Office Chair Is Hurting You - <AUTHOR> https://elemental.medium.com/your-office-chair-is-hurting-you-882e07c20ff7 <comment><USER2> This makes me think about Wolfram's blog post about his "personal infrastructure"

He found that for some reason typing while walking outside gave a much lower heart rate than typing on a treadmill. So he worked out a system to walk outside while typing...

[https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/02/seeking-the- prod...](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/02/seeking-the-productive- life-some-details-of-my-personal-infrastructure/)

<comment><USER3> This is something I have been looking into as well. Those foods vendors carry their supplies in that body addon but I wanted to walk around my apt and have a couple of projectors setup so each wall has a copy of my monitor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had back problems from my crappy office chair that I used for more then a decade.

I searched for month for a good replacement, sat on every chair I found in nearly every furniture shop in town. After some month, I found the best chair I ever sat on, and it's by far, not the most expensive one ;)

[http://www.officeline.se/products/hoganas- eco/](http://www.officeline.se/products/hoganas-eco/)

This one is the hit, you can unlock the base so you can use it in different heights. The backrest pressure you can adjust with a button, different locks and full flexible arm rests. I let everybody test sit on it who cares and I only heard excitement so far.

Combined with electric table I started to change my working position quite often and my back pain was gone after a month.

<comment><USER5> I bookmarked it, who knows. What I don't like about it is how wobbly it looks. Also, why me, as a software developer do I need those wheels to move in any direction. I just need to move back and forth and only when go or leave my desk. On my chair I removed the wheels and put static legs and I put my table on wheels that move only backward and forward. The wheels dig into the carpet, so the table stays put if you don't push too hard.

For me office chair is one thing, and software developer chair should be another.

<comment><USER4> They give 10 years warranty. I have quite some understanding in mechanical systems and it is well build, thick steel plates.

The point is this, sitting long in one position is bad for your back and general posterior. Of course you can change the rollers into static ones, but I wouldn't recommend it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It is true but one does not need a special chair as much as learning how to sit on any chair. If the chair is really comfortable it invites the sitter in really bad unnatural positions and in no time that creates a bad habit. During my 20s, when I basically entered the workforce, I started having serious issues with sitting. I tried a lot of different chairs and while they ameliorated the pain and numbness something was still wrong. Now, almost at twice that age I have very few chair/back related problems. When something hurts I closely pay attention to how I sit. Of course, exercising with proper posture has helped me overcome some of my issues as well. While most chairs are really bad for most of us, I think chasing a perfect chair is not the solution but learning how to sit and have a proper posture is the essential part.

<comment><USER7> Sitting for extended period of time no matter how 'right' you do it is and will be bad.

<comment><USER6> I agree. Breaks are a necessary part of the sitting hygiene no matter what chair is used.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _> Since yoga balls are made out of cheap plastic, it's not a question of if the ball will pop, but when._

I don't get the feeling this author has much experience with yoga balls, or is just making a statement they want to believe is true and peddling it as fact.

<comment><USER9> Anecdotally, I've had a yoga ball going on 4 years, though I only sit on them occasionally. I've never heard of one popping, failure on the other hand, can be a bouncing or tripping issue, also sliding off of the front. Though I wouldn't call these catastrophic.

<comment><USER10> Leo Laporte's yoga ball popped live on air while recording his podcast. It started with a slow leak:

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=S9A7ACL_n5Y](https://youtube.com/watch?v=S9A7ACL_n5Y)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What about motorized desks that allow you to go from sitting to standing? I'm not standing all day, and I'm not sitting all day. Plus I take a walk at least once a day. It's helped me tremendously to have one.

I suppose it won't help that doctor sell his chairs, though.

<comment><USER3> Standing seems to be the worst as it puts a lot of pressure on your veins.

With sitting if you sit cross-fold with legs not dangling at the edge it seems to prevent v veins?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Highly recommend the Swopper 'Active Sitting' Chair if you can source it at a reasonable price:

[https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=swopper+chair](https://smile.amazon.com/s?k=swopper+chair)

Bought one on Amazon in 2008, still love it.

</comment><comment><USER13> The biggest takeaway from this article is the advice that you should not adhere to the 90-90-90 sitting posture and instead raise your seat so that your knees are below your hips. I've personally just tried this and it feels much more comfortable.

I theorize that the 90-90-90 posture encourages bad habits where your spine shifts backwards from the center so it is no longer supporting the upper parts of your body well. By changing my sitting posture to the author's recommendation, it feels easier for my spine to stay in the center and support my upper body better.

</comment><comment><USER14> The chair looks awesome but unfortunately it's only 1/4 of the problem. Schools need to change desks, keyboards, and the equipment itself, too.

</comment><comment><USER15> If standing is so terrible because of immobility perhaps a walking desk is the ideal solution.

Remember this amazing post? [https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/02/seeking-the- prod...](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/02/seeking-the-productive- life-some-details-of-my-personal-infrastructure/)</comment>


How Leap Motion Blew a Deal with Apple – Twice - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-leap-motion-acquisition-talks-fell-through-2018-10 <comment><USER2> Why are they calling it an "augmented reality" startup? It was first in the market of hand controllers and then moved entirely to VR hands.

Not to be mistaken for Magic Leap.

<comment><USER3> Because one of their latest products is an AR headset.</comment></comment>


RailsAdmin: Rails3 easy-to-use interface for managing your data - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sferik/rails_admin <comment><USER2> This project was implemented as a Ruby Summer of Code project, and the guys have some of the best mentors around. It just works, and it works well. It's extremely new and I think the source could do with some work, but the interface is beautiful and it's extremely simple to use. These guys have done well and I can honestly see this library being a huge part of Rails application administration

</comment><comment><USER3> I would like to have seen a demo site where I could check it out without having to setup a project. Looks good from the screenshots though.

Another rails admin alternative is <https://github.com/fesplugas/typus>

<comment><USER4> Looks promising. Does anyone know any other alternatives?

<comment><USER5> I'm using ActiveScaffold which is useful both for admin and the frontend (but no Rails 3 support).

<comment><USER6> Volker's fork works great on Rails 3, and also supports jQuery

<https://github.com/vhochstein/active_scaffold>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How does it compare to the Django Admin?

<comment><USER8> Not really, other than it's a port of MerbAdmin, which actually uses the Django stylesheets and Javascript (to the point where it violates the license, by failing to reproduce the text of the BSD license).

<comment><USER9> Thank you for pointing this out. Before I started the project, I requested permission from Wilson Miner to use the stylesheets and javascripts from Django and added his name to the acknowledgments, but I neglected to add the BSD license.

This error has been corrected in: [https://github.com/sferik/merb- admin/commit/b5462f4b73d44447...](https://github.com/sferik/merb- admin/commit/b5462f4b73d444477cc411fd7b226cd81dde1dd1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> does it support datamapper?

<comment><USER11> I looked through the code quickly, and it seems to rely on ActiveRecord for the History model.

However it probably wouldn't be too difficult to make an ORM-independent version of this, if that's the only place ActiveRecord is used. An admin tool really only needs to use the models that you have created elsewhere in your project. So they could make the history part of this configurable and allow you to supply your own model to handle those functions. It would be like how most authentication modules let you write your own User model, as long as you put a 'magic include' in that model to pull in the authentication stuff.

<comment><USER12> It very simple to write a quick DataMapper adapter for RailsAdmin. The thing with the history model is going to be changed probably on Saturday's BugMash.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: I quit my job .. now what? - <AUTHOR>

So I had this idea, and I want to bring this idea to reality. In this process, I realized I would need to devote a chunk of time to this end, and as such I quit my job in finance [which paid a pretty penny].
So here I am now, at home.  Day 1.  And for some reason I feel paralyzed by the lack of a clear pathway [finance makes sense, startups for some reason does not].
I feel like I have everything I need to proceed, but I guess I'm not used to not having a roadmap.  To those who have quit their jobs, how did you make the mental transition to a 'startup' mentality? <comment><USER2> First.. Let's assume you have enough money to get by for at least 6 months. And provide for anyone in your care. Including health insurance for emergencies. If you don't have money saved up, well, I'd try to get your day job back or something else, because you could be setting yourself and your family up for catastrophe.

That said, the first thing you need to do is to get your ideas down in writing somehow. Take a day or two if necessary. It's really important. _Don't just "start coding" like other people are suggesting._ Get organized first. If this idea was so good that you quit your day job, you should have no trouble writing down a few pages about what you're trying to accomplish. Call it a "business plan", or not, at this stage it doesn't matter. But at least write down what you want to do, who will buy it and why, and who your competitors are.

I started to write a bunch of stuff about how to plan out your business, and then I realized that it would be easier for you to just get _Four Steps to the Ephiphany_ by Steve Blank - it's full of worksheets that will help guide you through these early stages.

