, all-encompassing, without conventional rhyme or meter -- convey an expression of independence!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why can't I find any stories of that time Mark Twain and Walt Whitman tried to dig up the grave of Elias Hicks to make a plaster cast of his head? Is there a conspiracy of silence going on here? What good is the internet if not for tracking down obscure details of events like this?

<comment><USER5> That was Samuel E. Clements, not Samuel L. Clemens, and Whitman wasn't involved; he was just an apprentice for Clements at the newspaper Clements edited.

Clements did succeed at digging up the grave, but apparently the mold and busts were destroyed during an argument over money.

Source: _Walt Whitman 's America: A Cultural Biography_ by David Reynolds

<comment><USER4> Ahh, I see. Well that certainly explains things. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


What kind of developer are you? - <AUTHOR> http://quiz.closeheatapp.com

<comment><USER2> If anyone is wondering how they made such slick forms, check out my friends at [http://typeform.com](http://typeform.com) \- they're lovely, and their product is amazing.

<comment><AUTHOR> We love them. They got a few quirks but overall experience is beautiful. Say thanks to them from me!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It won't give me an answer without checking "Apple" or "Google". You'd think a quiz for developers would allow mu for a specific answer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. I'll add it. What kind of brand is it? I couldn't quite get your message fully.

<comment><USER3> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You spelled efficiency wrong on the result for "Extreme Pragmatic". Interesting quiz tho!

<comment><AUTHOR> YOU NAZI! Thanks - fixed it and am feeling ashamed of it a bit :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fun and interesting!

A couple of the longer radio form labels are cut off when I view from Firefox mobile

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! I was trying to work those out for you. The problem is that we are use Typeform and they are kind of semi-ready for mobiles.

Got any ideas on how to improve it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> form validation error when I select "other" for language of choice

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for checking it out! Just fixed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Really nice idea!

</comment><comment><USER8> superb!</comment>


Shhh: Society for Handheld Hushing - <AUTHOR> http://www.coudal.com/shhh.php

<comment><USER2> And the same people that complain about cell-phone users have the same 'private' conversations with people who are actually there.

People STILL have to listen to it! It doesn't make it any better that there are 2 voices talking about it.

People who can't use their 'inside voice' are annoying, no matter the reason. It isn't cellphone specific.

<comment><USER3> Cell phones do make it worse though, because you often have no idea if the other person can properly hear you.

<comment><USER2> There's this clever thing people do when they can't hear me well: They tell me.

There's no difference between them being there, and them being on the other end of a phone. The noise problem is the same.

Wait, there IS one difference: The other person can turn their volume up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used to just ask someone to keep it down, but now I can do it in a less effective, higher effort way that also makes me a gigantic passive aggressive douchebag too? I'm already printing!

</comment><comment><USER5> Handing out these cards is a ruder and more offensive practice than the behaviour that the card-carriers seek to control/prevent. It's not going to work on any large scale.

</comment><comment><USER6> Or, for ~30 with shipping, you could get one of [these]([http://www.dealextreme.com/p/personal-cell-phone-signal- bloc...](http://www.dealextreme.com/p/personal-cell-phone-signal-blocker- device-4355)). I have one, it's awesome.

<comment><USER7> Awesome and also illegal in most western countries.</comment></comment>


VirtualBox and Windows 10 breaks a lot of popular dev tools - <AUTHOR>

Just a quick note after losing a lot of time today with this.  VirtualBox (all versions) are having issues starting develop environments under Windows 10 RTM and this is affecting a lot of people who are upgrading to Windows 10.
List of relevant VirtualBox dependent projects affected: - vagrant - boot2docker - docker machine - xamarin android player - probably more...
Details: - https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/14040#comment:25 - https://github.com/boot2docker/boot2docker/issues/1015 - https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/6059 <comment><USER2> Windows 10 has been available for developers to test their apps on for over 9 months and well publicized. It looks like VirtualBox didn't bother to take advantage of that window. It's likely not because it's free and open source (I've ensured my FOSS projects work on Windows 10 since the first public test version), it's likely because it's Oracle. Note that the first bug you linked is 4 months old but was ignored for months and the first comment posted to it just 10 days ago.</comment>


Review of Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now - <AUTHOR> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3654 <comment><USER3> The critiques of Pinker that I've found most convincing have focused on his presentation of the Enlightenment's intellectual side. The review by John Gray that Aaronson dismisses has some fairly convincing points, and it's disappointing seeing him travesty Gray's case.

It should be pretty obvious to someone with reasonably good reading comprehension that Gray is not saying, as Aaronson suggests he is, that Pinker supports eugenics. Gray's point is that the thinkers who Aaronson presents as defining "Enlightenment values" in fact had much more ambivalent positions. The argument is that one cannot define "Enlightenment values" simplistically-- because the Enlightenment thinkers were in disagreement about basic principles.

I don't agree with all of Gray's critique--I think Pinker's case that things have improved over the last several centuries is reasonable--but I think this part of his argument is difficult to answer. It's very easy to define praiseworthy "values" if you keep them divorced from real-world arguments, and that seems to be Pinker's approach. Any thinker who can present Enlightenment values as simple and univocal is going to do a poor job understanding things as they are today. Deny the disagreements of the past, and you're sure to miss the substance of today's disagreements. Aaronson is happy to take the "classic liberal" label. I wonder if he's familiar with the work of others who identify as classic liberals right now; my guess, given what I've seen of his writing, is that he'd disagree with many of them pretty strenuously.

<comment><USER4> Did Pinker ever say in his book that every Enlightenment thinker shared the same exact set of values about which there was no disagreement? I seem to recall him saying the opposite at times. The point of the book was not to praise the thinkers of 2-300 years ago, but to identify a subset of the values that really picked up steam around that time and to show how they have contributed to significant progress since.

(EDIT: clarity)

<comment><USER3> Of course he didn't say that literally every Enlightenment thinker shared the exact set of values. Neither I nor Gray are claiming that. But his argument, as I understand it, is that there are a certain determinate set of "Enlightenment values" that these thinkers mostly shared, that Pinker himself shares, and that society as a whole needs to share in order to make progress, stay civilized, etc. Gray's point is that no such set of values exists, that Enlightenment thinkers were always in contradiction with each other, and that people who claim to hew to "Enlightenment values" today are likely to be in fundamental disagreement with each other.

<comment><USER4> The way I read it, Pinker wasn't adamant about these values being determinate and shared. Quite the opposite, he was aware that there was disagreement and that things were messy. From the first chapter of the book:

 _> What is the Enlightenment? There is no official answer, because the era named by Kant's essay was never demarcated by opening and closing ceremonies like the Olympics, nor are its tenets stipulated in an oath or creed… The era was a cornucopia of ideas, some of them contradictory, but four themes tie them together: reason, science, humanism and progress._

In other words, the themes are of Pinker's own determining, with the benefit of hindsight.

More importantly, this is not a book about the history of the Enlightenment. Out of the many thousands of paragraphs in this book, Pinker only devotes a small handful to discussing the source of the values/themes he defends. I don't think it's accurate to refer to their origin as _the_ argument Pinker makes in the book. It would be more accurate to say that this is merely _one_ supplemental point he makes in the book, and that it's largely irrelevant to his central thesis.

<comment><USER5> The thing is, how can you trust Pinker's interpretation of the Enlightenment? Pinker thinks the Enlightenment was an important engine of 'progress,' but John Locke was a tremendously influential Enlightenment thinker who argued in defense of slavery, who owned shares in a slave-trading company. ([http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0090591713485446...](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0090591713485446?journalCode=ptxa))

Locke was also responsible for many of the ideas surrounding natural rights that are now enshrined in the American Constitution, but from the perspective of an African slave, Locke was not progressive.

