The end of classical music - <AUTHOR> http://jacobinmag.com/2013/11/the-end-of-classical-music/ <comment> vezzy-fnord What ostentatious and reactionary puerility this is.

No doubt the author is aggravated by the perceived decadence and decline of contemporary popular music. Yet, what is popular has for the most part always been mediocre or subpar.

The 'classical' (a very generalized descriptor, and completely inaccurate to contrast with 'rock and popular music') music he so yearns for was predominantly enjoyed by the aristocracy of its day and wasn't intended for the common layman. He also comfortably ignores all the hack composers who were likely forgotten and their legacies erased, instead only pointing out one of the three most undoubtedly famous.

His main argument for advocating classical music is its focus on instrumentals and "a logic entirely based on the abstract relationships inherent in the pitches and rhythms."

There are many (admittedly postmodern, likely much to the chagrin of the author) tendencies and genres in today's music, such as avant-garde jazz, noise, progressive rock and so on, which also employ eclecticism and complexity on a scale that trumps famous, beaten-to-death classical composers. Of course, these genres aren't popular, but that is to be expected.

This is simply another example of leftist academic snobbery.

<comment><AUTHOR> >His main argument for advocating classical music is its focus on instrumentals and "a logic entirely based on the abstract relationships inherent in the pitches and rhythms."

>There are many (admittedly postmodern, likely much to the chagrin of the author) tendencies and genres in today's music, such as avant-garde jazz, noise, progressive rock and so on, which also employ eclecticism and complexity on a scale that trumps famous, beaten-to-death classical composers. Of course, these genres aren't popular, but that is to be expected.

Your appeal to _eclecticism_ makes me think that you are not focusing on the feature of classical music the author has in mind. He means, I think, the kind of formal "problem-solving" that one can find in (to cite a comparatively recent example) the [Fugue in Hindemith's 3rd Piano Sonata]([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo)).

Such very elaborated formal structures are much less important in rock or avant-garde jazz. They are also very hard to write, and comparatively hard to decode as a listener. But they are very rewarding once you sort of get them.

Isn't all of that true?

<comment> vezzy-fnord I listened to your example, and yes I can see what you are referring to. The sonata is complex and involves lots of nuances and subsystems playing together to form a coherent, yet intricate and sophisticated whole.

The "problem-solving" technique you mention is still, I believe, very much present in my aforementioned genres.

They're definitely not accessible to everyone, however, especially the casual listener. That is true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> No doubt there were people in 1786 complaining about how that upstart Mozart was convincing "the kids" to stop going to revivals of "1550's Greatest Hits". And don't even get them STARTED on the filth that is "opera"...

<comment><USER3> You're joking I suppose but there is plenty of doubt that there were such people. Zero evidence I would say.

<comment><USER4> "Too many notes, Mozart!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, these comments are really frightening. No wonder contemporary software is so shitty, and programmers are clueless as hell.

<comment><USER6> HN libertarians don't like to be made to feel academically inadequate. Startups care not about this art crap, and the author is obviously not aware of unpopular sub-genres of rock, many of which kick Chopin's ass, so to speak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Classical music is alive and well. It's also evolving, as it should. You might find it camouflaged as sountracks. Witness the "views" numbers on Youtube of "Inception" or any "epic music", they're in the millions.

<comment><USER8> Hollywood movie scores are essentially pornographic. There's little to challenge the logic or problem-solving areas of your mind. There are lots of loud sounds and nakedly manipulative melodies.

Naturally there are exceptions but I'm referring to your basic Hans Zimmer product, which is garbage.

<comment><USER9> The same can be said for most popular classical pieces. As someone who mostly listens to classical, I'm not even sure your characterization carries any meaning. But lets not elevate classical music to some rarefied pedestal; the vast majority of the good classical music contains "loud sounds and nakedly manipulative melodies".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Its author, New York Times religion correspondent Mark Oppenheimer concedes > that "(s)tudying music or dance over a long time teaches perseverance and > can build self-confidence" and "that there is virtue in mastering difficult > disciplines."

This could be said of programming too

About classical music, because a coincidence, I've downloaded lots of classical music and found out that it helps me greatly to concentrate while I'm studying.

I like it, I would probably want to learn more about it (if and when I have time), but I dont want to become an expert and be pedantic about it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Pretentious moron whining about a cultural facet that's recently fallen out of favor and how society is done for, more at 11.</comment>


Got an account on a site like Github? Hackers may know your e-mail address - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/07/got-an-account-on-a-site-like-github-hackers-may-know-your-e-mail-address/

<comment><USER2> Singling out GitHub seems silly. If you're on GitHub, have a .gitconfig with name + email, and you've made a commit, then that's all public.

If a site uses your Gravatar, game over: Gravatar's literally a raw MD5 of your email with the aim to give you a globally identifiable avatar. That's been known (documented!) for a long time and unlikely to be a surprise to many of us here.

The only place this is likely to be an issue is when a site knows you but you assume you're anonymous. If you're using a web service where you want to be anonymous, connecting anything with your identity is a bad idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _The only place this is likely to be an issue is when a site knows you but > you assume you 're anonymous. If you're using a web service where you want > to be anonymous, connecting anything with your identity is a bad idea._

While I wish the article headline mentioned Gravatar as opposed to Github, I think it is worth realizing that Github provides instructions to use a fake email address in your .gitconfig to protect your privacy [1] while simultaneously requiring you to provide a valid email address while setting up your account. [2]

[1]: [https://help.github.com/articles/keeping-your-email- address-...](https://help.github.com/articles/keeping-your-email-address- private)

[2]: [https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of- service#a-a...](https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of- service#a-account-terms)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Isn't this public knowledge? "Oh no! 'Hackers' have my oh-so-sacred email address! Yeah, that thing on all of my sites, business cards, dozens of whois records, resumes, speaker decks, the Dominoes online ordering system, and so on... What shall I ever do?"

I'd seriously question their talent if they weren't able to find it.

<comment><USER4> Yes, developers have known about this problem for years.

But Gravatar and sites using Gravatar are terrible at explaining these risks to less technical users. Those users have an expectation of privacy when a site claims they won't share their e-mail address with anyone. No one has told them how incredibly easy it is to verify that their user account on one of the sites they use is the same person as a user account on a different site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article title is link bait. The article is about Gravatar, and GitHub only matters because it utilizes Gravatar.