It sounds like you might need to meet some technical people to help you build your idea. You can meet them here on Hacker News, but it's far better to go to meetups in your area and meet real developers in person. The best developers will want to take some ownership in this part of the business, rather than just being told what to build.

Try to build relationships with people and tell them about your idea. If it's in a space that they're interested in, you'll find people who want to work with you, and at this stage it will be helpful to be able to bounce ideas off of others. Seek out the kinds of people who will tell you what's wrong with your idea or poke holes in it.

Hope this was helpful, and good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Such a long comment deserves a reply :)

Personal finance issues are tucked away for some time, and I'm still eligible for my parents insurance [thank Obama].

Too bad B&N doesnt have a copy .. will have to wait for amazon :/

Can you point me to some NYC meetup groups?

<comment><USER2> NY Tech meetup is the biggest: <http://www.meetup.com/ny-tech>

NY Founder Dating: <http://www.meetup.com/new-york-founder-dating>

NY Hacker News: <http://www.meetup.com/NYHackerNews>

There are many many more.. It's very easy to get caught up in going to meetups in NYC. Don't let them become too much of a distraction.

<comment><AUTHOR> The second one does not exist (maybe wrong URL?)

<comment><USER2> sorry, it should be: <http://new-york-founder-dating.meetup.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _And for some reason I feel paralyzed by the lack of a clear pathway [finance makes sense, startups for some reason does not]._

I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but... buy and read Steve Blank's _The Four Steps to the Epiphany_. That's step one. Step two is "do what Steve says." Seriously, he lays out a very detailed methodology for going from "an idea" to "a validated and profitable market for your product." Note that he's only addressing the customer / market side though... You'll have to figure out how to get the product built. If you're a coder yourself, you can play both Customer Development and Product Development (that's what I'm doing, for example), or if you're not a coder (or just need more help) you have to start looking at how to acquire help with the coding side.

<comment><AUTHOR> I presume this is the book: [http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Steven- Blank/dp/09...](http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Steven- Blank/dp/0976470705)

<comment><USER3> Yes, and just in case you think I'm kidding (or exaggerating) about how good it is... look at the Amazon reviews. 79 reviews, and almost all of them are 5 star. It's an excellent book; at least in terms of content. The production qualities leave something to be desired, but that stuff can be ignored. It's basically his class notes from his class at Stanford, printed through Cafe Press. But it's excellent material.

<comment><USER4> Via Google: [http://www.stanford.edu/group/e145/cgi- bin/winter/drupal/upl...](http://www.stanford.edu/group/e145/cgi- bin/winter/drupal/upload/handouts/Four_Steps.pdf)

Would you be able to say if this PDF is the same as the $40 book on Amazon? It is freely available on Stanford's site.

<comment><USER3> Looks like that's just the first 33 pages of the whole book. That said, that would make a fine introduction to Steve's ideas, and then one can decide whether or not to buy the book, after reviewing that bit.

There are also a lot of videos on Youtube, where Steve talks about this stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Congrats and props to you for making the jump. First get your finances in order and get a rough idea of your runway (how many months you can live off of your savings or other sources of income).

Some other ideas are to get a mindmap of the possiblities of where you can take this idea.

Use the business model canvas to sketch out your initial business models and the possibilities of your idea (<http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/>).

Start an action plan - I use Tony Robbins "OPA Method". Ask yourself, What's your desired Outcome (O), What's your "Purpose" (P) - why you're doing the idea and write doing all the reasons, and finally what are the concrete Actions (A) you specifically need to do to turn your idea into reality.

</comment><comment><USER6> Check Peldi's talk from Business of Software 2010 <http://blogs.balsamiq.com/peldi/2011/03/13/bos2010/> tl;dr Stop worrying , start developing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Congratulations, man! I'm transitioning to this sort of thing myself (going from 6 figures to a pt gig, 2 days a week).

My suggestion: get a whiteboard, now. Don't do anything but decompress for the next few days (i.e.. fuck off) and write anything that comes to mind about your startup.

One of the most important processes for the human brain is externalization: it's why talking about problems helps as you can't think feelings... but you can write them down and later think about them.

I'd wager you're quite emotionally charged right now, hence the paralysis, so just start writing (don't erase anything) and sort it out next week. Things will be much clearer then.

Best of luck to you!

<comment><AUTHOR> > Don't do anything but decompress for the next few days

Decided to enjoy the great weather here, drive around a lot and play with legos :) The real work starts tomorrow

<comment><USER7> Where is here? Legos rule... Mindstorm?

<comment><AUTHOR> Here = union square.

Legos: decided to spring for the new lego trains 7938, 7939, 10194, and 10219. For some reason the train crashes arent as satisfying as i hoped ...

The new mindstorms aren't as satisfying as I remember (and maybe the trains are more enjoyable because I didn't get them when i was younger ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You should read Vinicius Vacanti's blog, "How To Make It As a First Time Entrepreneur" (<http://viniciusvacanti.com/>). He quit a prestigious finance job to do his own thing, and it took him a while to figure his way around. I recommend reading his whole story from the beginning, I think it will inspire you.

</comment><comment><USER9> Take a deep breath. Realize that your startup will consume you so look to surround yourself with 1) people that you can get advice from 2) people who you can use for feedback and 3) if it requires more than just yourself, so to find a team to work with.

Jumping from something stable into the unknown is probably the hardest in my opinion. The road ahead is going to at times seem unclear, just remember to put together a plan of being able to accomplish something, anything towards bringing your idea to reality.

</comment><comment> Gorm-Casper I sort of did the same thing and occasionally get the same feeling.

I committed to lifting weights 3 times a week though (in the morning), as a way to keep myself going as it makes me get out of the door and I come home refreshed, ready to get to work.

Other than that, eat healthy, get proper sleep, and meet people!

Works for me :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Do some research, decide what you want, then proceed. Along the way, pick up some talented guys to help you achieve your goal. One thing though, if you were not satisfied with your previous work, why didn't you just protest and get a better deal before quitting it for good, since you gonna quit anyway? It just seems weird to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> "why didn't you just protest and get a better deal before quitting it for good, since you gonna quit anyway?"

My reasons for leaving were strictly nonfinancial. I've socked away enough money to cover me about three years in NYC. I'm 24 now, so it makes sense for me to take some time off and figure out exactly what I want to do :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I left my job back in 2009 at the dumps of the financial crisis. Take a 2 months break, do something you've always wanted to do. I went to Hong Kong and partied for 2 months, recharging, before preparing for my current startup. No need to hurry, your next startup will consume you.

</comment><comment><USER12> I quit one day after you. :)

My email is in my profile, if you want to contact me. I'm ex finance too.

<comment><AUTHOR> congrats :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I used tools to help me focus and organize my work, such as google tasks, remember the milk, and especially RallyDev community edition (free).

at some point it hits you that 'you are your own boss' means you have to _tell yourself what to do_

</comment><comment><USER14> Recommended reading: "Rework" by Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson, and "Getting Real". Both by 37 signals-the ruby on rails guys. Best of luck!:) trust me, they are well worth the buy...

</comment><comment><USER15> You could always try creating a high-level roadmap for yourself. However, unlike your previous jobs, this roadmap would be more of a guideline than a detailed point-to-point execution plan.

</comment><comment><USER16> You might have jumped the gun a little bit. But what's done is done so now you have to put your head down and barrel through it. I would take gspyrou's advice, just get to work.

<comment><AUTHOR> For posterity's sake, when would have been the right time to leave? Keep in mind that the nature of my previous work is such that I did not have spare time on nights/weekends to continue working -- hence I just cut the umbilical cord :)

<comment><USER16> Then maybe you did leave at the right time and are just having a window of uncertainty. It will pass. What's important is that you have the savings to survive what could be a lengthy process. I couldn't have done the same but we all have different situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Make a list of what needs to be done, if any item on the list seems difficult to start, break it down into smaller items until the way to proceed is obvious.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you feel you need to have a roadmap to proceed, then you already know the first thing you need to do.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hey veyron, where are you located? You can email me from my profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm in NYC. How does one email from a profile? I dont see your email address in the /user?id= page ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd also suggest putting your contact info in your profile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Done. Intransigence123 at gmail dot com

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Didn't quit my job but very recently and very suddenly moved to a new team at work -- by "new team" I mean one that didn't exist before and is doing work without clear parameters. It's been a bit stressful, not knowing how performance is going to be measured and so on. One of our first priorities is determining how we will measure productivity. I suggest you do something similar. "Wishcraft" and similar books by the same author might help in that regard.

Best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER22> Uh oh.

<comment><USER23> Please add value in your future posts. You could have made a valid point or given great advice with a bit more effort. I see you're new to the community so welcome and I look forward to seeing you add tons of value in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It doesn't much matter what you do right now. Just do something. Anything that moves you toward your goal.