Thomas Hobbes was even more illiberal than Locke. He didn't even believe in natural rights at all, and he would have hated democracy.

Pinker's getting a lot wrong that he can't cover for just by making a token nod to the vagueness of exactly when the Enlightenment started. His poor understanding of what the Enlightenment was, who was in it, and what they actually believed means that whatever story he tells of human progress is going to be fundamentally flawed.

<comment><USER4> Again, the point of the book is not to cover the history of the Enlightenment, to praise or judge the Enlightenment thinkers themselves, or to defend some "correct" interpretation or definition of what the Enlightenment entailed. You're arguing against a strawman.

The point of the book is that reason, science, and humanism are valuable ideas that have helped us progress as a species _since_ the Enlightenment, and that they continue to drive progress today.

<comment><USER6> If he simply ignores everything he doesn't like about the thinkers he writes about, his book is useless. His earlier book, Better Angels Of Our Nature, was also terribly wrong in presenting the hunter-gatherer state of humans as being much more violent than archeologists and anthropologists think, just to present his case that civilization is a good thing. So I don't have much faith in this book, as he clearly starts with a certain idea (civilization is needed because the human being is inherently violent) and looks for arguments to support it instead of the other way around. He should probably stick to his own field of psychology.

<comment><USER4> _> If he simply ignores everything he doesn't like about the thinkers he writes about, his book is useless._

This makes zero sense. If I write a guide about how to use red paint to create beautiful paintings, is my guide useless if it fails to acknowledge the atrocities that may or may not have been committed by the inventor of red paint? Of course not.

 _> Better Angels Of Our Nature, was also terribly wrong in presenting the hunter-gatherer state of humans as being much more violent than archeologists and anthropologists think_

He supported his position with loads of strong evidence. Your counterargument, however, presents no evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The nature of the tension between the blessings of the Enlightenment and the general fear of the future Scott expresses here might be rooted in the fact that what modern science and technology has done is increase humanity's raw power.

Take for example the case of Fritz Haber [1] -- who with one hand greatly innovated in the use of poison gas for widespread use in war (later used by the Nazis, and against his own people at that), condemning millions to death, and with the other hand greatly innovated chemical fertilizers, arguably saving millions from famine.

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

We're more powerful as a species than ever before. That means we can do wonderful things previously unimaginable, but it also means our destructive powers have been equally magnified. Problems are solvable, but the big red shiny buttons are redder and bigger and shinier than ever, too. And I'm not just talking about the threat of nuclear war.

<comment><USER8> Tension, yes. The stakes have been raised but there's no going back. We need increasing knowledge, technology and wealth to confront not only the problems of today but problems we don't even know about yet. Any attempt to reverse englightenment values or even just slow down the effects could only degenerate swiftly into violence and make the fears come true. As Karl Popper put it:

 _" The future is open. It is not predetermined and thus cannot be predicted – except by accident. The possibilities that lie in the future are infinite. When I say 'It is our duty to remain optimists', this includes not only the openness of the future but also that which all of us contribute to it by everything we do: we are all responsible for what the future holds in store. Thus it is our duty, not to prophesy evil, but, rather, to fight for a better world."_

<comment><USER7> The problem is what constitutes "enlightenment values"? -- I'm sure Haber saw himself as an heir to the enlightenment, meticulously unlocking nature's secrets and bending them to the will of man. But many of the men who's will his inventions fulfilled were evil. As you say, we indeed need power to solve problems, but we must be deeply skeptical of anyone who dismisses or minimizes the importance of critiquing power.

<comment><USER8> _> what constitutes "enlightenment values"_

I think Pinker defines these as science, reason and humanism. Couldn't agree with you more about the importance of criticism. Perhaps the most important feature of the enlightenment was in establishing a _tradition of criticism_. This is the engine of progress, which, as David Deutsch points out, is kind of the opposite of how most traditions work (they keep things the same).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A lot of people, including Pinker, seem to make too much of the connection between Good Ideas about philosophy and politics, and the resulting benefits to humanity. On the one hand, sure, good ideas lead to benefits. But good ideas aren't scarce and probably never have been. Anyone who spends some time surfing the internet will find dozens of good ideas that would probably lead to dramatic improvements in human welfare.

The limiting factor is the political willingness to try out new ideas. What's special about the Enlightenment era is not that the ideas were good, but that the political systems were willing and able to implement the ideas. Our current political system can't or won't contemplate even small changes to the Way It's Done. And this intolerance to new ideas is not just an unfortunate misrepresentation of the Will of the People: most people really don't like new ideas about politics and will often scream at you for suggesting them.

<comment><USER10> > What's special about the Enlightenment era is not that the ideas were good, > but that the political systems were willing and able to implement the ideas.

I'm not sure that's true. It seems to me more that the people were grabbing on to some Enlightenment ideas, and were willing to implement them over the dead bodies (sometimes literally) of the political system.

<comment><USER11> >It seems to me more that the people were grabbing on to some Enlightenment ideas, and were willing to implement them over the dead bodies (sometimes literally) of the political system.

What makes this seem true to you?

<comment><USER10> The times those ideas were implemented were often revolutions. Certainly the American and French Revolutions, but also the revolutions of 1848.

One could argue that England didn't have that, and still wound up with Enlightenment ideas changing their political system. That's true (though the American Revolution was certainly an impact on England). But for almost everywhere else, it seems that there was at least one revolution along the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _(Pinker lists the following medical researchers and public health crusaders as having saved more than 100 million lives each: Karl Landsteiner, Abel Wolman, Linn Enslow, William Foege, Maurice Hilleman, John Enders. How many of them had you heard of? I'd heard of none.)_

The first 94 pages are available on Google Books. Here is a link to the page with a table of these researchers' accomplishments and approximate lives saved.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=J6grDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&](https://books.google.com/books?id=J6grDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&)

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm curious why nobody seems to have compared Pinker's book to Julian Simon's 1996 tome _The State of Humanity_. It's also full of statistics and graphs showing the vast improvements in human life over time leading up to now.

Simon's book has been co-opted by the libertarian right (Cato Institute etc.) to show that all is peachy and no government intervention is needed - that's lamentable.

However, the underlying facts marshalled and documented in the books of Simon and Pinker - that life is measurably getting better on so many fronts - <USER2> to be better known.

EDIT to add: Here's a short article by Simon summarising the message of the book: [https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/state- humanity-...](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/state-humanity- good-getting-better)

<comment><USER14> I don't think co-opted is the accurate term. Simon was of the libertarian right.

<comment><USER13> I think you're right. Maybe better to say that he and others (Cato) used his (largely sensible) empirical and historical work to support conclusions that don't follow and libertarian policies that I disagree with.

<comment><USER14> His work is not sensible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> To paraphrase Gate, this is my new favorite review of this book :-). The other is [http://quillette.com/2018/03/11/steven-pinkers-counter- count...](http://quillette.com/2018/03/11/steven-pinkers-counter-counter- enlightenment/)

It's simple. Responses to Pinker's writings can be divided into two groups: The rational pessimists and the rational optimists.

<comment><USER16> Both of these reviews bring up the matter of irrational responses, in the form of what Aaronson calls 'hostile mistranslation', the willful misinterpretation of the work in order to build whatever straw man the reviewer wants to attack.

<comment><USER17> This matter being itself a cliche in these circles. Rationalist forums are full of denouncing _uncharitable_ critics who _intentionally misunderstand_ what is obviously innocuous and infallible if you would just _understand_ (presumably by god-given charity). I think this knee-jerk reaction is itself irrational.