(Your email address may be visible in all sorts of other ways on GitHub, such as when someone does git log on a public git repository.)

If you're worried about your Gravatar being matched to your inflammatory (i.e., trolling) Hacker News or WordPress comments, you probably should be using a separate email account and Tor and whatnot.

</comment><comment><USER6> My email address? Oh god no!

<comment><USER7>
       slawmaster at... that google email provider.

I managed to decode that after a few hours of brute forcing. You should apply some stronger obfuscation methods.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Doesn't github also store it in a json response?

<comment><USER9> Yes. [https://api.github.com/users/mojombo](https://api.github.com/users/mojombo)

<comment><USER10> IIRC, your email only comes back from the API if you've entered something into the "Email (will be public)" field in your profile. They also allow you to use a separate email for Gravatar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> the gravatar email recovery hack has been known for years, they are recycling an old topic.

luckily my email isn't a secret as I publish it everywhere willingly.

<comment><USER12> The problem is that since they know your email address, they can find your email from leaked databases... Then try that password to own your repo...

<comment><USER11> what password?

<comment><USER13> Assuming:

* A hacker has a leaked database

* Your email and password are in this database

* Your public email is the same one used in the database

* Plain-text passwords are easy to extract from this leaked databases

* You use the same password and email combination other places

* Other places with that email/password don't use two-step authentication

Then if they have your email they can get your password and try it other places

<comment><USER14> > You use the same password and email combination other places

This is the problem. Every password for every account you create should be unique. Bonus points if you use a unique email alias for every account you create too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Post something new.</comment>


What's your favorite AI sparring partner (in a computer strategy game)? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> The open source clones of Alpha Go are my favorite AI sparring partners. There are several to choose from, and also several Go board applications.

My favorite open source Alpha Go clone is Katago [https://github.com/lightvector/KataGo](https://github.com/lightvector/KataGo).

There are several different open source Go board/sgf editor applications on which to run Katago; I use several.

KaTrain is my favorite: [https://github.com/sanderland/katrain](https://github.com/sanderland/katrain)

I also use sabaki: [https://github.com/SabakiHQ/Sabaki/releases](https://github.com/SabakiHQ/Sabaki/releases)

and q5Go: [https://github.com/bernds/q5Go](https://github.com/bernds/q5Go)

for batch review of Go games goreviewpartner is good: [https://github.com/pnprog/goreviewpartner](https://github.com/pnprog/goreviewpartner)

<comment><USER3> Alpha Go has generated a lot of activity in the weiqi community! I guess that's what happens when your AI beats the world champion in a match viewed by 60 million people (in China alone).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For chess I like nibbler, which uses an open source version of Alpha Zero, Leela Chess Zero: [https://github.com/fohristiwhirl/nibbler](https://github.com/fohristiwhirl/nibbler)</comment>


Streams: Mail 3.0 concept - <AUTHOR> http://tonsky.me/blog/streams/ <comment><USER2> > It's hard to believe people still use email.

It's hard to believe people don't understand that 'shortcomings' are sometimes 'advantages'. Email is perfect for what it is, it's a textual, non-realtime medium of communication. You take the time to compose a long, coherent message using written language. Mail has existed for a long time, and hopefully it will never go away.

It's great if you want to invent something more instant, more automated, more visual, but it's not going to be an improvement on email, it will be something else that fills some niche.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. SMTP is such a lasting protocol that it is unlikely e-mail will be replaced in the long term. I certainly think improvements can happen on the server side, but the protocol has good failover, and for the most part, the reliability is just as good if not better than physical mail delivery.

Yes, the protocol seems dated, but it is well-understood and implemented by thousands of vendors. It's a miracle that we were able to agree on a protocol, and on top of that, agree on a protocol that is relatively decentralized (although it does depend on DNS if you prefer not to use an IP to email). It isn't like Twitter or FB where a single vendor controls the platform.

<comment><USER4> > It's a miracle that we were able to agree on a protocol

It wasn't _that_ miraculous, actually. Remember that it was invented before HTTP even existed. It was developed at a time where the only contender was Usenet. Internet was not yet used for any commercial purposes; there was no concept of platform. Internet, and thus email, was the medium between universities that we know of. Sendmail was included by default in each UNIX from that moment on; when you connected to the internet, you could _already_ send emails.

The conditions were very different, it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare it to what we have today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To me what is important about email as infrastructure is SMTP and the principles of delay tolerant networking and federation. SMTPs store and forward reliability model is a bedrock of communication on the Internet, when all else fails email won't or it'll die trying.

Anything vying to replace it needs to capture these features. I won't trade reliability for real time. There are other real time channels I can use.

<comment><USER6> Check out DJB's smtp replacement, InternetMail2000:

[http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html](http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html)

<comment><USER7> That seems less a replacement and more notes on a random idea with lots of questions. Some of his ideas in there are questionable, too.

Seems like he's increasing the bandwidth usage for an MX in a big way.

<comment><USER8> _more notes on a random idea with lots of questions._

That's djb's greatest strength and greatest weakness. He just does whatever he wants and doesn't care how it integrates with the rest of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To me the problems with email have more to do with spam and privacy than threads and real time.

We shouldn't have a unique address but rather give a unique random token to anyone asking for our email address which could be severed (or bound to receive from a single address, ie that counterparty can not transmit that token to anyone as my server wouldn't receive mail from another address).

We should have systematic guarantees that the sender is the mailbox it pretends it is.

Encryption in smtp should be mandatory.

We should have an easy to use content encryption (pgp style).

Ideally you would like to decorrelate the address from the service provider (lots of people are prisoners of gmail, hotmail or their ISP).

I am sure we can make the chistmas list much longer but to me these are the major issues with the current system.

<comment><USER10> This is easily solved by an email service that makes creating aliases take 5 seconds, and offer a _very_ large maximum number of aliases.

Address exhaustion is a real issue though, so you will need to acquire many email-worthy domains for this service.

<comment><USER9> Well, most of the items in my list exist in one form or another, but all are optional and/or not widely used.

As you mention we can use aliases for unique emails (which is what I do, but I had to create a software on the side of my mail server to manage them, as my mail server never intended to use aliases that way, and for instance makes the list of aliases visible to everyone on the server, and does not allow to assign a keyword to an alias).