The more trivial the better, imo. You just need to get some momentum. Now move out smartly, troop.</comment>


On the Typography of Flight-Deck Documentation (1992) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Flight-Deck_Documentation.pdf <comment><USER2> As a cautionary note, a few of the claims in this document don't stand up well in light of more recent research. If you're interested in the technical aspects of typography and how humans really read text, you might like to try these more up-to-date starting points:

Alex Poole's "Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?":

[http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif- or-s...](http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans- serif-typefaces/)

Kevin Larson's "The Science of Word Recognition":

[http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/wordrecognition....](http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/wordrecognition.aspx)

In particular, if you're about to comment on how serifs or sans-serifs are better for X, or to explain how we read by following the serifs along a line or by recognising word shapes, I strongly encourage you to study the above first.

There are unfortunately a lot of urban legends in typography that simply aren't supported by the evidence. Some of them came about because of studies that have since been shown to be flawed in methodology or even based on outright falsified data. We help no-one by perpetuating the myths.

<comment><USER3> While there is a footnote or two saying sans is better generally in the article, reading the full text actually argues quite a bit for each side. For example, legibility problems cited with sans are: " The sources of similarity between the characters of modern sans-serif fonts are: 1\. The standardized or modular appearance of the letters ("P," "R"). 2\. The effect of mirror images between the upper and lower part of the character ("E," "B," "D"). 3\. The use of equal radius for different letters ("G," "O," "C") (Craig, 1980; Cheetham and Grimbly, 1964). "

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really dislike how sans-serif fonts conflate the lowercase "L" and the uppercase "i". This is a big problem in mail clients where someone can create email addresses that look identical to established addresses (e.g. email@example.com).

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm surprised that the sans-serif is here claimed to be more readable "always". In low resolution circumstances and where single letters are to be recognized (e.g. abbreviations common in short technical instructions) I believe it's so. But I also know that if you'd give me book printed in sans- serif, I wouldn't want to read it: whenever I try, I find it very stressful. I don't have the explanation why though.

<comment><USER6> Induce a little stress first - say, put yourself in a cockpit with a few hundred lives to protect - then try a reading experiment involving both styles. I think you'll find that in high-stress environments, the less noise the better.

<comment><USER7> What is noise vs. signal is the issue at stake here. The pro-serif people will argue that the serifs provide extra features on the glyphs, so they might provide more signal. Nevertheless my intuition says you're right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a good read. I ran into an interesting meta-problem on page 12 (numbered page 9 on the page itself).

What do you call the diagram labeling?

The single world label pointing at a feature with a line could be a 'callout' perhaps.

What is the word-in/around-arrow pointing to two vertical lines? A range indicator? It looks like: |<\--label-->|

I've also seen a variation where the word points to a line covering the range with bracketed ends, somewhat like: label -[ feature

It's a similar problem to "what do I call that operator?" when you don't know what it is, like ?: being "the ternary" operator (or more precisely the conditional operator)

<comment><USER9> In technical drawing. "Dimension line" is correct. More specifically a "dimension line indicating a feature".

A single character (usually in a "bubble" or circle) would be a callout. One or more words in combination with an extension-line and an arrow-head would be a "note".

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> On a related note, does anyone know of any studies of monospace vs. proportional fonts on reading speed/comprehension? I can find a number of examples for reading on older, low-DPI computer screens, but not much for high DPI screens or high-resolution print.

<comment><USER11> You make an interesting point. Small observation: Traditionally, even the monospaced fonts from the 70s-90s on terminals and older machines, were of the kerned variety (serif-like appearance).

<comment><USER7> If you kern a monospace font it's no longer monospace (fixed width), so that seems unlikely. Maybe you mean something else?

<comment><USER11> Yes, I wanted to say "stroked", as in:

>> even the monospaced fonts from the 70s-90s on terminals and older machines, were of the _stroked_ variety (serif-like appearance)

Good catch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am also one of those (few?) here, that are very partial to serif over Sans- serif. My browser uses Serif by default, and all my documents use Serif for body (and sans for headings if people want heading to look different)

I too find serif fonts more readable, without necessarily being able to give a "scientific", "why" it is so. As another commenter mentioned the "l" and uppercase "I" is one frequent area of confusion with sans. And maybe serifs with their kernings give a certain visual guidance as the eyes bounce off the words...

Having said that I've definitely given "Times New Roman" the boot. I've never found if aesthetically pleasing to the various other font names I used to see mentioned in all those books I read.. Now with proliferation of FOSS fonts like Linux Libertine, PT Serif and so many other more eminently readable fonts, Times New Roman is a distant memory to me :)

It is a shame that many new OReilly books are adopting Sans fonts for their paper version as well. I for one am very displeased with this as there are times when I would like to buy a paper version for my bookshelf. Fine, do it for the ebook version, but not for the paper one, please... :(

</comment><comment><USER9> A standard I have to refer to often is ISO 128 / AS 1100.101 (1992). Technical Drawing - General Principles. Which has a lot to say on the issue of Letters and Numerals in part 4.1, I've added this as it's mildly similar, since the readability of technical drawings is also critical, it was widely read in a technical industry and that it was last revised in the same year as the OP document.

It should be remembered that this standard was last revised in 1992; As a consequence, computer generated text or "Machine-made characters" don't really get a look in, although degradation through reproduction (for micro-film) is noted as an area of concern. It favours sans-serif fonts that are "uniform and capable of being produced at reasonable speed by hand" and that "Upper-Case letters should be used. Lower-case letters shall be used for conventional signs and symbols normally requiring such characters, e.g. mm, kg, kPa."

The recommended stencil characters are outlined as Gothic and ISO 3098/1 Type B (aka "Font 27"). The latter being preferred by every engineering firm and operator I have come across in their published standards.

</comment><comment><USER12> I found this very useful and have been looking specifically on documentation on checklists and useability of certain fonts!

</comment><comment><USER13> It's nice to see the author play with fonts to illustrate his points (3.2, 3.3, 3.5 are most obvious).

</comment><comment><USER14> As someone who had to use checklists many times in the air, I appreciate how much research have gone into making checklists legible.

</comment><comment><USER15> Don't use checklists that have been photocopied 10 times.</comment>


It's not too late for slow parenting - <AUTHOR> https://leonsbox.com/its-not-too-late-for-slow-parenting-5e4734b64fb3 <comment><USER2> I am in unique position as a parent. We have a 26 year old, 8 year old and 3 year old. We never tried to stop having kids, but all of the sudden we found ourselves pregnant when the oldest was 18. Then, a complete surprise when the last one came along.

When the 26 year old was born I was hyperfocused on getting her involved in everything. We signed her up for tons of stuff, exposed her to many things and we were continually going. I coached her in soccer and basketball, my wife taught her things like sewing and home maintenance. She's now an RN and working in a hospital.

Sounds good, right?

In our rush to expose her to so much, we overlooked the simple premise that she should do what interests her. She didn't graduate from college until 25 due to her inability to stick with things. I am so proud of her since she is the most caring person I know, but part of me knows we failed her by forcing her into so many different activities through her childhood. She felt she could try something and quit, try something else, quit. Rinse. Repeat.

Our youngest 2 kids aren't forced to do things they don't want to do. We ask them if there is interest and if there is we sign them up. If not, we don't. We've eliminated TV and limit kindle screen time and spend so much more time with them than we did the oldest. Honestly, I don't know if there are differences yet, but I do know the younger kids seem to find more things to do on their own.

Part of me thinks it might depend on the kid, but I am convinced parents forcing their children into so many activities hinders them in the long run.

<comment><USER3> I also suffer from an inability to stick with things, but that has nothing to do with being overexposed. We were poor, so I did very few activities. It's entirely possible it's nothing to do with you, but just her personality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's hard to know what the right thing to do, but young kids have an immense advantage that they'll quickly lose: the ability to learn really fast.

A couple of examples:

If you don't start playing soccer really young, you will never be able to catch up to someone who did.

A child can easily become fluent in two languages if they're immersed from a young age. Learning a second language once you're past 20 is _hard_.

It would be shame to waste potential.

<comment><USER5> > If you don't start playing soccer really young, you will never be able to > catch up to someone who did.

Why would they need to catch up to anyone? I'd rather have my child love the game or hobby than cram every waking moment into some activity. The ability to hear yourself think and actively listen to others is more important imho. There is so much noise in US culture telling kids who they should measure up to. As a parent I feel I need to be the counter balance to those messages.

There are also plenty of examples of professional sports players who started in their teens. "Google <sports league> late start."

<comment><USER6> >Why would they need to catch up to anyone?

Sometimes a game isn't fun when you're matched with and against people far above your skill level. You feel like you bring the whole team down, and you feel like you cannot win no matter how much training and effort you put in.

be it playing soccer in high school or videogames like overwatch...