In the above review for example the reviewer builds a straw-man that the critics are anti-science. Calling out religious features of arguments bordering on scientism (it does even have a church!) is not denouncing scientific method.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It should be noted that enlightenment era ideals failed to include many classes of the members of homosapiens. Enough credit is not given to those classes who actually fixed the ideals and made them what they are today - universally applicable rights and principles. Slaves had to prove they are humans by spilling their own blood and lives. Women had to prove that they are capable of participating in a democracy and they deserve same rights as men. Colonial subjects had to prove they deserve autonomy, again by suffering violence. Because these members of these groups have remained mostly unknown, haven't we taken the lazy path of showering praise on some specific eras, and some specific set of intellectuals whose writings have been recorded? So how justified is Pinker on laying the foundations of progress on the enlightenment era norms?

<comment><USER19> If we trace an idea (like abolition or gender equality) back to its beginnings, we'd expect to find that the idea was controversial. It must take time for an idea to persuade people, even others of the same movement (who might be primarily focused on other aspects of the movement).

So I think it can make sense to praise Enlightenment-era anti-slavery thinkers and attribute their anti-slavery to their ideals (especially if that's their explicit reasoning), even if not every Enlightenment thinker was anti-slavery. Wikipedia's article on the Age of Enlightenment lists eight major figures[1]. Of those, four are notable for their opposition to slavery[2].

That method shows less support for gender equality being traceable to the Enlightenment. As far as I can tell, none of the eight major figures supported gender equality. A few of Wikipedia's longer list of Enlightenment intellectuals[3] did (e.g. Marquis de Condorcet, John Locke and Mary Wollstonecraft). If they were the first-ever feminists on the path that led to modern feminism, that's evidence that Enlightenment ideals sparked that. But if the base rate of feminist thinkers was similar in the period before the Enlightenment, then it wouldn't appear that the Enlightenment helped. I don't know the answer to that, though for what it's worth, the Wikipedia article on the history of feminism[4] has a whole section called 18th century: the Age of Enlightenment, so it seems that the writers of that article thought the Enlightenment was relevant.

[1] Beccaria, Diderot, Hume, Kant, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Adam Smith, and Voltaire - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment)

[2] Montesquieu, Rousseau, Adam Smith, and Voltaire

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intellectuals_of_the_E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intellectuals_of_the_Enlightenment)

[4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#18th_centu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#18th_century:_the_Age_of_Enlightenment)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20>
        So my advice is this: buy
        Pinker's book and read it.
        Then work for a future where
        the book's optimism is justified.

I personally hope most get to the conclusion of this review and take it's advice.

</comment><comment><USER21> > _I've noticed that everything Pinker writes bears the scars of the hostile > mistranslation tactic. Scarcely does he say anything before he turns around > and says, "and here's what I'm not saying"—and then proceeds to ward off > five different misreadings so wild they wouldn't have occurred to me, but > then if you read Leon Wieseltier or John Gray or his other critics, there > the misreadings are, trotted out triumphantly; it doesn't even matter how > much time Pinker spent trying to prevent them._

> _I'm depressed, more generally, that for centuries, the Enlightenment has > been met by its beneficiaries with such colossal incomprehension and > ingratitude. Save 300 million people from smallpox, and you can expect a > return a lecture about your naïve and arrogant scientistic reductionism._

<comment><USER22> I'm very sympathetic to Aaronson's position in this review, but I think these two comments reveal the problematic aspect of his position:

* In his mind (and that of many others) the Enlightenment is about this special group of people who bestowed gifts on normals. I'm sure he'd challenge that characterisation, but I think that's what it amounts to. So instead of this idea being inclusive it becomes an us and them, in which the us is constantly expecting gratitude, while slightly missing the fact that society as a whole always has to be the enabler for what they do - even when it appears to be resisting them!

* That aggressive mistranslation explains away the other POV. I think there is mistranslation but let's ask WHY intelligent people are doing that: because they believe that Pinker (et al) have a dangerous subtext, or that their ideas trend in a specific direction. And there is something in that because consider the tension Aaronson feels: he agrees with Pinker that what happened in the past is good, but feels it is leading to disaster. So - if it was so good - why have we ended up in such a bad place? Enlightment people cannot simply say: "it's not our fault we've tried to stop this". They need to accept that maybe something in their ideas and way of approaching things is part of the problem.

<comment><USER16> I do not see how those two quotes imply a particular opinion of how the enlightenment happened - as far as I can tell, they merely say that the enlightenment (however it occurred) has benefitted a lot of people, yet some of beneficiaries can't stop complaining about it.

As for the hostile mistranslators, if they cannot find the presumed dangerous subtext within the work, they should honestly recognize that they cannot find it (which would not prevent them from stating their concerns, just as Aaronson stated his pessimism), rather than pretend that it is there. Ultimately, doing the latter merely reflects badly on both their critical analysis skills, and, to a degree, their ethics.

<comment><USER17> If I were to make a mathematical argument sloppy enough to be open to _hostile mistranslators_ and then on top of that address reviewer's psychology instead of holes she might tried to poke, text would get outright desk rejection on resubmission.

In science the odium lies on the philosopher to put forward his idea robustly. Not on the reviewers to understand it in the most favourable light and then... believe?

<comment><USER16> The scope of mistranslations is boundless, so this will not work - and what principle absolves the willful mistranslators of this obligation, anyway?

<comment><USER17> So you advise to scope on the reviewer hypothetical beliefs and personality next time? That is bound to succeed and show my analytical prowess? Even in uncharitable (and possibly mistranslated by me being critiqued!) case her points are baseless and manufactured?

<comment><USER16> Too much willful misinterpretation defeats the purpose of critical analysis, and where would that leave the humanities? - it would leave them wallowing in irrelevant self-referentiality, where everyone is talking past everyone else.

<comment><USER17> You are sidestepping the question, engaging in practice of irrelevance you highlight. Is debating the mistranslat _or_ a becoming reply? Moreover you said them making a case somehow casts shadow on the critic's analytical powers, where in fact starting debates around their intents bypassing the issue put forward points the exact opposite.

<comment><USER16> On the contrary, you are sidestepping the issue. There is a difference between, on the one hand, discussing what troubles you about a work, and on the other, attributing that which troubles you to that work (and its author), without justification.

On the subject of sidestepping the question, you have still not explained why responders are absolved from the burden of precision that you have put on the creators of original works.

<comment><USER17> I didn't notice you posing this problem. Frankly I don't understand the difference you announced you'd be trying to make. 1) Discussing a critique, 2) attributing critique to a work being criticized and its author without justification? What was your point?

About the equal standards. You would be shaken to discover reviewers are not held to the them by the journals and this is by design. Because, as I first said, the burden of making the argument robust is on the original work, not on the critics to robustly scrutinize beyond all doubt. I think you ignored what I started with, and then mistranslated me sidestepping anything.

<comment><USER16> There's an amusing irony here - you are claiming that I have mistranslated you, but by the claim you made in your first post in this thread, that would be because you have been too sloppy in your statement of your position. In this one case, I might agree with you.

<comment><USER17> That's only because I choose to be illustrative with that last sentence. Without me making parallel with that sloppy logic of mistranslation, you'd be just convoluted and shown wrong by the previous ones, and I might as well rest my case on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I find the linked review by John Gray more reasonable and mostly because unlike Pinker he does not seems too eager to please affluent with all great things happening around.

</comment><comment><USER24> Reviewers conclusion: "So my advice is this: buy Pinker's book and read it. Then work for a future where the book's optimism is justified."

Please.