It is possible to have guarantees on senders by using spf and dkim, but not many server actually use them and you currently can't make it a hard requirement for your incoming traffic, so pretty much useless.

Smtp encryption has taken a step back with TLS, as with STARTTLS we are now forced to use optional encryption that can be downgraded by a MITM, whereas before one could elect to only have an SSL port open.

Content encryption is possible using PGP but clunky and almost no one uses it.

And people can buy their own domains if they know it is possible and how to configure a DNS server, needless to say not many people do.

What I suggest is that we would need a protocol that does all that by default.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As others have said, the shortcomings of SMTP can look a lot like advantages, at least in terms of its simplicity and durability. When a protocol has survived and continued in use for so long there are usually deep-seated reasons why it is a fit for certain use cases. I don't want to go off on a chat vs. mail rant, but the following ...

>> You operate on a level of the entire messages flow. Forums, chats and web 2.0 networks are trying to make conversations feel as lightweight and barrier- free as possible.

... caught my eye. I manage a team of younger developers for whom real time chat is simply the way they grew up interacting. Everyone is signed into hangouts and "operating on a level of the entire messages flow" (sic) all day long. A large part of the interaction is off topic, vague, and ineffective. Here's an example from yesterday...

Dev 1: the repo url is wrong, I'm getting a 404.

Dev 1: wait, might be a typo.

Dev 1: my bad.

Everyone on the team received this message and presumably stopped their current mental task at least long enough to read it, as I did. In the end it had no impact whatsoever. The developer clearly should have thought through his problem before notifying the entire team that he had one. But this is how chat is used.

I've tried very often to get them to be more deliberate in chat communications, without any success. I have also tried to encourage complicated topics to move quickly to voice hangouts, with even less success. Streams of real time chat messages remains the primary way the group interacts, to the point where I have backed off my efforts and come to the conclusion that I'm likely the one who has to change.

That said, there will always be a need for deliberate communications within organizations. Email grew up as an analog for letters and memos, which served as deliberate, archived, time-stamped records of an important communication. They were considered, usually minimal (because they took effort to create), and got to the point. They were events, not streams of ephemera. I'm not sure that this constant buzz of chats does a good job of replacing that. So for that reason the sentence "You operate on a level of the entire messages flow" doesn't make me smile.

<comment><USER12> I think we should look at the proposed idea as two-fold:

1) giving E-Mails more inherent structure that is managed centrally (streams) instead of by each user (filters, folders).

2) making E-Mail more synchronous instead of asynchronous.

As far as I understand, you're arguing against (2). I agree with everything you wrote, however I still find (1) a very good idea. It is also an idea that IMO could be implemented entirely without changing the protocol - it's just a question of where you put this additional information. Streams could also simply be represented as a group address in the CC field that is managed differently by their client/server architecture, but otherwise fully downwards compatible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Every now and then someone decides we need to replace email, or the web, or Craigslist, and they think the reason it hasn't happened yet is that no one has really thought about the details.

It's not.

The reason those things haven't been dethroned is they are he lowest common denominator. You can't dethrone them by making something better. You can only dethrone them by making something that is both better _and more common_.

By definition the lowest common denominator is crap. By definition it is some legacy junk that was already on every computer 10 years ago. By definition it's a hundred competing standards from multiple companies because how else will a technology work on every device ever?

You can try to replace it with another tech, but it's going to have he same kind of characteristics, and it's arc of adoption is going to look like email's. Which means maybe 10 years from now it starts to look like a real contender. And by then how much crap has been jury-rigged into the spec?

It's the long tail. It's janky, but it's a common standard that does one job like a freaking champ. The long tail will never be engineered away. It ebbs and flows. Only in the last 10 years is _snail_ mail losing its status as a reliable way to reach people.

</comment><comment><USER14> To me this seems so different from email that it rather invites a comparison with RSS feeds or Slack-like services.

What if it was a no-brainer to publish to and subscribe to feeds, there was some kind of feed exchange and access control built-in, and everyone was using them to communicate? What if Slack was open and decentralized, and everyone was using it?

<comment><USER15> > What if Slack was open and decentralized, and everyone was using it?

We tried that; it was called IRC. As far as I can tell, Slack is still little more than a hosted IRC service with its own web and mobile clients. Virtually none of the functionality they provide couldn't be replicated this way; it's more a matter of branding than anything else that they eschew the label "IRC".

Slack even provides an IRC gateway so you can access it using IRC clients. I don't know if their web and mobile clients are using the IRC protocol, but from what I can tell, they might as well be, which is the whole point.

<comment><USER16> What we need though, is something federated. Where everyone can interact with anybody, just like email (or like XMPP did).

IRC does not have this. I've to connect to your server, or you to mine. This doesn't scale as an email/IM replacement; it only works for rooms with a certain usage/target.

The _huge_ problem with any replacement (aside from federation) is the network effect. No matter how good your solution is, you need critical mass for it to pick up, and no huge company is going to invest into getting users into a federated network which they won't control. There's no profit for the company.

<comment><USER17> > IRC does not have this. I've to connect to your server, or you to mine

IRC most certainly _does_ have this. All larger IRC networks are exactly that: Networks of federated servers. It's been like that since the early 90's, when it was an absolute necessity as none of the ircds could handle all that many individual users.

<comment><USER18> Nope. IRC model is closer to clustering than federation. The key difference is that all connected IRC servers have nearly full control of the _whole_ network which is why you can not allow untrusted servers in a IRC network. Also in IRC all messages are routed to all servers. Contrast that to something like SMTP or XMPP where every server is mostly independent and generally handles only messages that belongs to them, and where federation does require very little trust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is this not just folksomomies for taging email, it will suffer the same problem that tags do, consitancy of the tags, how will it know that kitties, cats, felines and pussys are all the same stream. How will people know what to name the content in the stream. How is this different to adding [CATS] to the front of the subject line, and having the software partition on that.

</comment><comment><USER20> OK, silly question time. What does this concept of streams have which is different from a mailing list?

mailto:(code-review|off-topic|blog)@tonsky.me?subject=[un]subscribe

Sounds more like he is suggesting improvements to mailing list interfaces than email itself.

<comment><USER21> That is exactly what I thought. "Stream" is the subject line. You mail to a group on some sort of listserve, which gives you a long-term history and a URL to give new people.