<comment><USER7> There aren't other teams?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My wife and I argue over this all the time. She wants the kids to enroll in soccer, swimming and what not, all at the ripe age of 2+. I have been like "whats the hurry. Let them grow up naturally and we can always do those things". I guess it is a difficult topic but there is never really a right answer.

<comment><USER9> I put swimming lessons in a different category than other activities, because being able to swim can save you from drowning. (Whether 2 is the right age for your kid, I don't know. But I'd like to see all kids get them at some point. I got them in elementary school, during the school day, and I think that was a fantastic use of tax dollars and school time.)

My wife and I were not big activity pushers. Besides the swimming lessons that I insisted on for safety reasons, our kid did some gymnastics, and some music lessons. Didn't really like either, and we let her stop doing both.

<comment><USER8> I agree. Swimming is definitely a must for me too. It is just that I wasn't sure if we need to start that early.

<comment><USER10> In the Netherlands it's almost mandatory, and almost every parent takes their children to swimming lessons. I started learning when I was perhaps 3 or 4 years old.

It's not only good for the kid, it's fun too. I fondly remember the Saturday mornings of my early childhood as the best time of the week, because I got to spend my morning swimming in the pool. By the time I was eight or nine years old I was a proficient swimmer and the visits to the pool stopped :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _Moreover what your full-grown kid would do at school, if you already taught him reading, counting, talking in foreign languages, practicing yoga and kung fu and playing the violin?_

My uni physics professor had similar fears about his child, so he didn't teach him as much as he could have. I'm curious to hear from other parents on HN about this. It seems like a valid concern. At the same time, I didn't enjoy the traditional school system at all, and I'm glad that there are alternative schools where a child can learn at the speed he wants, whether fast or slow.

[http://www.etreetdevenir.com/EED.en.html#Accueil](http://www.etreetdevenir.com/EED.en.html#Accueil)

<comment><USER12> Hence why many home school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have two children and I am now a grandparent. I have to agree that there is no hurry. Too often parents get caught up in comparing their children to the "Norm". Truth is that they all have their own schedule, and they are all different. In my opinion, you and your children will lead a much happier, more well adjusted life, if you let your kids set their own pace. Enjoy every moment and step along the way, don't try to make it go faster, childhood is very fleeting.

</comment><comment><USER14> I have always viewed my role as a parent as setting the boundaries of behavior, and providing a nourishing environment, within which the child could grow and develop on their own, slow or fast, with subtle guidance by me.

<comment><USER15> Exactly this. Teach them so that they can become a productive, self-sufficient individual. Let them make (many) mistakes that won't ruin their life (heroin, prego at 14, etc.) Encourage them to try new things and they'll find their own passions. Hold them accountable to be the best version of themselves. Teach them empathy and the power of perspective and the rest will be okay.

I've always felt that 4 hours of a nose in a book every day is just as bad as 4 hours of TV/electronics every day is just as bad as 4 hours of sports/clubs/music every day. Kids need down time, time to explore, interactions with other, time to imagine. Less is more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just became a parent a month ago, and yeah, I am struggling to balance what my aspirations are for my daughter with what will would give her the best childhood she could have. Not and easy line to walk.

<comment><USER8> Congratulations. As a parent of 2 toddlers, here is what I suggest:

Don't think too much. Spend as much time as possible with your kid. Give them a hug, make them laugh, always be around them if possible. Rest is all details that can always be worked out. Don't try to join the rat race of doing too many things.

Don't plan too much. Kids will spoil it anyway. Trust me. Been there and still doing it. So enjoy the journey.

Don't focus too much on "what are my aspirations for my kid". Instead, let them be. You know what kids really want and look up to ? Their parents/caregivers who are around them to listen to them and play with them. That is all they care about. Yes, activities are important but only a side effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a current parent the problem with this is that you'd need to get every other parent to agree with it for it to work well, especially in sports.

Let me give an example. At 4/5 kids can start playing baseball, mine started at 5. He played during spring and summer for two years. Sessions were 10 weeks, with 1 practice and 1 game, and we played catch some at home. He really enjoyed it.

But now, by age 8, he has a decision to make (and I do to as a parent). He can stay with "Rec level" which is just kids having fun (as slow parenting would imply). Or, he can join the "intermediate team". What does that entail? 4 practices per week plus 1 game, and significant travel to weekend tournaments. The team website also specifies the only times of year you can take vacation. If he doesn't join this team, he is at age 8 effectively giving up any chance of playing baseball in high school. If he does play on the team however, he's giving up on other activities, and we give up our freedom to not have vacation schedules dictated to us.

So, I guess if every other parent in the world agreed not to push kids like this it would work, for now it can leave kids behind.

EDIT made paragraphs

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Learning how to be slow in our extremely fast lives, is probably one of the important skill you can develop in you and your kids.

<comment><USER18> That's a great point. Thanks for articulating that. This is a contrast I have been seeing with my step daughter but I had not been able to put my finger on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My child did start speaking 2 languages (French and English) since she is 3 (she is now 6). She is in an environment where she is motivated to move forward and learn (a good school). But I am very careful to monitor her happiness and want to make sure she enjoy learning for herself...</comment>


How to handle 1000's of concurrent users on a 360MB VPS - <AUTHOR> http://markmaunder.com/2009/how-to-handle-1000s-of-concurrent-users-on-a-360mb-vps/

<comment><USER2> Use nginx? That is the sum total of your advice? What a complete waste of time.

<comment><USER3> It's simple but non-obvious advice. He also explains the reasoning why.

I had to do the same thing for Delicious, back in the day (except I used Pound[1], nginx was much less mature then, if it existed at all.)

[1] <http://www.apsis.ch/pound/>

<comment><USER2> I guess if you have no experience running a large site it might seem non- obvious, but this is not exactly rocket science. Every c10k article will talk about using a reverse proxy and why nginx is the best choice out there right now (varnish can sometimes deliver better throughput but it is finicky and for some reason certain configs will just cause it to explode, it also does not support some compression schemes that you might want to use.) Five years ago a scheme like this would have seemed obscure and a cool discovery, now it is just how things are done.

I am not sure when you last got your hands dirty at the pointy-end of the operations stick, but this is up there with tuning tcp buffers and keeping static content on another server in terms of being par for the course.

A more interesting explanation would have described some of the other options available and how and why you might choose one over the other, or maybe a useful trick or two: for example, if you need to track sessions by IP address using this basic setup you will need to drop the originating ip address into the header as it passes through nginx and then use mod_rpaf on the back-end apache server to reinject it so that your apache code does not even know that a reverse proxy is fronting its requests. I guess something a bit beyond "I used nginx to do what everyone claims it is good for and damn if it didn't work as advertised" would have been nice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Use proxy_set_header? That's your more-interesting-explanation? You probably don't want to go "tracking sessions by IP address" or you might just think half of AOL is one session.

<comment><USER2> No, it is not really a more interesting explanation; I really only use it to serve as an additional flag to signal possible voting rings and sock-puppet activity -- either way sometimes the back-end servers really need or want to know the ip address of the original source.

It was mostly random tossed off example of something that might have been mentioned by you in addition to just saying "use nginx as a reverse-proxy." There is nothing wrong with stating this, but I can't see why you think this is something that is not a part of the general knowledge-base of this community. I realize that you want to pimp your blog, but you could have probably chosen something more useful or interesting to the community. At the very least you could have added more content so that the 99% of the community that already knew this would have been able to get something out of this or at least not felt like their time was wasted. At the very least you could have tightened up the headline slightly so that the fact that nginx was the solution to the problem posed was stated in the headline itself.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Barkeep for code peer review - <AUTHOR> http://getbarkeep.org/

<comment><AUTHOR> Looking for a code peer review solution and found this one. Gerrit is a bit too heavy for small teams and Redmine does not have a good code review plugin. This ruby solution looks good to me.

<comment><USER2> If you're using GitHub and looking for something with more features but still lightweight, you might want to check out [https://reviewable.io](https://reviewable.io) too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really using github. Checking [http://phabricator.org/](http://phabricator.org/) now</comment></comment></comment>


Scifi State of the World - <AUTHOR> http://www.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/430/Bruce-Sterling-and-Jon-Lebkowsky-page01.html

<comment><USER2> Wow, just spent hour reading this. Thanks.</comment>


AdBlock Plus defeats German publishers in court - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32409952 <comment><USER2> Advertisers got what they deserved -- annoying pop up windows, animated ads with sound, floating ads, also user tracking created a market for ads blocker. I don't mind non intrusive banner ads and enable them on sites I visit frequently. Make ads user friendly and the problem will be gone (except, maybe, some geeks who will still use ad blockers, but that's minority anyway). Trying to solve problems via courts and not addressing the root cause will not help much.