</comment><comment><USER25> > _As I read Pinker, I sometimes imagined a book published in 1923 about the > astonishing improvements in the condition of Europe's Jews following their > emancipation. Such a book might argue: look, obviously past results don't > guarantee future returns; all this progress could be wiped out by some freak > future event. But for that to happen, an insane number of things would need > to go wrong simultaneously: not just one European country but pretty much > all of them would need to be taken over by antisemitic lunatics who were > somehow also hyper-competent, and who wouldn't just harass a few Jews here > and there until the lunatics lost power, but would systematically hunt down > and exterminate all of them with an efficiency the world had never before > seen. Also, for some reason the Jews would need to be unable to escape to > Palestine or the US or anywhere else. So the sane, sober prediction is that > things will just continue to improve, of course with occasional hiccups (but > problems are solvable)._

> _Or I thought back to just a few years ago, to the wise people who explained > that, sure, for the United States to fall under the control of a racist > megalomaniac like Trump would be a catastrophe beyond imagining. Were such a > comic-book absurdity realized, there'd be no point even discussing "how to > get democracy back on track"; it would already have suffered its extinction- > level event. But the good news is that it will never happen, because the > voters won't allow it: a white nationalist authoritarian could never even > get nominated, and if he did, he'd lose in a landslide. What did Pat > Buchanan get, less than 1% of the vote?_

But the Nazi's were defeated, anti-Semitism isn't solved but _still way less than it used to be_ , and US citizens _are_ actively fighting Trump & Co.

I share the feeling that at some point, we're going to see a mass genocide thanks to either CRISPR-based targeted viruses or hard-to-stop drones being much too easy to weaponise by a single nutcase. The world is always resource constrained, and technologies do enable ever more efficient ways of killing ourselves. These are real things to worry about.

But the WWII and Trump examples came about because of a different reason: mass communication. What seems to be missing from Aaronson's review at the _societal_ level, is the insight from Clay Shirky into what enabled both of these things to happen:

> _So, what happens when a medium suddenly puts a lot of new ideas into > circulation? (...) When the telegraph came along, it was clear that it was > going to globalize the news industry. What would this lead to? Well, > obviously, it would lead to world peace. The television, a medium that > allowed us not just to hear but see, literally see, what was going on > elsewhere in the world, what would this lead to? World peace. (Laughter) The > telephone? You guessed it: world peace. Sorry for the spoiler alert, but no > world peace. Not yet._

> _Even the printing press was assumed to be a tool that was going to enforce > Catholic intellectual hegemony across Europe. Instead, what we got was > Martin Luther 's 95 Theses, the Protestant Reformation, and, you know, the > Thirty Years' War. All right, so what all of these predictions of world > peace got right is that when a lot of new ideas suddenly come into > circulation, it changes society. What they got exactly wrong was what > happens next._

Shirky then continues to discuss that he believes that the reason we stil think of these technologies as _good_ is because it effectively forced us to become better at arguing. His example is that it enabled things like the scientific revolution[0].

I have yet to read Pinker's newest book, or Better Angels for that matter, so perhaps he addresses these aspect too. I expect him to since he discusses one aspect of this in his earlier language-oriented work: _mutual knowledge_. Better communication means an improvement in mutual knowledge. And if there is a lot of trauma, resentment and injustice in society, an increase in mutual knowledge brings instability[1]. For example, Shirky's does not explicitly mention what the flaw in the reasoning of the Catholic Church was: it was oblivious or ignorant to the huge injustices in their system. The current craziness is coming about because the existing structures turn out not to be working out so well, and need to be changed. But that will be hard and messy process.

[0] [https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU&t=7m40s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU&t=7m40s)

</comment><comment><USER26> A Mar 2018 Long Now seminar podcast (with discussion) can be DL'd directly at this link. [http://longnow.org/projects/seminars/SALT.xml](http://longnow.org/projects/seminars/SALT.xml)

</comment><comment><USER27> So, if you're already an optimist, this book is useless

</comment><comment><USER28> " _Or I thought back to just a few years ago, to the wise people who explained that, sure, for the United States to fall under the control of a racist megalomaniac like Trump would be a catastrophe beyond imagining. Were such a comic-book absurdity realized, there'd be no point even discussing "how to get democracy back on track"; it would already have suffered its extinction-level event. But the good news is that it will never happen, because the voters won't allow it: a white nationalist authoritarian could never even get nominated, and if he did, he'd lose in a landslide._ "

I'm not exactly a fan of Trump, but the sheer mass of hyperbole in this article is more irritating than the fiery radiation of a thousand giant elliptical galaxies. I get it, Steven Pinker is the smartest being who has ever lived, evah, but he's blinded by his own beatific, deified optimism and cannot see that we are all well and truly fuck'd, and for the good of the general universe (it's far too late for the mere Earth; " _...the very thought of the earth gone desolate—its remaining land barely habitable, its oceans a sewer,..._ ") we should all commit hiri-kiri.

But, seriously, if the United States' system of government cannot withstand a single, or even a series, of really poor decision, then it doesn't deserve to survive. (And given what I know about some of the historical presidencies, I hope I can be forgiven for thinking it already has.)

Global climate change is _bad_. But it's not so bad as do leave nothing behind but cockroaches and algae. It may leave the state of Florida as an archipelago of levy-surrounded cities (and cause massive destruction and death in the rest of the world) and destroy the agriculture of the central United States (but that was going to happen anyway, when the Ogalala aquifer runs out of water and the Great Plains returns to being the Great American Desert). It's going to cause a lot of problems, possibly even including the fall of Western Civilization, or at least those countries that make up Western Civilization. But "barely habitable?" Don't get above your station, Scott.

As for the Nazis? Bah! Sure, they were bad, but the sum of deaths from WWII, the Soviets, Chinese Communists, and a stack of other genocides don't even seem to be noticeable on the graph of population growth in the 20th century. Humanity in general doesn't really seem to have cared and certainly the rest of the universe doesn't. And the Nazis weren't " _a desperate, failed attempt to turn back the ratchet of cosmopolitanism and moral progress, by people who viscerally understood that time and history were against them;_ " they were a follow-on to WWI, which ate the economies and civilian governments of Europe. If not them, Germany could have gone soviet. Or a corporal from France (or England) could have risen to right-wing totalitarian power.

</comment><comment><USER29> Offtopic, but I found the right justification made that kind of hard to read. The big mid-sentence spaces read like pauses in my head.

<comment><USER30> If you use Firefox, you can use the "Reader view" to center align and dark- mode the page contents. I use it constantly, great feature.

If you use Pocket, it will do the same thing.

I'm sure there is a chrome plugin that does something similar.

<comment><USER13> Reader View in Safari makes it left aligned, right ragged, which I personally find most pleasant (unless it's professionally typeset justified).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Pinker has found a fun niche like many authors before him; write books that only the well off and mostly content folks will buy and read and tell them what they want to hear. (Gladwell and many other authors popular among upper middle class and wealthy people play the same game.)

And I'm not saying Pinker lies or anything, but he just gives a point of view that is comforting if you're wealthy. His spiel comes down to; "Everything's mostly great, it's not just you, don't worry so much about how great you have it vs the suffering of others. Everything is getting better just as it is."

I know that's very reductionist, but to me it's kinda what it boils down to.

Gladwell pulls the "The complex issues that people around you tell you are complex? Well they have easy secret answers!" game.

I find it all very anti-intellectual and it's disappointing to me that these authors are so popular and widely praised.

<comment><USER32> I've heard them called "court intellectuals."

The problem with Pinker's optimism isn't that it's wrong. If you look at aggregate statistics everything is getting better. The problem is that the _distribution_ of that wealth is shifting toward an extreme hockey stick. A rising tide no longer lifts all boats. Those realities don't show up in aggregate statistics. You get what you measure.