This exists in rather decent form in Google Groups already -- there is Google Groups for Business (with a Google Apps account) that gives you a great web interface as well as email interface all just for your company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This concept seems quite reminiscent of Google Wave, if anyone remembers that:

[http://www.renepedersen.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/01/googl...](http://www.renepedersen.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/01/google_wave.png)

<comment><USER23> ...the author spends a good amount of time in the article explicitly comparing and contrasting his idea to Google Wave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> We go through this a few times a year. "Email is broken, we must replace it", only to realise a few short seconds later that email is not broken, and does not need replacing. Its long lived for a reason - its simple, its textual, it delegates all the fancy stuff to the inbox provider, e.g., videos in emails are usually a link the email provider, say Gmail, shows as a video.

If I had 10 pence for every "email is broken" post, I could have had a free pint down the pub.

</comment><comment><USER25> "Transferred to the internet, email inherited these limitations: electronic messages are not real-time, they're hard to manage in huge amounts..."

Anything is hard to manage in huge amounts, and anything _real time_ is harder to manage even in small amounts.

</comment><comment><USER26> Sounds like Usenet re-invented, where stream == newsgroup.

</comment><comment><USER27> I read this and this that it's a lot closer to what RSS intends to solve, especially the read-only streams. Two-way streams is mainly providing a method to post back into that feed. It's a little more real time (rss feeds are typically cached and refreshed), and a real-time implementation would e more of an collection of entries that are pushed to the server presenting the stream and ultimately to the client.

What I think With that in mind, I feel this concept is very close to a lot of the p2p or decentralized content distribution systems being tested out these days, like aether[1] or matrix.org[2].

The backend implementation that matrix.org uses is rather ideal. It's Federated JSON over HTTP(S). The clients out today are heavily focused on chat, but it is data agnostic. You could have client that writes rich media content and a client that displays this as a blog. Going back to the streams concept, you could have a client subscribed to multiple streams (rooms in matrix vernacular) and as people post their messages - rich media or simple "how are you" comments, it would get federated out to each home server, which can present a web client interface like in tonsky's mock-ups.

For the concept of amazon providing sensitive order information as a stream/matrix room, there would have to be an add-on concept built into the client of some sort of security token. I'm not talking about a losable gpg keypair, but something amazon generates and provides to you (like they do with their AWS services already) Amazon would then create a personalized stream for you, using that security token to encrypt. Since amazon provides the content and the key, they can replace your key at any time.

[1]: [http://getaether.net/](http://getaether.net/) [2]: [http://www.matrix.org/](http://www.matrix.org/)

<comment><USER28> The problem I have with all of this is it seems like the XKCD where for some reason, the latest person / thing seems to somehow not think to google if there's anything like what they're doing, so we have yet another program / protocol / community that 5 people use and then dies. EVERYONE uses E-mail.

And now with Aether - has no one heard of freenet and i2p and Tor? No, we'll re-do all the sort of starting work on anonymity and security and get to re- make for the thousandth time the mistakes where it really isn't that secure or anonymous rather than building on anything that has at least some of the actual battle testing and bug squashing already done.

What is Aether but Frost with less testing? Hell, what is it but TOR access to Usenet? Maybe I don't understand what's so special that it can't use any of the long worked on infrastructure level work that's gone into the above projects for a decade or so, and it actually does make sense to start over from day one - but if so, they certainly don't explain it.

And I'm not talking about UI - I'm talking about the anonymity equivalent of deciding TCP isn't good enough so I'm going to re-invent IPX or something.

<comment><USER29> is there anyone doing an Aether-equivalent over I2P or Freenet yet?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Yes, this could work. I like the idea of streams being an url with a path that might be a unique hash for you. The url's domain controller decides who is authorized to post on their streams. You decide which domains to trust.

Most social services we use today could be streams. Facebook, Twitter, even WhatApp, Instagram (I guess not snapchat). If they'd all implement some common stream spec. Unfortunately they won't, Twitter has demonstrated that they don't like alternative client implementations.

If it could replace e-mail is another big question. Nikita hilights the amount of cruft that's around e-mails, but the cruft is social protocol, and we humans love social protocol. Or perhaps that's just old fashion speaking.

The posting is quite old already (Oct 2014), so this isn't some big hype building and it doesn't look like anyone is working on a big implementation.

<comment><USER4> When you read the post, you know that XMPP has all the technical parts to fill the role here. There are some people who build things on top of XMPP, but I haven't seen something as advanced as buddycloud ([http://buddycloud.com/](http://buddycloud.com/)) here. They have a concept of "channels" ([https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buddycloud- channels.html](https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/buddycloud-channels.html)) which can have multiple types with multiple participants, each having a definite role. All of the use cases in the article are (theoretically) possible with buddycloud.

Technically, the standard XMPP PubSub protocol with its PEP companion could get you very far already, unfortunately there's not many clients that handle them today.

<comment><USER29> jitsi does. who uses anything else for xmpp nowadays?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > It's hard to believe people still use email. It has so many flaws yet still > remains die-hard to replace.

Well, at least it doesn't live inside a silo, like most other messaging protocols.

</comment><comment><USER32> This sounds extremely exciting. But there's one question: how do I tell someone to subscribe to a stream? Do I need to email them a link to my stream? The killer feature of email is that it allows anyone to contact anyone else.

Also, issue tracking is something that could be replaced with a stream...

</comment><comment><USER33> Neat concept. One challenge is imagining the transition from email to stream - how can I start using streams internally with my company gradually, but still use email when needed? Not another inbox...

<comment><USER30> I think you'd configure your client to pull e-mail as a stream or a collection of streams (with filters). You can then in your client fuse or split the streams into the rest of your streams. It could be a pretty fluent transition in my imagination.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I dislike how half of this blog post is just ranting about email. For example, I don't get this: "electronic messages are not real-time, they're hard to manage in huge amounts, they work best for person-to-person dialogs"

These are "limitations" according to the author. But IMO they're the reason I like email:

\- I like to be able to reply when I want, without the sender having the expectation of everything happening in real time, I have other things to do than answering real time to everything.

\- Anything is hard to manage in huge amounts, which is why we hide less important stuff. Email has folders where you can put stuff in. You can archive emails. Or maybe this management issue is technical, as in "storing petabytes of emails is a difficult task" ? In that case, I have no real answer.