<comment><USER3> Is there ad blocker that only blocks the annoying ads, not the ones that we deem "OK?" Or do we just use the actions of the few to punish all ad-supported platforms?

I mean I get it, ads are yucky, privacy concerns, etc. But as someone who has used ad revenue as _the only means_ to pay for content a lot of people loved, if too many people decide ads are too taxing for them to view, the content can no longer be supported.

I fear that as adblocker becomes more standard (I'm not sure it's _only_ geeks using it; I have plenty of friends who aren't "geeks" who do), ad-supported companies will start to not allow you to see content if you have an adblocker on (like ESPN) or just make more native content.

Creating things to read or view costs money. If we say the people that create them don't deserve to make that money back through ad revenue, we also have to be aware of the consequences - that this type of content will largely cease to exist. It's your prerogative at the end of the day, but a lot of the stuff I love wouldn't exist without advertising.

<comment><USER4>
      Is there ad blocker that only blocks the annoying ads,
      not the ones that we deem "OK?"

Yes, it's called "AdBlock Plus". Read the article.

<comment><USER3> > Website operators that want ads on their site added to the white list must > seek permission. Although AdBlock Plus states that "no one can buy their way > onto the white list", it does charge fees for what it terms "support > services", the details of which are not made public.

So let's call a spade a spade; you can pay AdBlock Plus to review you, potentially adding you to a white list.

AdBlock does not allow the ads that we deem OK. it allows the ads that it deems OK that also pay it money. There's a big difference.

Edit: thanks dragonwriter

<comment><USER5> > AdBlock does not only block the ads that we deem OK. it blocks the ads that > it deems OK that also pay it money. There's a big difference.

I think you mean "allow", not "block" here, both times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just heads up, for anyone who hasn't read the article: The publishers mainly went against AdBlock Plus not because it blocks ads (though surely a welcome side effect) but because they offer advertisers to put their ads on a whitelist for a fee.

<comment><USER7> @btdollar, just to note, your account is hellbanned.

<comment><USER8> I thought the strategy was not to tell them?

<comment><USER9> Generally, yes, because hell-banning is for trolls, bots, and those who routinely make bad posts. However, sometimes someone gets hell-banned for one extremely down-voted comment, but in general are making decent comments. It's a common courtesy to inform these people if you run across it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Now that the legalities are out of the way, we want to reach out to other > publishers and advertisers and content creators and encourage them to work > with Adblock Plus rather than against us. Let's develop new forms of > nonintrusive ads that are actually useful and welcomed by users [...]

This is one of the reasons I chose another adblocker (uBlock). I have no moral qualms when it comes to blocking ads, but I don't feel too hot about this guy building a business by making other businesses pay him money to let their ads through.

<comment><USER11> I also prefer uBlock. Allowing some ads through in order to extort advertisers is not only shady, it interferes with Adblock Plus's only function--blocking ads. Does any user prefer an extension that blocks most, but not all of them?

<comment><USER12> Users that recognize that some websites rely on their ad revenue for their existenc eand want to support the continued existence of this business model might prefer not to block all ads, yes.

I'm not one of them. I'm ready for ad-supported businesses to die.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From their own website, [https://adblockplus.org/blog/restating-the-obvious- adblockin...](https://adblockplus.org/blog/restating-the-obvious-adblocking- declared-legal)

> Now that the legalities are out of the way, we want to reach out to other > publishers and advertisers and content creators and encourage them to work > with Adblock Plus rather than against us. Let's develop new forms of > nonintrusive ads that are actually useful and welcomed by users; let's > discover ways to make better ads; let's push forward to create a more > sustainable Internet ecosystem for everyone.

> You know where to reach us.

This is not blackmailing. At all. :-)

<comment><USER14> This is the kind of blackmailing I will support :). Advertisers are invaders, we (the consumers) have a right to push back.

EDIT: I didn't know ABP is building a business out of paid whitelisting. I'll need to read more about that. I am, however, still fully supporting publishers being forced by all ad blockers to find a less malicious way of earning money.

<comment><USER13> How short-sighted.

<comment><USER14> Could you elaborate on why exactly is this short-sighted?

<comment><USER13> You don't care about that blackmailing, but you will probably start caring when publishers start paying AdBlock cash so they show their ads.

<comment><USER14> I've read some other comments; I didn't realize that ABP is building a sort of "pay me to show ads" business. This is something I don't like and I will re- evaluate my position on this particular piece of software. I am, however, still supporting the proliferation of ad blockers in general, and forcing publishers to find ways to earn money that don't involve forcing crap down people's throats.

<comment><USER13> Of course. I support that view. Switch to uBlock. 😉

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users.

Publishers and content creators say "If you don't like what you hear from someone on the TV or radio, change the channel." It's free speech, after all.

Maybe it's time for publishers and creators to live that credo, and not deliver to consumers that they don't like.

<comment><USER16> _The news publishers are, of course, free to detect adblock or its effects, and refuse to deliver content to adblocker users._

What could possibly go wrong? :) Let's not forget that e.g. Die Zeit actually has subscribers (i.e. my wife) who might not be amused and end their subscriptions.

Why not seek different models for non-subscribers instead. E.g. for my native language (Dutch) Blendle [1] is becoming more and more popular. They are basically a paywall, but offer many newspapers, reasonable curation, a money- back guarantee (if an article is not what you expected), and recommendations based on e.g. Twitter followers. Monthly, I am probably spending the price of a subscription, because they have made it so easy to actually purchase content without ads and other annoyances.

[1] [https://blendle.com/](https://blendle.com/)

<comment><USER17> If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the hell do you have to view the ads too?

I can understand the need to show ads to people viewing content for free I just don't understand why charge an access fee and show ads. This is why people use ad blockers.

<comment><USER15> > If you are a subscriber then you are already paying for the service, why the > hell do you have to view the ads too?

But your subscription isn't necessarily paying the amount of money that the publisher has decided it wants. In that case, it's divided its revenue between your subscription and selling ads. It's hoping that the ads won't annoy you enough to block them or leave. For most people that's probably true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > "It infringes the freedom of the press."

How so? Just because an article is published by the press, does not mean I am obligated to view it. The users who install AdBlock are doing so on their free will, not being forced by governmental or other propaganda groups.

<comment><USER19> Seems like this is what they're referring to:

        > Their publishers had sought damages, but said their motivation
        > was to challenge the software provider's wider business model.
        > While AdBlock Plus offers its web browser add-on to the public
        > for free, it makes money by operating a "white list" of adverts that
        > it allows to get through its filters.

For example:

        > In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed
        > media company had said it had been asked to pass on the
        > equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues it would have made
        > by having ads on its platform unblocked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Isn't the simple solution to just deliver the ads from the same server as the content? If abp can't tell the difference between an advertisement, and an image that is part of the article, then they can't block it. Sure, it will kill a lot of the things current ad networks are doing, but good riddance.

<comment><USER21> Websites can detect adblock. They can already block the content if they wish, they chose not to

<comment><USER22> They can detect current versions. It'll be an arms race if they fight it too hard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Funny - "It infringes the freedom of the press." I don't know about Germany, but in the US freedom of the press allows them to publish stuff, it does not force people to read it.

<comment> at-fates-hands Agreed.

I was pretty appalled by this statement from the publishers. As if my ability to control what I want to see and be exposed to is somehow compromising your ability to get your message out. The last time I checked, the internet is merely one part of an advertising platform.

Maybe these publishers should try another avenue to get your message out instead of annoying people with its invasive pop-up ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It seems like adblock got huge user base on premise to block ads and now monetizes that user base by selling them ads. Does not look like honest strategy to me. It won't work well for them as well, competitors are already there.

</comment><comment><USER25> "giving people the ability to control their own screens by letting them block annoying ads and protect their privacy"

Bold statement for a company selling its own ads: [http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/12/adblock-plus-to-allow- accep...](http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/12/adblock-plus-to-allow-acceptable- ads/)

<comment><USER26> It's not selling it's own ads, it's allowing some ads to go through if they meet the following criteria: [https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable- ads#criteria](https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#criteria)

Also, you can turn it off.

<comment><USER27> It's right there in the article, if you'd read it:

 _Although AdBlock Plus states that "no one can buy their way onto the white list", it does charge fees for what it terms "support services", the details of which are not made public.

In February, the Financial Times reported that one unnamed media company had said it had been asked to pass on the equivalent of 30% of the extra revenues it would have made by having ads on its platform unblocked.

That has led some critics to claim that the Eyeo is engaged in a "racket". _

<comment><USER28> If it truly happened, what's the harm in the company naming itself. They would have proof--emails or other communication from Adblock Plus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Good for AdBlock Plus! Even if they lost, what's to stop hundreds of (potentially untrackable) clones suddenly popping up to continue helping users block ads? I guess it is easier for big press to push/bully to maintain the status quo, rather than think through a new online revenue model.