In fact it's even worse than that. In certain cases a rising tide sinks many peoples' boats. Case in point: exploding asset prices. The savings of the extremely wealthy are re-invested in issuing more private debt, which in turn inflates the cost of things like real estate and college tuition which makes these basic things less affordable to ordinary people. One person can't afford a house because someone else's money has been parked in real estate.

Then there's the fact that advancing technology keeps raising the bar for entry level labor. Eventually the bar gets raised so high that someone with a merely average IQ or who is too young to possess the required experience is no longer profitably employable, leading to mass youth and lower class unemployment.

Basically it doesn't matter if everything is getting better for someone else. It matters if it's getting better for you.

The trouble is that all the solutions we have to wealth inequality are totalitarian and generally against the grain of enlightenment humanism. The most effective economic levelers are authoritarian socialism and warfare. The latter creates a huge amount of stimulus spending that creates a lot of jobs and effectively redistributes wealth to the working class. Without either forcible redistribution or war, wealth seems to just accumulate at the top due to network effects until the richest 0.01% own everything.

<comment><USER33>
      > The problem with Pinker's optimism isn't that
      > it's wrong. If you look at aggregate statistics
      > everything is getting better. The problem is
      > that the distribution of that wealth is shifting
      > toward an extreme hockey stick. A rising tide no
      > longer lifts all boats.

There are fewer people living in poverty.

<comment><USER34> The definition of poverty is decided by people who have an incentive to say poverty is declining. It changes over time.

Why do people take these definitions at face value without examining what they actually mean?

<comment><USER35> So your position is that here _has not_ been a massive, species-wide reduction in poverty (and pretty much every other negative outcome) over the last 250 years?

<comment><USER34> Mu.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hacker News Should Implement Target="_blank" - <AUTHOR> http://www.johnfdoherty.com/hackernews-implement-targetblank/

<comment><USER2> Please don't. target="_blank" is just anoying on websites.

If I want to open that site in a tab I just use Ctrl+click or middle-click. That way I'm in control of where the link opens and not the site. Much better.

<comment><USER3> I'd agree with you about internal links, but not external links. I'd argue that anyone reading HN uses tabs anyways.

<comment><USER2> nope, not everyone. From time to time I just open links, ignoring the cnversation here on HN.

By using target="_blank" the site owner removes an option for me (see a few comments down, someone said the same thing).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh God, this goes exactly against what we've been trying to exterminate for the last 10 years.

target="_blank" is one of the worst thing of the old web. Frames may be the first in this ranking. Surprisingly enough, the two are related: the 'target' attribute primary goal is to manage frames.

As others said, as the whole web developer community says actually, one shouldn't use such thing that forces the users to open a new tab. You should give them the freedom of choosing whether they want to open this new tab, because it's very easy for them to do so: middle-clicking or ctrl-clicking.

Please do some basic web searching; you'll find pretty soon that people have been fighting against this attribute for too long to let a techy-oriented website like HN implement this.

</comment><comment><USER5> Bad idea. Reduces functionality. If I want to open a link in a new tab it's just a CMD+click operation. AFAIK there's no way to open a "_blank" link in the same tab/window. Instead of having two options for opening a link I'm reduced to one.

<comment><USER6> I completely agree. Why should the admins limit the functionality when there is an existing usage that is perfectly suited for this?

The scroll wheel in my mouse can be used as a middle click to open a new tab. On some laptops with trackpads there are even gestures for middle click even if there are no buttons.

<comment><USER3> So keep internal links (to discussions, etc) as default and external links as _blank.

Problem solved.

<comment><USER7> No, problem exacerbated. You have 3 camps of people here. One camp expects to only open new tabs when they choose to. Another wants (and sometimes expects) links to open new tabs always. The third camp prefers to open new tabs for "external" links and not for "internal" links, and would like to see this behavior become a convention (expectation) as well.

Leaving aside the problem of what counts as an "external" link (is a link from Gawker to Deadspin "external"? Depends on how the user perceives the relationship between those sites), you're still just muddying up the web's UI conventions. That's what "default" link behavior is: a UI convention.

Not knowing where a page is going to open on the screen is a huge problem for users. Requiring them to learn why one kind of link replaces the content in the tab they're currently looking at and another kind of link opens in a new tab only makes it harder for them to "engage" with the websites they're trying to use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Well HackerNews, what say you? I dare you to increase your traffic and engagement."

HackerNews [sic], I dare you to allow your users to choose how they want to open new links, even if the mouse/keyboard mechanism for opening them in new tabs isn't completely 100% intuitive to some subset of web users.

I dare you to ignore any so-called "SEO" who thinks he's discovered an incredible "engagement" technique that's really just another tired way of tricking people into staying on your website.

I dare you to consult the relevant RFCs and acknowledge that the behavior of target="_blank" isn't news to anyone here.

I dare you to recognize that not every single thing on the internet has to "optimized" to get more traffic, and that "engagement" isn't just about people clicking on links.

I dare you to consider the possibility that we now have a situation where, thanks to the SEO frenzy of the past few years, there is no "correct" default behavior for links anymore, and it might be better to just let the user have control over it via their browser preferences.

I dare you to tell the world which way you prefer to open links and why it is better.

What say you? WHAT SAY YOU?

</comment><comment><USER8> > But then I have to hit the Back button. Who hits the back button on the > Internet anymore, especially techies like myself who live off of keyboard > shortcuts? Why make me go from using my keyboard to using my mouse or > trackpad just to go back? No one uses the Delete key to go back, let's be > honest.

I don't know what SEO-flavored koolaid you've been gargling, but FYI, the Back button is _still_ the most-used part of browser UI, beating out even _the address bar_: [https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2012/06/firefox-heatmap- study-20...](https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2012/06/firefox-heatmap- study-2012-results-are-in/)

I'd think "techies like yourself" would also know that there are also at least four ways to open any link you want in a new tab: ctrl-click, middle-click, context menu, or ctrl-enter while it has focus.

As for the Back button, I tend to have one hand on my mouse while browsing anyway (so I can, you know, click links), and I usually go back by clicking mouse4. That's the bottom of the pair of buttons on the left side of the mouse, where my thumb goes. The top one, mouse5, even goes forward. I think this is default behavior in every browser by now.

Opening in a new window by default is a crappy idea anyway, but it's particularly bad on a news aggregator site line HN, because I almost certainly want to read _more than one article_. Why would I click a link and alt-tab back ad nauseum, when I can just scan down the front page and middle-click anything that looks interesting, then browse through the collection of new tabs at my leisure?

The only remotely compelling excuse for this behavior is that users may not know how to open links in new tabs, but they absolutely understand Back, and one would assume HN has a reasonably technical audience anyway. So that just leaves us with: spawning new tabs forces me to look at the origin site at least once more so I can _close_ it. Well, fuck your cheap tricks and fuck your "engagement". I'll do my own window management, tyvm.

<comment><USER9> Indeed. Moreover, if the Backspace key (Delete on Mac) doesn't cut it for you, Alt + left arrow on Windows or ⌘-[ on Mac do the job just fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> No, they absolutely should not. I can already control whether a link opens in a new tab/window. Please don't make a decision for me that is not the default.

</comment><comment><USER11> Very bad idea. Target="_blank" should never be used due to the simple fact that it modifies the expected behaviour.

<comment><USER3> Even in an aggregator site like HN?

<comment><USER12> Yes. The expected result, when I click on a link, is that said link opens in situ.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> No, it shouldn't. Learn to use your command key; it'll make the web a whole new experience for you.

<comment><USER3> Haha funny guy. I know all the tricks, I just hate having to use them on sites like this.

<comment><USER13> I actually hover my hand over my command key while I'm browsing the web; it's not a trick, so much as a tip, it's part of my default behavior on the web.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I normally only keep a few tabs open but HN is the only site where I middle mouse click everything.