\- I actually like the concept of mailing lists: they work where I already am (ie my mailbox) and I can stay up to date just like in a forum. And person-to- person dialogs do indeed work very well with email. I don't see that as a limitation.

\---

Also, about this: "Stream is a group of threads. Simple as that."

That does not sound simple. In fact, just from that sentence, I didn't understand at all what it meant. I had to read on to get the idea. But I do see the point of "streams", and I agree that filters are usually complex to setup and maintain.

\---

The part that I don't understand is this one: "With proper user/access management Streams could replace not just email, chats and group chats but also forums, blogs, mail lists, RSS and most of web 2.0 communities."

It sounds like what you need is RSS everywhere. RSS has a pull model too. You can setup ACLs on an RSS feed if you have some kind of authentication in place. It can replace mail lists, except that you'd still need to be able to push messages to it, which I don't see anything about in the blog post.

\---

Finally, regarding this: "This fixes ambiguity around do-not-reply@ addresses"

I get the point of ambiguity and I have replied to no-reply addresses before myself, with an error message coming back. But I think ambiguity could be fixed with a header here, instead of throwing away the whole email infrastructure.

Imagine a "X-No-Reply: true" header. That way, email clients could disallow replying to such an email address. This has the advantage of being backwards compatible with everything that exists.

\---

Overall, I do think that you can try something new, trying to "replace" email. But realistically, Google has tried several times and is struggling. Email has solid tooling and knowledge built around it, and I think trying to push for its self-improvement is worth a look.

Slack is sometimes said to be an "email-killer", but the fact is it replaces only one use of email. At my last company, we used Slack for real time stuff, notifications, quick questions, but not for everything. And that's great. Because email sucks for real time stuff right now (although initiatives like JMAP may make things better).

Email seems to carry the notion of importance, which is not true of chat messages I think. The reasoning behind this is, I think, an incoming email stands alone, whereas a chat message is quickly surrounded by other messages.

Also, emails have a clear receiver, the receiving email address. This means that if you get a message to "firstname.lastname@example.com" and you are a dev, you are de- facto concerned by this email, which is a reason to read it thouroughly. This is not true of chat messages which do not have a "receiver" but are instead posted to the more liberal notion of "channel".

<comment><USER35> > Email seems to carry the notion of importance, which is not true of chat > messages I think. The reasoning behind this is, I think, an incoming email > stands alone, whereas a chat message is quickly surrounded by other > messages.

This is critical. Understandably, "chat" user interfaces don't make individual messages stand out by themselves. This means that it is easy to miss a message, or even a conversation. It also means that you can't delete everything but the important stuff you need to reply to, which is trivial in email clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The only problem is that if email was replaced by Streams every form of sender-initiated contact would be gone from the internet.

<comment><USER37> Would that be a bad thing though? What's the use case for needing it? Any sender initiated contact assumes that the receiver is in acceptance of your need to contact them. This is the failing property of email that allows for and implies that SPAM will always exist. I buy something from Amazon. I'm initiating the contact, so I provide the means for replying / providing an invoice etc. (currently an email address etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is an awesome article, and has some similar ideas to what we are working on at Nylas. [https://nylas.com/](https://nylas.com/)

I don't mean to steal this thread, but if anyone is interested in building the future of email (including this) I'd love to talk with you. email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't understand why people want to get rid of emails. It's the best asynchronous way of communication.

</comment><comment><USER40> I hate to sound synical but Ive both invented this ui and seen others invent it a few times over. Even so I do commend the effort and thought process that went in to the post.

Edit: To see a fully functional version check out [http://plugg.io](http://plugg.io)

<comment><USER41> Offtopic: Thank you for ezSQL

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It is possible to make Streams work based on existing email, by saving email into a Streams server whenever the receiver opt-in to get that email (well, it is filters again) as a Stream.

Also, let people publish Streams as Streams and non-Streams users can subscribe to those Streams as email.

</comment><comment><USER42> Hopefully that person doesn't think he's the first to think about any of this.

</comment><comment><USER43> e-mail at its best retains something unique to the written letter, a tendency towards long, frank, thoughtful compositions that are sent with a lot of aforethought and intention. i think if we fully move towards communication regimes where the importance of individual messages is lessened (a chat / forum thread type thing) we might eventually lose this style of writing and the enjoyment of communicating this way.

</comment><comment><USER44> > When you start new thread, you don't just start it by filling To: and > Subject:, you also have to put it to some stream.

And right there, is why it won't catch on.

</comment><comment><USER45> All I saw here was what Google tried to do with Wave</comment>


Ruby and The Principle of Unwelcome Surprise - <AUTHOR> http://ceaude.twoticketsplease.de/articles/ruby-and-the-principle-of-unwelcome-surprise.html

<comment><USER2> Welcome to Bloggers and the Principle of FUD. Take this post with a pinch of salt.

It's trendy to pick holes at Ruby in various, inaccurate ways lately, but a quote from Matz about that POLS business:

 _Everyone has an individual background. Someone may come from Python, someone else may come from Perl, and they may be surprised by different aspects of the language. Then they come up to me and say, "I was surprised by this feature of the language, so therefore Ruby violates the principle of least surprise." Wait. Wait. The principle of least surprise is not for you only. The principle of least surprise means principle of least my surprise. And it means the principle of least surprise after you learn Ruby very well. For example, I was a C++ programmer before I started designing Ruby. I programmed in C++ exclusively for two or three years. And after two years of C++ programming, it still surprised me._

You can pick up almost any programming language, not learn it properly, and then pick holes in its various inconsistencies or flaws (my own is over Python's ambiguities over methods vs functions for various things - but I know I'm not a Python developer!) That doesn't make it interesting or insightful. Every language has dark corners and Matz has been more than forthcoming about Ruby's.

This article has numerous curious assumptions and sloppy practices. Local variables called the same as method names? And very few Rubyists, in my experience, would be confused by the key example in the memoization section. Who really thinks || checks for whether a variable is bound rather than doing a logical or? How is it a "what's worse" that instance_eval changes _self_ to instance_eval's receiver? That's its entire reason for existing! The second example under "Local Variables Strike Yet Again" is flat out wrong, even by the author's own admission.. Ruby 1.9 has been the production release for almost three years!

<comment><USER3> Yep, as usual, prepare salt before you read _any_ programming languages blog post.