</comment><comment><USER30> Of course, rather than attempt to fix poor ad practices and encourage users to disable adblockers on their sites, these publishers have decided to go after the software itself. Who can blame users for using an adblocker when it regularly blocks 20+ ads per page?

<comment><USER31> Not to mention they are chasing what might be the most advertiser friendly adblocker out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I use AdBlock Edge, which doesn't offer a whitelist of "acceptable" ads. :)

<comment><USER33> Same. I switched as soon as I heard about this policy. My only exception is that I still use ABP in IE, as I don't know of a better solution for that browser.

<comment><USER32> I don't use IE anymore (rarely on a Windows box outside of work).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I gotta say, pay-per-whitelist seems a lot like an extortion racket to me.

(the rest of the arguments they make, sure, moronic, but ...)

</comment><comment><USER35> The fact is, AdBlock Plus is standing in a very delicate ground. They're not selflessly defending users from ads: they're actually making money via their whitelist, and giving an advantage to their partners. While many will say it's a fair business practice, we'll still have to see how long it's stand in court (appeals?).

AdBlock Edge, on the other hand, is on far firmer ground, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER36> I believe that everyone is entitled to make a living from what they do, and that ads support much of the creation of the content I want to read. So for sometime I only used AdBlockPlus to block particular ad venders that really got my goat with intrusive material. However, the vendors would switch domain names constantly, and it just got to be taking up to much time to keep adding each new one to the list. Now I just block them all.

I guess it is only a matter of time before ad blocking becomes the norm for users, and site owners will forced to bake ads into their pages. Lets hope that when they take back control, they also try push up the quality of the ads they take.

</comment><comment><USER37> What if it's in a websites terms of service that adverts must be viewed to access the site - how would that work, and who would be in breach of agreement?

<comment><USER38> Website TOS is shrink-wrapped. There's no way for me to get to it without violating it in that case, except to whitelist new sites by default, which would make me vulnerable to tracker ads.

Shrink-wrapped agreements are legally tenuous at best. [1]

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is awesome... perhaps AdBlockPlus can work on a box that I can sit between my cable box and my TV to block the ads on that too :P

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't object to the ads, I object to being tracked. If they posted ads without tracking me, I wouldn't object.

</comment><comment><USER41> AdBlock has become evil by introducing this "whitelist" thing. I wonder who seeded them in recent past...

</comment><comment><USER42> The argument against AdBlock seems disingenuous, like spammers complaining about spam filters.

</comment><comment><USER43> People who think they can put up a website with some content and make money purely from people visiting it and nothing else are incredibly naive. In this day and age, everyone and his dog wants you to look at their site. There is a content glut.

In the context of making money, a website is something which provides an enhanced service front end for an existing business which makes money in some other way. We expect every business we interact with to have some kind of web presence, even if minimally functional. (If nothing more, than at least a static page with the address and opening hours). Maintaining the site is a _business expense_.

Sites which don't have a business attached, are just someone's hobby. Complaining about AdBlock is just "Waaah, you're not paying for me for viewing the results of my hobby."

(What's worse; most of the content is self-promotional, so it's more like, "Waah, you're not paying for reading my opinions and my self-promotion.")

I don't care if some website perishes because it couldn't make money. The web would be better off if all such sites went away, leaving only the sites that provide a "web presence" for a real business, and the sites of those people who have something to present _and_ the money to put it out there.

If you can't fund a web site entirely out of your own pocket, you basically don't belong on the web. You're not able to put "your money where your mouth is", literally.

There is commercially valuable content out there that people will pay for. That content proves itself to be that way because it can be put behind a "pay wall", and still sustain the site. People do pay for content; look at the growing subscribership of Netflix, for instance.

That provides us with a good litmus test: _can your content be pay walled such that your site at least breaks even financially?_ If not, then it has insufficient commercial value. If you still want people to view it, that means _you have an agenda_. Your agenda is a promotional one, and it goes something like this: "this content is somehow valuable to _me_ , and I want others to know it and like it." If you have such an agenda, it falls upon you to _fund_ it. Ironically, just like those business whose ads you serve through your site are paying to promote _their_ agenda!

Also, there is an irony in web advertizing is that it only generates revenue when people click on the ads. But when people click on ads, what are they doing? They are _navigating away_ from the content to look at something _more interesting_. The theory is that the original site's content "brought" people to the advertizement. But in fact that is not true. What actually happened is more like this: someone was searching for content, and landed on the site. The site turned out to be garbage, filled with stuff not relevant to the search. But, oh, an interesting ad caught the visitor's eye; and so off that visitor went.

Hypothesis: _When people actually click on ads, it 's because your content is worse than garbage, so that going to the ads is a more attractive alternative. The content is just search engine bait to get people to the ad, nothing more._

<comment><USER14> I agree only with about half of your point.

> _I don 't care if some website perishes because it couldn't make money. The > web would be better off if all such sites went away, leaving only the sites > that provide a "web presence" for a real business, and the sites of those > people who have something to present and the money to put it out there._

You're missing the probably most valuable kind of sites - those that are there to provide information. Not everything on this planet runs around making money - most of the time, whatever runs around it is probably shit.

The things that are actually valuable for people - like Wikipedia, like articles from domain specialists, are usually free and supported by either donations, said specialist's own pockets or by some other mechanism _that doesn 't include authors profiting from the information they publish_.

That's why when you want to learn something about, well, anything, you go to subreddits or to Hacker News, and view the comments and not the articles. Or you visit bloggers that don't run said blogs as their primary occupation. Because all that content is created for free, out of people's spare time, in order to help one another. People running business charging you for their articles? It's them who have an agenda, and you can easily see it reflected in the low quality and trustworthiness of said articles.

<comment><USER43> The Wikipedia runs on the egos of the people who create accounts. It provides a stage for them showing off how smart they are, for fighting against one another, and for promoting their narrowly focused interests to the world.

I suspect that people are willing to pay to do that. In other words, that Wikipedia would still work if it charged people to create editor accounts (but viewing the content remained free).

Basically, it's a form of web hosting (but with rules governing content).

It's the fact that anyone can create an account for free and start editing that ruins the Wikipedia; that the one single thing that is responsible for the vandalism, and poor quality of some of the material, as well as its banality.

If Wikipedia charged for editing, people would think twice about writing a 40 page treatise on some pop song _du jour_ or Pokemon character.

<comment><USER14> If Wikipedia charged for editing, it also wouldn't exist. "The fact that anyone can create an account for free and start editing" is the sole reason Wikipedia is as big as it is and contains as much quality information as it does. People _like_ sharing their knowledge for free, and when they do it, it's usually better quality than if they were paid for it. Intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation, instrumental vs. terminal goals, you name it.

What actually surprised me about your comments is that you seem to show a money-centric view, i.e. the only things that are worth something are those someone paid for. I happen to hold exactly the opposite worldview. Correct me if I'm wrong about the view you're trying to present here.

<comment><USER43> > _If Wikipedia charged for editing, it also wouldn 't exist._

While I understand the obvious intuition behind your suspicion, consider that people pay money to participate in running races (which also feature volunteers who donate their time, and spectators who don't pay anything).

If there was no such thing in the world as a runner-funded running race, you might think, "come on, who would _pay_ to run in such a thing, when you can just put on your shoes and run for free?" Yet it turns out that people _do_!

There are incentives: competition, having your time publicly noted. There is also the intangible benefit of just being part of the event. The entry fees are justified as paying for the expenses, and charities. (Some races have cash prizes for the winners, though obviously that's not an incentive for anyone who has no such hope.)

It's also a matter of how much. If the site asked people to pay $100 a year for accounts, then that would likely be dead in the water. At $5 per year: definite maybe! There could be built-in incentives. The best editors could get cash rewards, so end up in the green.

> _What actually surprised me about your comments is that you seem to show a > money-centric view, i.e. the only things that are worth something are those > someone paid for._

My view isn't that extreme, but I believe that connecting some systems with money in the right way can fix some of their problems.

<comment><USER14> With that I agree. There is of course caution needed when structuring incentives; introduce too much money in wrong places, and you can instantly lose the quality and motivation of people.

$5 per year could definitely work, though I believe it would still drastically reduce the amount of content Wikipedia has. A lot of really good stuff (and a lot of really bad stuff, too) is created by teenagers - the only large group that is both smart enough to meaningfully contribute _and_ has free time to do it. And the one thing they don't have is money.

<comment><USER43> > _There is of course caution needed when structuring incentives_

Absolutely! For instance paying cash for blood donations is an obviously bad idea. You don't want blood from the kinds of people who would donate for money. Moreover, some people would donating excessively, thereby harming their health or even losing their lives.