Since the links time out so fast you're kind of forced to go a few pages deep in 1 shot while opening links that you want to read in a new tab then read them when you can.

There's some weird satisfaction of not middle clicking the last link you plan to read for now and depart from HN for that session.

</comment><comment><USER15> At the risk of sounding unhackerish, I actually want the UI to do the right thing _by default_. So I support this. I thought differently 10 years ago ("let the user middle-click if they want"), but nowadays I believe in the 80% rule. Make it simple for the default use case.

<comment><USER7> What's the right thing?

[http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19892/opening- website-...](http://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/19892/opening-website- external-links-in-new-window-published-usability-tests)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Yes, please.

I hate to use keyboard shortcuts for opening links in new tabs. This SHOULD be a default feature on a site like HN.

</comment><comment><USER17> nope.

<comment><USER3> Lulz. Thanks for the helpful feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> lol.</comment>


The Mega List of 33 Awesome Augmented Reality Apps & Games for Android - <AUTHOR> http://techsplurge.com/3214/mega-list-33-awesome-augmented-reality-apps-games-android/

<comment><USER2> Great list, i think it satisfies my needs, keep it up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


Apple's Failure to Check Kill Syscall Privilege "Not a Security Issue" - <AUTHOR> https://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-dev/2017/Oct/msg00006.html <comment><USER2> [http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss- security/2017/10/12/2](http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss- security/2017/10/12/2)

"-> We have not reserved a CVE for this issue as Apple is a CNA and does not > see it as a security issue. >

And here's my main teachable moment.

If a CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) does not grant a CVE to an issue (whether it be due to "not a bug" or non responsiveness or whatever) there is a simple process to deal with this. You go to the CNA's parent, a list of CNA's is currently at:

[https://cve.mitre.org/cve/cna.html](https://cve.mitre.org/cve/cna.html)

in general most current CNA's have MITRE as their parent (we're working on a federated hierarchy but we're in the early stages), so using the form:

[https://cveform.mitre.org/](https://cveform.mitre.org/)

to request a CVE would be your next step. For the Open Source Distributed Weakness Filing (DWF) hierarchy each CNA and sub CNA is registered at:

[https://github.com/distributedweaknessfiling/DWF-CNA- Registr...](https://github.com/distributedweaknessfiling/DWF-CNA- Registry/tree/master/CNA-Registry)

so essentially you go to the parent and keep working your way up until either you are satisfied, or you hit MITRE and they tell you to take a hike, or give you a CVE.

Speaking of which if you are an Open Source project and want to be a CNA, polease contact me and chances are I can set you up in a pretty quick timeframe (faster than I assign CVEs because creating a CNA is a much better ROI of my time than issuing a CVE). ."

\- via>" Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud"

<comment><USER3> This is against the rules. You're supposed to file CVEs with the most-specific CNA only.

<comment><USER4> Why? Genuine question, I'm not familiar with the CVE process.

<comment><USER3> Because they want the most specific authority to evaluate the report -- you know, the ones who would know how to.

Yes, this allows CNAs to say "not our problem" and now you have a problem, but going to Mitre is not the answer. Pushing back is the answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The quoted statement, "not a security issue", doesn't appear in the linked page, but via the Thread Prev link[1] I found Daniel Peebles explaining:

> _Yes, we did try with them first and they told us they didn't consider it a > security issue, so we posted to oss-security after making sure Apple > understood we'd do that unless they asked us not to._

[1]: [https://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin- dev/2017/Oct/msg0000...](https://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin- dev/2017/Oct/msg00005.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe-interesting contextual note: Daniel Peebles was one of the people involved at the beginning of iPhone jailbreaking.

<comment><USER7> He was just trying to get it to run Nix.

<comment><USER6> I remember him beginning his work on Nix after his involvement in iPhone jailbreaking, but I might have not paid enough attention to the beginning of the Nix project.

<comment><USER7> Ha, I was kidding but it wouldn't have been implausible.

Another if you know him: "He was just trying to make iOS more functional."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is Apple wrong here? I mean, this is obviously a bad thing that should be fixed, but ultimately it amounts to a DoS against the machine and does not grant any privileges or expose any data to the attacker. I can see why Apple might say it's not a "security" issue.

<comment><USER9> It seems to me that it's in the same category as a fork bomb - a neat trick requiring local access that will crash a machine. Deeming it a non-security bug seems entirely reasonable. As you say it

 _does not grant any privileges or expose any data to the attacker._

So the bug cannot really be exploited to compromise security except in a case where someone has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep even a local user from crashing the machine.

<comment><USER10> > So the bug cannot really be exploited to compromise security

Do we really need to get into the discussion of how many times someone thought a bug wasn't a security problem or was unfeasible to use in an exploit in practice o ly to be proven wrong later as new techniques came about and were applied to the original problem?

The unknown unknowns are the problem here, and they are as their name suggests, hard to nail down.

Race conditions are a thing. My bet is a determined and smart hacker could find a way to weaponize this within a week _at most_.

<comment><USER8> Just because a lot of bugs were thought hard/impossible to exploit and were later proven wrong does not mean every single bug is possible to exploit. Most software bugs are not exploitable. You just generally read about the ones that are.

<comment><USER10> I'm not just making a general statement about all bugs, but also a specific statement about how I think this bug could play out. Not only does it kill all processes under the user, but it also crashes the entire system. Both of those are interesting bugs, and have possible implications if you can cause them in interesting situations.

Can you cause some system process that happens to share the user with another, more interesting process to run a kill syscall?

Can you cause the system to crash while some more trusted process is in the middle of updating a configuration, password, or other data structure that will cause interesting effects after the system is restarted?

Both being able to cause other user processes to die, and to cause the system crash on demand as a user, are things I would consider _individually_ as security problems just because they have a high probability of having unforeseen consequences. Having them together doubles the attack space (even if it does possibly create some problems with following through with a second action).

<comment><USER8> Killing all processes under the user is the _expected behavior_ of kill(-1). That's perfectly fine. Crashing the system is the bug part.

From the manpage:

         If pid is -1:
                 If the user has super-user privileges, the signal is sent to all
                 processes excluding system processes and the process sending the
                 signal.  If the user is not the super user, the signal is sent to
                 all processes with the same uid as the user, excluding the
                 process sending the signal.  No error is returned if any process
                 could be signaled.

<comment><USER10> Fair enough, I really should have caught that. I guess it's been longer than I thought since I had to deal with that stuff. :/

It doesn't change the point I was trying to make much though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Previus discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15846713](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15846713)

Looks like it has been fixed in macOS 10.13.2 anyway.

</comment><comment><USER12> TIL that apple uses a mac CI infrastructure where they clean up processes and don't do a full teardown / rebooot or VM revert to snapshot, hah

<comment><USER13> Nix is not apples tool. It is a package manager.

[https://nixos.org/nix/](https://nixos.org/nix/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> classic example of leaders in tech failing to check their privilege</comment>


Microsoft is permanently closing its retail stores - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/26/microsoft-to-close-retail-stores.html <comment><USER2> > "our product portfolio has evolved to largely digital offerings"

evolved to? And here I thought Microsoft was always a software company first? Or is software not a digital offering?

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems they are cutting down on a lot of services.

First came news of Mixer shutting down and then this.