My case was against Ruby back when Rails was hot. Ditto with JavaScript nowadays.

Ruby 1.9 has been out for production for almost 3 years? Cool, how come it's slower than 1.8.7? (not trying to offend Ruby but I use Rails 3.1 with Ruby 1.9, running unit-tests are dog-gone slow).

<comment><USER2> _Ruby 1.9 has been out for production for almost 3 years? Cool, how come it's slower than 1.8.7?_

It's not. File loading in 1.9.2 is notoriously slow and you're probably encountering a common case where mid to large scale Rails 3 apps are loading so many files at runtime that you're hitting it. Everything else is bright and breezy. The story behind much of this: [http://www.rubyinside.com/ruby-1-9-3-faster-loading-times- re...](http://www.rubyinside.com/ruby-1-9-3-faster-loading-times- require-4927.html) \- Most people are experiencing significant speedups with 1.9.3 so far but it hasn't had its final release yet.

That aside, speed isn't everything. Python 3 was (is?) slower than Python 2 for quite some time, despite being in production.

<comment><USER4> That is file loading as in loading ruby source files. A problem aggravated by rails being refactored to be actually readable, but many more files.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of Ruby is kind of like the traffic circle. Circles can be a superior intersection of 5 roads (if traffic volume isn't high, you never have to stop), but they trip up nearly all new drivers.

I've found that Ruby is a very right-brain language in the sense that when you analyze it at a low level, things don't seem to make sense. But at a high level, it often does exactly what you'd want. Variable hoisting in 1.9 is the perfect example of this.

OP claims to have been a "Rubyist", but it sounds like he's still fighting the system and hasn't embraced it yet. It's like when people who are new to Lisp complain about the parentheses or prefix notation. If you just go with it, down the road you may find that these are some of its best features.

</comment><comment><USER6> The first issue isn't really surprising once you understand how Ruby treats variables. I wrote about this a while ago for a more understandable case - basically, Ruby initializes variables to nil as soon as a left-hand assignment is encountered during a scope's parsing, regardless of context or reachability.

[http://www.coffeepowered.net/2009/03/02/syntactic-sugar- will...](http://www.coffeepowered.net/2009/03/02/syntactic-sugar-will- occassionally-kick-your-puppies/)

Here's a cleaner way to visualize it:

      def foo
        if false
          bar = "baz"
        end
        lambda { bin = "bang" }.call
        return local_variables, bar
      end

      def foo_two
        if false
          bar = "baz"
        end
        lambda { bar = "bonk" }.call
        return local_variables, bar
      end

      puts foo.inspect
      puts foo_two.inspect
      => [["bar"], nil]
         [["bar"], "bonk"]

Obviously the code that initializes bar never gets run, but Ruby initializes a local variable "bar" anyway, since there is a left-hand assignment to it present in the method. The lamba defines a new scope, so its local variable assignments don't leak to its containing scope, but in that scope, _unless there was a variable named bin initialized in the outer scope already_ , which is the case for the lambda in foo_two, which leaks the bar reference to its containing scope since bar was defined in the outer scope at the time of the lamba's definition.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm really torn on the "no parens for func calls" thing. It's so damned handy for a majority of cases, but it breaks one my personal rules of "call things what they are". If it's a function call it should look like one. Then this unwelcome surprise wouldn't be a surprise at all. But, alas, I'm bound by Goedel too and am not 100% internally consistent.

I saw Neal Ford's "Abstraction Distractions" recently and a lot of things resounded with me, but one that I liked was a general rule that abstractions should solve 80% of your cases easily, and get the hell out of the way for the other 20% and let you get further down the abstraction tree to solve them yourself. I believe this does.

<comment><USER8> You have a point that function calls should _look_ like function calls, but keep in mind that, in Ruby, juxtaposition is how function calls look. The same goes for quite a few other languages as well (Haskell and ML off the top of my head, but there are others).

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I know it's not totally rational. Groovy does a trick where a Groovy'd Java class hides all the setters and getters and makes them look like property accessors. (C# does that too, I think?) And I like that, so I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other; or at least I'm not arguing with the blog article. I have this argument with myself all the time! =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
      This is mainly caused by the false intuition that

         @foo ||= bar

      actually expands to

         @foo = @foo || bar

      which, to many a surprise, is not the case.

Hardly a "false intuition", since that is how this syntax works in other languages, e.g., perl[1].

[1] <http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/perl/prog3/ch03_17.htm>

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm still amazed that neither Python nor Ruby allow you to require declaration of variables. Perl really got this right with strict and the "my" keyword. If you try to use an undeclared variable under strict mode, the compiler throws an error.

<comment><USER2> It's because Ruby scopes sigil-less variables locally by default. It's like using "my" everywhere for free. "x = 10" in Ruby creates a local variable. By default, "$x = 10" in Perl is creating a global package variable which, in most day to day cases, isn't particularly desirable.

Perl's "my" really patches over a dangerous default. Perl gives you the global by default. Ruby gives you a local by default. I'd much rather have my defaults be sane than be forced to make declarations to fix things up. Which is why Ruby became my primary language after 8 years of Perl..

<comment><USER11> > It's because Ruby scopes sigil-less variables locally by default.

I'm pretty sure autarch knows that.

I come from the Python world (and have done quite a bit of Ruby as well as a few other languages) and have come to dislike all implicit scoping, it is less readable and always ends up leading to annoying (and hard to track) bugs. This is magnified in Python due to scoping being historically wonky (there used to be no lexical scoping at all, only function-local and module-global) and leading to `global` and (in Python 3) `nonlocal` (yay two crappy keywords and statements instead of having a single clear one)

Whatever the case, these will trip people up and really provide little to no gain, explicit lexical scoping is clearer and leads to less bugs, both from shadowing an existing variable and from hooking into (and overwriting) the same. It's also pretty easy to statically check, in a statically (lexically) scoped language.

Interestingly, that (along with first-class blocks, keyword messages and the cascading operator) is one of the very nice things Ruby threw away from its (limited) Smalltalk ancestry.

> Ruby gives you the safe, local

and often wrong

> thing by default.

<comment><USER12> I suppose it's stuff like this that leads to the dozens of abandoned language implementations that litter the world of software like balled up hamburger wrappers outside a truck stop.