<comment><USER14> That's exactly one of the examples I had in mind!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kramdown - A fast Markdown parser in Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://kramdown.rubyforge.org/ <comment><USER2> It implements a proprietary extended version of the Markdown syntax. I wonder why the author didn't look at MultiMarkdown (<http://fletcherpenney.net/multimarkdown/>), which is already a popular choice?</comment>


The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence - <AUTHOR> http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2014/02/11/the-day-we-do-nothing-of-consequence/ <comment><USER2> In the world of grand political change, three or four years is nothing. Don't give up hope yet. The Demand Progress folks are committed and have a good sense of what it takes to bring about political change in a democracy. Please support them.

And believe it or not, legislators do watch those calls and emails––especially calls. All of them of them will tell you that the perception of a groundswell of support or opposition to an issue is enough to start to sway minds on Capitol Hill. Don't give in to cynicism.

<comment><USER3> And by all means, back up those phone calls by voting.

<comment><USER4> That implies there's a non-trivial number of candidates who are legitimately against the NSA.

<comment><USER3> That's fair, but it's perfectly alright to vote against the incumbent as a purely punitive, as opposed to corrective, measure.

<comment><USER5> Tell me when that ever worked.

<comment><USER3> Obama.

<comment><USER5> Given your previous responses I fear you are serious. Ouch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Talk about contrarian bullshit. I would ask joepie91 (the author) if he has even called his representatives. This kind of post isn't helping. It's hurting the cause. Everyone knows activism is difficult. Bitching about how everyone else practices their activism is easy.

<comment><USER7> > This kind of post isn't helping. It's hurting the cause.

So is this:

The Day We Fight Back

A bit of text at the top of the page. It is doing nothing but still feeling like you did. You were so moved that you did ... nothing. That is the message it sends. These people are too lazy to do anything except put a little banner up that in no way disrupts anything about their little lives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> One prerequisite for change here is public support. Public support requires people to know and be reminded about the issue, and it requires people to know that other people care deeply about the issue and that it's okay for them to care about it too.

So I don't buy the common complaint that raising awareness is valueless. It isn't something you'll be able to measure tomorrow morning but that does not actually imply it is not valuable, just that we don't know for sure if it is.

<comment><USER9> Awareness isn't valueless, look at what pink and a ribbon did for cancer.

This is just another cynical internet blogger trying to make himself feel enlightened ;) nothing more.

<comment><USER10> To add to the cynicism, I'd say "look at what pink and a ribbon" did for the Susan G. Komen foundation, rather than what it did for cancer...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's how democracy works! People voice their opinions! And yes, when it happens all at once, they can create a debate by getting the attention of others.

Anyone who thinks change comes easily or quickly is wrong. That's the downside to a democracy. As Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

<comment><USER12> exactly....the problem is that if you look closely, there is no democracy at least not in the USA. Just like the tagline for the last of the Godfather movies: "Real power is not given,is taken", sadly I think History is just Mafias that get a hold of power until a new Mafia takes over, and once a century a good guy gets at the top, most of the time gets killed. When you open your mind to the possibility to see that there may be another level of power above of what the news tell us, it makes the picture easier to understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Oh good, the UPDATE brought some helpful advice to the original article.

> _So if you 're expecting me to tell you what to do, here you go: develop a > strategy that is in line with your beliefs and goals, and share it with > others._

If only The Day We Fight Back people were doing that. Like, if they had found a piece of legislation that worked toward their goals, come up with ways to improve it further, developed a strategy to support that legislation, and then embarked on a widescale sharing campaign, maybe they could get something done.

</comment><comment><USER14> >Not only do these tactics not accomplish anything in reality, they also distract people from making a real effort to change the world.

You might say the same thing about a massive street protest. Those people are just standing in the street shouting, they're not physically acting to solve their complaints! And yet, from civil rights to overturning dictatorships, peaceful public protests have proven unsurpassed for effecting change. In a world where social networks are no longer local, people still need a way to coordinate and make a show of strength in support of their chosen causes.

<comment><USER15> I think the author was trying to say that these online campaigns make people feel like they've contributed and therefore don't need to participate in a street protest.

While I do see the parallel you are pointing out, I think "I care so much that I spent 5 seconds to type in my email address!" and "I care so much that I gave up a whole day of my life" might be a case of a quantitative differences large enough to be qualitative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't expect this event alone to have much effect, but let's remember that similar efforts did put a stop to SOPA, and the NSA is facing a bit of pressure from Congress already.

<comment><USER17> Good point. The SOPA bill died a quick death on internet blackout day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> >Demand Progress, if after four years you are still talking about the same problems, don't you think your strategy might not be working out?

It's pretty common for any movement seeking significant change to take considerably longer than 4 years.

<comment><USER19> That's only 2 terms of a House representative, one presidential term, or 2/3 of a senator's term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> OK, so what do you propose we do instead?

 _crickets_

<comment><USER20> To avoid becoming part of the problem myself, here's my suggestion:

Find one Member of Congress who's been vocally supportive of these programs, and run them out of their job. Throw down a challenge -- "we're coming for Representative X" \-- then form a PAC (or piggyback on the PAC of a supportive org, like EFF or the ACLU) dedicated specifically to turning that person out of office, raise money, and use it to _nail their scalp to the wall._

Once you've demonstrated that you have enough support and money to do that, I _guarantee_ the rest of Congress will start paying close attention to you. Most Members of Congress care a lot more about their next election than they do about issues in the abstract. And if one isn't enough, you'll have built infrastructure that you can use the next election cycle to go after two, or five, or ten more.

In other words, be the Wayne Wheeler ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Wheeler)) of individual privacy. He used these exact tactics to pass Prohibition. Prohibition! Imagine what you can do if you harness them to something that's actually _worth passing._

<comment><USER21> Someone like Dianne Feinstein, California Senator, who has emerged as vocal defender of the spying programs?

[http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/18/nation/la-na-adv- fei...](http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/18/nation/la-na-adv-feinstein- profile-20140119)

[http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact](http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact)

<comment><USER20> Sure, why not? You could raise lots of CA tech money, I'm sure.

One of the hallmarks of an effective issue advocacy group is that it cares more about performance on its issue than it does about party affiliation. So you might want to take on one Democrat and one Republican (preferably from different states, to head off criticism that your movement is geographically limited) to make the point.

One note, though: there is a _lot_ more money sloshing around in a Senate race then there is in a House race. You might want your first targets to by House members, therefore, to make the most of what will at first be limited resources.

<comment><USER22> >You could raise lots of CA tech money, I'm sure.

To throw out Feinstein?

lol

<comment><USER20> And now you have evidence for how much tech's corporate overlords really care about the surveillance programs.

<comment><USER22> Or how scared they are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> You can criticize the article about no making any proposals itself, but I don't think that's the point of the article. I think the following bit, talking about the effect of such events as "The Day We Fight Back", sums it up pretty well,

> They make people feel like they've "done their part", effectively killing > their willingness to get involved in any more constructive future efforts.

Overall, I agree with the sentiment of the author. That said, I can't say that I have any solutions either.

</comment><comment><USER23> Reminds me of Slavoj Žižek, who is fond of inverting the slogan 'Don't just talk, do something!' to remind activists that sometimes it is more important to analyze a situation than chase after the instant gratification that comes from doing something, whether it is charity, protest, or consumer environmentalism.

</comment><comment><USER24> I would have loved to see an Occupy 2.0 like movement with marches or protests on the Mall, at NSA HQ, on the streets in front of their parking lot, at their freeway offramps, and at the AT&T building in San Francisco.

(Hey! There is an event at the AT&T building. Good! [https://www.facebook.com/events/614121478661276/](https://www.facebook.com/events/614121478661276/))

Protests in front of the White House.

Protests on the steps of Capitol Hill.

Protests wherever President Obama speaks for the next 30 days.

Local protests in front of Federal Courthouses.

Local protests at your Senator and Representative's office.

I sadly believe all these banners are mockable and worse than useless. The day we fight back? There wasn't even an intentional Internet blackout today!

<comment><USER25> Protests in front of your local federal court house does nothing. It annoys the residents when FPS brings out the dogs to sniff trash cans and the college newpaper camerman is blocking your front door, and the real news media couldn't give a crap. Voting is the only thing that actually matters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Ironically, while deriding "The Day We Fight Back" as having no strategy, this post offers none either. But I do agree it's important to assess our strategy to see if it's actually accomplishing anything.

<comment><USER27> What do you want him to say that won't get him arrested?

<comment><USER26> This makes no sense. Let's imagine that he does have some strategy proposals, but that stating such proposals would get him arrested. Well, if the fear of arrest is the reason he's not doing it, then maybe that's exactly why the "The Day We Fight Back" isn't as forceful as he thinks it ought to be. In which case he's no better than the activism he's criticizing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >This whole "Day We Fight Back" thing is an utterly pointless waste of time and efforts, and nothing more than feel-good armchair activism.