</comment><comment><USER4> Microsoft had retail stores? Why didn't anyone tell me?</comment>


Ask HN: getting content for online jobsearch - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
First of all, I've used searchyc to see if this topic has been discussed before and I didn't find anything. If it has, please point me to it. If it hasn't, please give me your oppinion/ideas.
A little background: some time ago I was looking for a new job. The search was horrible, most jobsearch websites I looked at where not good at doing their jobs imho. I had to enter a whole lot of data to find jobs that had nothing to do with what I wanted. Recently there was a post on HN about where to search for a job in some countries in europe (I live in Belgium). I gave some links to the author of websites I knew from my search earlier. When I visited them myself again, I got annoyed again and decided it could be done far better.
So now I've got the domain I wanted and I've made a proof of concept. I think it's quite an improvement over the others, but how do I get content for such a site? I have no experience whatsoever with this issue. I do know how to create some attention for the user aspect (actual search), but it's getting the jobs to put up on the site that seem hard for me.
Does anyone have any experience with this? The market here is probably small compared with cournties as the USA, France, etc... and I see this as a good thing. I'm probably unable to go on location a lot as I'm working during the day. Quitting my job will be pretty impossible as I like it a lot and am also dependent on the monthly paycheck.
Any advice is welcome! <comment><USER2> Like the dating market, there's a chicken-and-egg problem, here. You might start out by aggregating other job boards' information (if you present the same stuff in a more usable format, you'll get traffic). You _could_ offer companies a money-back guarantee for posting jobs -- or just offer to not bill them for the first three months, and then to bill them only if they got at least one qualified applicant per week (or whatever). Make sure that's a limited-time offer, though, and don't publicize it unless you have to.

Most people don't like recruiters, but recruiters _do_ tend to look for new places to post job ads -- especially if they know they won't have much competition. If you can contact a few recruiters in your field of interest and get them to play around with your service, you'll probably get somewhere.

After that, it's a tough slog. Job boards in general are not all that good at SEO; if a search for X jobs in the Y industry near Z-ville lands a user at an even slightly relevant page, you're doing your job.

(Helping new sites get the attention they deserve is my more-than-full-time job, and I love talking shop -- so feel free to send me an email; the address is in the profile.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not sure if you'll read this now (11 days after you posted it), but shoot me an email if you do. I was working on something similar for the UK market so have some ideas about how to bootstrap, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.</comment>


Spark Capital: Why We Think Education is Ripe for Innovation - <AUTHOR> http://startatspark.tumblr.com/post/113270616/why-we-think-education-is-ripe-for-innovation

<comment><USER2> Yes it is, but the article is a little light on content. It mentions innovations in content delivery (open textbooks), social networking for education, and a company that is creating language courses emphasizing audio feedback. What's missing is a real discussion of game changing innovation. So here is $.o2 worth.

I've watched 50 years of educational crises since the Sputnik panic of 1958, nothing has gotten better except maybe math textbooks, probably because it is hard to be political (in the macro sense) about math. There are three givens: the public educational establishment is not going to change on its own, the establishment is necessary for its babysitting function, and most parents are not qualified to do home schooling. That said there is substantial room for innovation and even low budget entrepreneurial innovations.

One is in the area of collaborative multimedia textbook creation. There are already OSS textbook efforts, but why limit it to print. Create a core smallish textbook on a subject and augment it with targeted "pamphlets" and videos, so that a teacher can create a learning experience and students can follow paths of interest. Take a look at some of the Wikipedia animations on math topics, such as the tesseract. They make the topic come alive. Add a Civil War reenactment to a history text.

As the article suggests, create a social media site around the "textbook."

Market to parents at a fee they can afford, free for those that cant. They will be the early adopters and force public school adoption. Give schools free or low cost access.

Encourage moderated contributions from the public. Instead of a stock photo of Brasilia have a 10 minute video from someone who lives there.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why [X] is ripe for innovation: [X] sucks! List specific reasons why [X] sucks, with a means for addressing each using the web, networks in general, or computing. Remember to think about monetization. (This can also include getting grants.)</comment>


Young, Ambitious Back-End Web Developer Needed - <AUTHOR>

Young, Ambitious Back-End Web Developer Needed for a promising startup based in NYC. We want someone who could be a permanent part of our team. Any back-end guys who live in/near NYC who want to get involved in an early-stage startup that will have a huge impact on the community, please email email@example.com <comment><USER2> Wow, you're in NYC, so you must know that advertising for "Young" is highly illegal. Please rethink your goals. As written this is highly offensive.

<comment><USER3> My exact thought. Except I was going to add a "fuck you."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Better not to advertise based on age, race, religion, gender etc etc.</comment>


Copy, a competitor to Dropbox, launches today - <AUTHOR> http://www.copy.com <comment><USER2> " as easy as sending a text file. "

Without being snarky, why would you say a text file here? The only use case for 'sending a text file' that I can think of is a programmer sharing a .vimrc, or similar executable text file. The 99% case for someone who wants to share some plain text, even the .vimrc case, is to paste it in the email. This analogy feels very odd. How about 'as easy as sending a pdf' or word doc, or 'a single photo', or any kind of file that normal people ever attach to their emails? (Possible assumption on my part - when you say 'send a file' I think 'email to them'. If you want me to think of 'make the file available for sharing', say 'share').

</comment><comment><USER3> Honestly, it's hard to look at this website and have some information stick in my mind.

It's gorgeous, but I think the design is overpowering the information flow (or lack there of).

That drop section for files is absolutely useless. Why would I drop my file in there as my VERY first step? I haven't even begun to learn about the features before I'm asked to drop my files.

Too much design, it looks perfect, but unfortunately, that's a bad thing this early in the launch.

Only recently did Dropbox start to ramp up design. You can't compete with simplicity. In design, in language, in the story etc..

Sorry to go on like this.. maybe I don't have a storage problem now that i'm a dropbox pro user.

<comment><USER4> "Too much design, it looks perfect, but unfortunately, that's a bad thing this early in the launch."

Whaaa...? That does not make sense to me. The UI is not complicated, so why is it bad that it "looks perfect?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Checking the TOS I found a reference to Barracuda Networks.. Leading me to believe it's a startup within a larger company (I had been wondering how a startup could afford to buy the copy.com domain).

Given the above assumption it may have the funding to sustain the service even if it experiences slow growth. And also suggests that the company has the networking know how to scale their service (unlike my experience with bitcasa.com so far).

<comment><USER6> I think you're right. We just put in a new Barracuda Backup server this week and I noticed that, along with the usual file restore functions, it presents us with an option to share files to a Copy account.

<comment><USER7> There's going to be some cool integrations between Copy and some of the Barracuda backup hardware. I don't know many details though, you probably already know more than I do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm curious, what is your advantage over Dropbox, GDrive, Box, etc? I like the design, but I don't see another reason to switch.

<comment><USER7> It has a lot more configurable business options, that's the biggest differentiator.

The cost/GB is a bit less than Dropbox, too.

<comment><USER9> like?

<comment><USER7> The pricing page mentions some of the business features: <http://www.copy.local/price/>

Basically, you can setup companies, share items amongst employees, configure their access to the files, etc.

<comment><USER10> Nice to see someone using .local as the development domain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Where's the API? Dropbox has a tremendous ecosystem going for it. I'm not sure how prevalent it is on Android, but pretty much all iOS text and PDF editors have Dropbox integration and their new sync SDK is only going to push integration even higher.

I can't say I'm a very heavy Dropbox user, so I don't have many complaints (if any) about their offering, but if you want to get into the space you have to address those complaints. A shiny UI and better pricing can only get you so far and there's no way they're enough to beat out a competitor as entrenched as Dropbox.

<comment><USER7> Actually, everything the app does is through a RESTful API. This API is private and undocumented (for now). I can't make any promises as to what we will do with it in the future...

<comment><USER11> A private and undocumented API doesn't do much for the people who develop or rely on one or more of the several hundred (thousand?) iOS apps that already integrate Dropbox.