It's enough to drive a man back to Scheme. Why do all of these sh++ languages get so much right and so much wrong? My personal preference from the list is Python, but it's full of irritants as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does that mean that `x = x + 1` does not work in Ruby? (And always results in `x == 1` or so?)

<comment><USER6> If x is initialized to an integer (or more accurately, any object that has a method "+" defined that knows how to accept a Fixnum parameter), it'll work fine. If it's not, you'll get "No method + for nil", since what's happening is that you're trying to invoke a method named "+" on the variable named "x" with the parameter "1".</comment></comment>


Show HN: Dnote – Instantly Capture Your Coding Wisdom - <AUTHOR> https://dnote.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> I made Dnote because even though I learn many things every day while coding, I forget most of them. The reason is that (1) I don't write them down (2) I don't revisit what I write down.

So I made a CLI to keep track of my engineering microlessons with minimal friction, without leaving the command line. Next step is to build automated digest email so that I actually remember my lessons.

I wrote more about why and how I am building it here: [https://sungwoncho.io/making-dnote](https://sungwoncho.io/making-dnote)

<comment><USER2> Looks like a cool project!

I noticed a small typo:

> Reinforce your knowledge effor[t]lessly

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed. Thanks for letting me know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> [https://github.com/dnote- io/cli/blob/master/main.go#L271](https://github.com/dnote- io/cli/blob/master/main.go#L271)

Pinging your personal server every time someone runs your CLI tool is not something people would expect or be happy to learn about after the fact.

I understand you're curious how many people are using your tool, but this isn't the way to go about it.

<comment><USER4> > I understand you're curious how many people are using your tool, but this > isn't the way to go about it.

Not OP, but what _is_ the correct way to go about it?

<comment><USER5> Being up front about it, and opt-in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is cool, but why does it need to do the heartbeat with dnote.io?

[https://github.com/dnote- io/cli/blob/master/main.go#L272](https://github.com/dnote- io/cli/blob/master/main.go#L272)

This looks like the only place that you're doing a network request, and it really slows down the program.

<comment><AUTHOR> I added it to see if other people will actually use the tool, and if I should invest time improving it.

I plan to either remove it in the next patch or sending heartbeat less frequently. In terms of privacy, how do you feel about it?

<comment><USER7> What data does it transmit and is it opt-in?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a GET request without any extra data. It is not opt-in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think a quick:

      echo "you can write dev tools as shell functions" >>.notes

Would be pretty close to the same thing?

<comment><USER9> Well, there seem to be a few additional features:

1\. being able to organize notes by "books" 2\. being able to use it cross- platform (since both `echo` and `>>` don't exist in powershell)

<comment><USER10> I also like the emailing feature, but yeah, you could automate that with a chronjob.

Is not that not most applications though? It would be possible to do it yourself, but the application simplifies that process. Does not need to do more than so.

<comment><USER11> A famous (HN) example would be the first thread for Dropbox. I think people said "you could do this rsync".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice tool to scratch your own itch. I've thought of doing something similar many times, but I've found that just using Evernote or Quiver and having a reasonable search works just fine for me since I tend to write meticulous notes. Having a separate tool might be an added behavior that discourages taking notes, but depends on each person's habits I suppose.

<comment><USER13> I like - and bought -Quiver, but I'm concerned with the lack of updates.

I'm a firm believer in not adding needless features just to stay busy. For example, I use DEVONThink, which has not really received any significant feature updates in a few years! I've also never felt 'bad' about the long period in which there was no development on Sublime Text.

But Quiver is far from 'good enough' for me. The popup-style search is nowhere close what I want, there's no keyboard shortcut to indent list items (at least not in Markdown mode), and there are tons of ways in which the app can and needs to be improved.

I bought it mostly because of its promise, and because the storage format is really nice. Furthermore, building a cross-platform Quiver (perhaps with Electron/React Native) with some specific DEVONThink-like features is high on my list of itches I've been meaning to scratch. But until I do so, or until active development on Quiver becomes evident, I can't help but feel slightly disappointed.

All that said I'm ultimately happy to have supported a developer who put out something nice with a great data format! Just being grumbly, I guess.

<comment><USER14> I've been working on Collate [https://collatenotes.com/](https://collatenotes.com/) which you may find interesting. Quiver had some influence on the feature set but I've taken the good parts and added other neat features.

Give the free demo a try and see if it works for you.

<comment><USER15> Collate looks amazing! I've been looking for exactly this, and since I use Linux rather than OS X quiver was out. Trying it out now and I'll almost definitely be purchasing.

Edit: Where can I file bug reports? :)

<comment><USER14> [https://collatenotes.com/bug-report/](https://collatenotes.com/bug-report/)

Also 0.2.4 should drop in a few days that fixes a ton of bugs. You can follow along on our roadmap here: [https://trello.com/b/Mk4OWPJo](https://trello.com/b/Mk4OWPJo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Cool, similar to a system for line-based notes I've been using happily for about a year. I call it quickref, and the command is `qr`. This is my CLI usage:

      $ qr
        show available quickref files (in directory $QR)

      $ qr topic
        show all lines from $QR/topic.txt
        a "topic" can be anything, but generally something like a language (py),
        program (blender), package (django), command (git). also things like audio,
        pdf manipulation, CLI image editing.

      $ qr topic pattern
        show all lines from topic.txt that match regex pattern

      $ qr topic term1 term2 ...
        show all lines from topic.txt that match all terms

      $ qr add topic "line with spaces"
        append "line with spaces" to topic.txt

      $ qr edit [topic1 [topic2 ...]]
        open specified topics with $EDITOR

I don't personally see much value in sharing/aggregating the note files themselves, because it's all about personalized keywords.

</comment><comment><USER17> I just took a look at the source, and I think this is the simplest non-trivial example of a Go command-line app I've seen. It's exactly what I've been looking for to get started with a tiny little project of my own.

Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER18> In the writing animation, it's strange that the notes are deleted. I expected a fake "Enter" effect so the notes scroll upward like in a cli. (You will need a few more examples so the repetition is not annoying.)

</comment><comment><USER19> I find jrnl ([http://jrnl.sh/](http://jrnl.sh/)) fits this a most other uses I have of text capture at the command line.