Actually, there is a ton of AFK non-armchair events going on for "Day We Fight Back": [https://thedaywefightback.org/events/](https://thedaywefightback.org/events/)

</comment><comment><USER29> The author has some good points. Ultimately, it is a kind of slacktivism. And a mass effort of one day won't fully counter the efforts of a few who are paid very well to advance the contrary agenda, the other 364 days of the year. And I speak as someone who was intimately involved in the anti-SOPA efforts.

But I disagree that it's completely futile. I often meet people who've never even heard of Snowden. So awareness raising can be important. Ultimately I think we're going to need new organizations and institutions, and new relationships with elected representatives. But until that day, it's worth doing what we can to delay the worst aspects of the surveillance state.

</comment><comment><USER30> Everyone is talking about calling Congress or signing a petition, this is pointless.

Congress is completely broke.

We don't need Congress. Why can't we vote on budgets ourselves?

We have the internet. We can devise a way to vote online a few times a year, once a quarter.

You login, you look at the proposals, you vote on what you think is good for the country.

Congress is the middleman that is poisoning our system.

The three branches of government should be: the people, the court, the executive.

And we could do away with the excesses of the President's power. No more NSA. No more pointless wars. No more TSA.

Gone. Well, if that's what people want.

True democracy with the protections of the court and a true executive, not a power hungry executive branch.

<comment><USER31> Specialization. I don't have time to research these things as deeply as someone we're paying full time. Which isn't to say that this concern should dominate - clearly, there are issues which this would ameliorate; any proposal has costs and benefits. Just pointing out a (potentially significant) cost.

<comment><USER30> I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about?

The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.

<comment><USER31> You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn't work better, but your sophistry is unbecoming.

<comment><USER30> >You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical.

You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?

It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles.

Because like you said

>I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on.

So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors.

<comment><USER31> _" You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?"_

... because they are also in charge of regulating workplace behavior and taxation and immigration policy and forestry and environmental protection and on and on... One individual cannot know more about everything than does a specialist in the field - that's why we have specialists! You're specializing in (I'm guessing) software and networking. They're specializing in legislating and management. If they're communicating well and properly doing their job, this is a better system than asking you to regulate the internet _and_ treaties regarding overfishing off the Aleutians.

 _" So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors."_

They are not themselves elected, but they are hired and managed by an elected official whose performance is - in large part - a proxy for the performance of the staffers. There is nothing _inherently_ wrong with delegation and specialization - that's how we get shit done. Corruption - overt and otherwise - is certainly an issue. It is an issue whether it involves staffers or the politician directly, and it is probably a strong argument for a more democratized approach, but is unrelated to the question of domain knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I've found that writing concise and effectively worded personal letters, in my own words, and faxing them to my representatives in Congress, does seem to have some effect.

I lay out my case, demonstrate that I am knowledgeable on the topic and obviously paying personal attention to it, and that I can think and reason rationally including when I vote.

 _That_ , they -- and/or their staff -- seem to notice.

Of course, now my Congressional representatives seem to be beginning to hide their fax numbers. So far, my Google-fu has remained sufficiently strong...

</comment><comment><USER33> There was a guy once, in India, that freed its own country from its greedy colonizers, just by walking alone, 240 miles to the sea for 24 days, just to produce salt without paying taxes to the imperialists that seized its country

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

If you dont want to do nothing, it's your right to do so.. but keep your cynical pessimism to yourself, by doing that, you will give a real contribution to the world.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is how you change the world: be a better person yourself. All the awareness-raising in the world is futile if the populace are too indebted to see beyond their next meal. So _don 't be that guy_. Live within your means. Know your neighbors. Keep yourself fit and healthy. And try to increase your viral coefficient.

EDIT: And yes, I did call.

</comment><comment><USER35> The only hope that we have of containing mass surveillance technologies is to establish a moral norm against using these technologies as unchecked tools of power.

The point of the Day We Fight Back is not that effect that we have in Congress but the effect calling Congress has on us as a society.

</comment><comment><USER36> > for people who want to feel like they are "changing the world", regardless > of whether they actually are changing the world.

Is that really why people share/sign up for it though? I don't think so. Sharing the message to the nontechnical community is important.

</comment><comment><USER37> Well buddy you just made me feel stupid but you do speak the truth. Point noted and lesson learned.

</comment><comment><USER38> The armchair activist is the person who thinks that the world's problems can be solved in but 3 years, by doing nothing in particular whatsoever, and such that you'll never again have to lift a finger to make the world a better place.

</comment><comment><USER39> Thanks for saying what nobody else dared to say.

When I saw "The Day We Fight Back" in the header and in the #1 spot, I just ignored it and click on the #2 article. The day we fight back? Please don't waste my time.

</comment><comment><USER40> So, what would you have us do? Shouting slogans in the streets and throwing molotovs like a bunch of thugs? Democracies only work via citizens voicing their preference and then participating in the civil structure as such.

Admittedly, democracy itself has been on life support for quite some time now, but that's a separate issue.

</comment><comment><USER41> Author here. Had to register a new account, as I lost the password to my original account a while ago.

Addressing a few of the points made in the comments here...

> You're hypocritical because you just wasted time writing that post

This is false. That post took approximately 30-45 minutes to write, and this comment will take me some 15 minutes to write. That's an hour at most. I work on _many_ things related to activism in various shapes (to the point where I barely have any real free time), and this is just a tiny drop in the bucket. Comparing that to the fact that the bulk of people participating in the "Day We Fight Back" stuff have that as their _only_ contribution to 'activism', this is absolutely not a valid comparison. And no, I'm not trying to pat myself on the back here - I'm just trying to show how this post is a result of genuine frustration, and not some random hypocritical rant from somebody lacking self-reflection.

> Representatives do listen to calls

This is entirely besides the point, and a part of the post actually addresses this. It doesn't _matter_ whether representatives are listening to you or not. Even if it might be a theoretical win, in practice you're not going to see any results from it. The system that these representatives operate in is inherently flawed in many ways, and for every "theoretical win", the situation gets worse in ten other ways. I tried to subtly hint at the framework itself needing change, but it doesn't seem like people picked this up.

> Why are you criticizing when you don't even have a solution

As said by one (!) commenter below, having a solution is not a prerequisite to criticism - no matter the topic. I understand that some people will want to bring this up as an argument, since it provides a way for them to wave away the bulk of criticism coming their way (after all, criticism _usually_ lacks a solution), but it's absolutely vital that you recognize that criticism can and should stand on its own.

Yes, I do have some things that I believe are the solution to many of the problems we currently face. No, I do not think they belong in this blog post. No, I definitely don't want people to blindly follow those solutions, without thinking through the issues themselves first.

> It takes much longer than 4 years to change the world

Yes, yes it does. The problem isn't that the problems haven't been solved yet, the problem is that we're still stuck at the _exact same stage_ , with no sign of progress. It's like a toy robot whirring against the stairs - you could argue that eventually he'll arrive at the top, but in practice that's never going to happen, no matter how long you wait. Four years is more than enough to evaluate whether a strategy is going to have an effect, and it's the evaluation (and subsequent conclusion) that's lacking here.

> An event like this also killed SOPA

It didn't. All it did was cause an outrage, and push it ahead a bit. If anything, it gave rise to even worse proposals. I've also partly addressed that in another post: [http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/04/20/im-tired-of- this-...](http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/04/20/im-tired-of-this-protest- the-next-lettersoup-bill-shit/)

</comment><comment><USER42> Wow. Glass houses much? A whole post of nothing but "You're all wasting your time and not accomplishing anything."

In order to not be just 100% hypocritical he would need to offer some actual solutions.

<comment> jack-r-abbit You don't need to know how to cure cancer to know that poking me in the eye won't cure cancer. You don't always need the right answer to recognize a wrong answer.

<comment><USER42> I didn't ask for the right answer. I said how about _any_ kind of suggestion.

He's not being helpful, he's just being a douche.

<comment><USER43> "I didn't ask for the right answer. I said how about any kind of suggestion."

What? If the suggestion isn't a good one, it's worse than no suggestion at all, which at least won't mislead people into spending resources. Saying "I don't know the answer" is better than pretending you know the answer, if you don't.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Orthographic Reform of English (2008) - <AUTHOR> https://web.archive.org/web/20081204123624/http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-discuss/2008-March/001086.html <comment><AUTHOR> Seemed interesting enough to post separately; originally found in this thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4642395](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4642395)</comment>


But what is Session Puzzling? [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-downloads/v2/code.google.com/puzzlemall/Session%20Puzzles%20-%20Indirect%20Application%20Attack%20Vectors%20-%20May%202011%20-%20Whitepaper.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Read more at [https://code.google.com/archive/p/puzzlemall/downloads](https://code.google.com/archive/p/puzzlemall/downloads)</comment>