<comment><USER12> To clarify, there are definite plans to document and release the Copy API. The only thing we can't make promises about is when that will happen (soon?).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am pissed that dropbox makes me pay 9$ / month to have 100gb that I don't need. I do not want 250gb, absolutely not useful :(. I would love a 5$ /month plan with 50gb

</comment><comment><USER14> Does it have LAN sync and native integrated get-me-the-URL-for-this-file? If not, forget it.

The about page says nothing about who is behind this. I have zero confidence in apps with no "about us".

The market positioning seems to be trying to take a little from Dropbox, a little from Box. To target the Enterprise market, as Box does, this is orders of magnitude off what is needed.

Sorry to be so negative, but technically I suspect this has taken a lot of effect, the marketing is as awful as it gets.

<comment><USER7> Oh, and we're a project of Barracuda Networks.

<comment><USER14> You're employees of <https://www.barracudanetworks.com/> , you're funded by them?

<comment><USER15> I was wondering that too. The ToS says "Barracuda Networks" at the top. <https://www.copy.com/about/tos/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A friend of mine sent me a link to Copy and told me to sign up for it and that "it's like Dropbox." I just clicked his link to check it out and the first thing your website did was ask for permission to use desktop notifications (Safari/OS X). Of course, not even knowing what the website is I promptly rejected the prompt and then closed the tab.

My complaint with this is that why in the world would I blindly let a random website have extended permissions, before I even know what the website is?

Afte I got over it some hours later, I went back to copy.com to check it out and I found nothing in your website that would make me want to switch from Dropbox (for ease of use) or Spideroak (for encryption and security). One of the comments here said exactly what I'm thinking: I have no idea who you guys are, why I should trust you with my data, and that you'll even be around after a year.

From reading some comments here, apparently you're part of Barracuda Networks (no idea who this is, so it doesn't help) and some other snarky comments like "check out humans.txt" or "look at the html code and you'll see Facebook IDs…" No, no I'm not going to waste my time doing this.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder what it cost to buy copy.com

<comment><USER18> Around $100k. [http://www.namejet.com/pages/auctions/standarddetails.aspx?a...](http://www.namejet.com/pages/auctions/standarddetails.aspx?auctionid=3296634)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> As others have stated, I wish there was a bit more information about the service on the page. I use Dropbox and GDrive, but I'm not particularly fond of either of them. Aside from a slight price difference, what makes Copy stand out?

For example, I have a 1Password file that I would like to share amongst my team for all service related passwords. Keeping this in sync with all of our devices is a serious pain, and often results in certain members owning it (usually me) and thus having all of the responsibility.

It doesn't have to be 1Password. I have tried other apps like Keepass with similar results (and web-based versions, I do not like -- security etc.).

I realize that this is hard. Version control, multiple access to the same files and associated updates but it would really be a killer feature.

<comment><USER20> I gave up on using any password manager program with any cloud sync service. I am back to plain old Excel file which I daily "backup" to the cloud using native backup service.

I think for important and daily-used files, relying on cloud service (read: keeping and working off of cloud) is not trust-worthy. I'd rather keep things local and only use cloud for backup.

<comment><USER21> I keep my KeePass file in Dropbox, it means that file is actually on my computer but also synced to the cloud. Copy offers the same behaviour, unlike Wuala: in Wuala you can't access your files without having their Java-based monster running.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's a buried comment in here about the login being a javascript popup. Here's a normal HTML page for doing logins: <https://www.copy.com/auth/login/>

</comment><comment><USER22> Can you put some words up there about how safe my data would be?

Because it looks like the site is based on twitter bootstrap, my mind has immediately led me to think you're doing the storage etc on a bootstrap budget. Potentially leaving it all up to S3.

Seems this wont be the case as you are part of Barracuda Networks, can you put some more words up there to help ease my (and other users') concerns?

<comment><USER7> I can assure you that there was no Bootstrap involved in the making of Copy :p

We're taking a lot of this feedback and looking into rewording things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Reading through.. And no mention of client-side encryption. I'm not sure I see the point - We have lots of competition in this space.

<comment><USER7> Traffic from the desktop clients to the server is all done over HTTPS

<comment><USER24> What happens to the files on the server? Do they sit unencrypted (so sensitive files are a no-go)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm very impressed with the Copy web interface. Drag and drop works flawlessly. The in-browser preview is really nice as well.

Does anyone have experience with Barracuda Networks (the owner of Copy)? The name sounds familiar, are the reputable?

<comment><USER7> Barracuda has like 200k customers and has been around for at least several years. Here's more information: <https://www.barracudanetworks.com/company/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Somewhat unfortunate name?

<comment><USER27> It seems to be appropriate.

<comment><USER28> I _think_ it was tongue in cheek as in a _copy_ of DropBox.

Maybe?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Only thing one would excel over dropbox is that create some context aware data to be used without manually searching the whole files. other wise there already far too many service

<comment><USER30> You mean where I can type in a search term and have it search within the files and tell me which one has that content?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Origami.com is close to launch... when you About page said "origami is an...." I at first thought you guys were related.

Especially given what Origami.com is trying to do...

</comment><comment><USER31> Front page looks broken on chrome for android:

<http://imgur.com/k2mNFVc>

<comment><USER7> We will buy our GUI programmer an Android tablet :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The About section does not say who is behind. The only thing you have going for you is your domain name.

<comment><USER30> Actually, the very bottom of the About page has a link to and logo of Barracuda networks, but yeah - the about page needs a lot of work.

<comment><USER12> We added that logo because of some of the comments on here. :) We're definitely going to improve the site to give more information about what Copy is. Our main focus so far has been on the product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> That must've been an expensive domain name purchase.

<comment><USER7> If you read the comments you'll see that someone was able to hunt down the price...

<comment><USER30> Are you an actual employee or a PR minion?

<comment><USER33> renownedmedia and I are two of the developers of the Copy product. I can assure you that he is not a "PR minion" - he can sling code better than most.

<comment><USER30> Thanks - the rapidity with which they were answering questions and the username made me suspicious it was a PR campaign (professional)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Unfortunately not available for Linux.

<comment><USER35> Yes it is. I thought the same when I clicked "Install App", but the big button in that popup window downloaded a tarball for linux.

<comment><USER36> They definitely need to label it better then. I know the wording, 'also available for Windows and Mac' should have explained it to me, but my brain was being dumb and all I saw was Window/Mac and I just left the site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Are stored files guaranteed to stay on US soil?

<comment><USER7> Yes. All of our data centers are currently located in the US, and if we do offer overseas storage, we'll make that an explicit choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> i download the mac app and created the account, still its not able to login

<comment><USER12> @helloamar

Will you please open a support ticket by emailing email@example.com?</comment></comment>


Reddit Robin – An Experiment - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/robin <comment><USER2> Looks like if a room votes Grow, it combines with other rooms who voted that way.</comment>


Help Restore the NYU Research Labs Destroyed by Hurricane Sandy - <AUTHOR> https://www.microryza.com/projects/nyu-research-labs-need-your-help-destroyed-by-sandy

<comment><USER2> Good cause and I have no doubt it will get fulfilled. Next time, I would ask for 10x the money; this amount will give researchers hope, but won't be much help. I feel like people give a lot of money for philanthropical reasons and if you asked for a lot more, a lot more people would give. What do you think?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the support!

We didn't want to focus on the goal because we don't really have one. It would definitely be nice and substantial if we could raise $250,000 or something, but this was just about being able to help.

If others think we should raise the goal, then we can!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I hope this doesn't get marked as spam, I should have added a Show HN tag, but I hope people like this.

<comment><USER2> You can edit your link to include Show HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Fuck yes, let's make this happen!</comment>