</comment><comment><USER20> consider spaced repetition to help the developer remember them (granted, that's a big scope change, so consider trade-offs between separate app vs embedded, etc)

<comment><USER21> if you use GTD or a similar personal productivity system you could integrate reviewing your notes into your weekly/daily review.

</comment></comment><comment> d--b Why not use

        echo "crap" >> notes.md

It even supports markdown :D

<comment><USER22> Because what if you do this:

        # Good bye, everything up to this point
        echo "crap" > notes.md

Or are in another directory

<comment><USER23> In .bashrc:

        notes() {
          echo $1 >> $HOME/notes.md
        }

Now `notes 'blah blah'` wherever.

I have a bunch of small functions like this for various things in my day-job, it helps a lot.

<comment><USER24> Beware of keeping notes without properly escaping them. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is really great, but the tagline sounds awkward. Something like "capture your most useful coding snippets" would be more to the point.

</comment><comment><USER26> Nice! I would probably use this if there were a web front end where I could browse/search all the notes I'd taken.

</comment><comment><USER27> Cool project. I use a journaling app with tags for things learned for a similar purpose.

<comment><USER16> Care to share a link?

<comment><USER27> [http://dayoneapp.com/](http://dayoneapp.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Nice, but it shouldn't be restricted to coding, I think.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's true. I guess places like [https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned) is kinda similar but more general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> A command line utility to do what can already be easily accomplished in the command line without installing anything extra... neat-o /s</comment>


Ask HN: Most comfortable keyboard? - <AUTHOR> I use Microsoft Ergonomic 4000. They keys take a lot to press, so I'm considering a mechanical keyboard like a rat7.
However, I feel the layout of most keyboards (rectangular) isn't adapted to a natural form of my hands (more open, spread away from the torso instead of closed in).
What's the best keyboard for long-term programming? <comment><USER2> I'm a fan of the Kinesis contoured keyboards, which I've been using for 15 years now.

The two major keyboard fora, which you can use to help research and discuss what would suit you, are [http://deskthority.net/](http://deskthority.net/) and [http://geekhack.org/](http://geekhack.org/)

<comment><USER3> I second the Kinesis - although, I could never get into the foot pedals.

<comment><USER4> I have one of the foot pedals, and I use it sometimes, but mostly to shock my coworkers. I never really got into the hang of using it in my day to day life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For me, not layout but key force and travel became problems. I've ended up with a Kensington keyboard... Ci73 that has a "low profile" and "laptop-type" keys/keyswitches. Much better...

The 73 is wired. They also make a wireless model; however, wireless keyboards have had security issues, particularly at the time I settled on the Kensington, and so I avoided wireless.

I have it adjusted to the "right height" behind a 3M gel wristpad model that, unfortunately, is no longer made.

Amongst the choices in this category, note that IBM and now Lenovo make a ThinkPad style external keyboard. The last I checked, there were two revisions. I think the former had an integrated trackpad while the latter did not. Opinions varied as to which was better.

YMMV. But for some, it may be worth considering key action and travel, particularly if you've ever found yourself favoring a laptop keyboard (perhaps before so many of them went "chiclet") over a desktop/external keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have a Noppoo Choc Mini. It's on the quieter side of mechanical keyboards (Cherry Reds). It's more of a typing/gaming keyboard, but I can still type 110+ WPM consistently and without pain. [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0091QOCNA/ref=wms_ohs_prod...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0091QOCNA/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

If you're looking to reduce RSI/wrist pain, I found that far more important than a keyboard is your posture and arm position. More or less: [http://www.egodevelopment.com/wp- content/uploads/2008/03/4.j...](http://www.egodevelopment.com/wp- content/uploads/2008/03/4.jpg) (I would actually have my monitor a tad higher than in that picture)

</comment><comment><USER4> It depends. I've used a lot in the ~20 years or so I've been programming; and I've come over the last decade or so to rely on the Kinesis Advantage. The big reason I chose it when I did is because it doesn't force your wrists into a positive angle, which always causes me pain.

I used to use a Model M or one of its derivatives; I also spent a lot of time on the old Sun keyboards. I never found the key action to be as important to my continued health as the physical design; I also don't use a custom layout. I'm happy with my choices, although occasionally I try something new.

</comment><comment><USER7> A mechanical one, for sure. Then, what it would matter it's the type of the switches. I use black ones, because I like gaming and it's what its for but i code a lot with it. It depends on your taste.

Probably the most comfortable but expensive ones are the Topre's capacitive switches, used on Happy Hacking keyboards, they're a mix of best quality, comfort and healthy keyboards you can acquire.

For coding, writing, experts recommend blue or brown switches, but in the end, it is our own taste what it will matter.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've been a fan of the Kinesis Freestyle keyboards for years [http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/freestyle2.htm](http://www.kinesis- ergo.com/freestyle2.htm).

They're a little more expensive than most, but totally worth the price. I never could get used to the MS Ergo keyboards, same experience, the keys take too much effort. Bonus, all of my wrist pain as disappeared since switching to the Freestyle.

</comment><comment><USER9> [http://ergodox.org/](http://ergodox.org/) you can get more info at [http://deskthority.net/workshop-f7/split-ergonomic- keyboard-...](http://deskthority.net/workshop-f7/split-ergonomic-keyboard- project-t1753.html) or geekhack.org/index.php?topic=22780.0;nowap

It's open source, but I purchased my own DIY kit a few months ago from massdrop.com

<comment><USER10> I second this, and I would third this if possible; I obtained mine through massdrop as well.

Having suffered from debilitating RSI at one point that took several months to even moderately recover from, an ergonomically sound keyboard (along with other habits) is a necessary step for satisfying best practices and not having to change careers as a result.

RSI is an extremely annoying and potentially career ending injury that is not resolvable fully through surgery, so doing everything possible to avoid ever having that is very smart.

If you ever have it you will wish you went with the ounce of prevention rather than the pound of cure route.

At one point the injury was so bad that I could not even read a book or touch a surface without searing pain; any force on my hands was agony basically and empathizing with people who have physical disabilities is accessible at a whole new level.

An unfortunate side effect of RSI/CTS is that while you appear perfectly healthy to external observers you are incapable of actually doing the same things a healthy individual can without worsening the injury and prolonging recovery in addition to the searing pain.

So be prepared for strange looks in some social situations from those unaware of your ailment.

Anyways, the ErgoDox keyboard is currently the state of the art if ergonomics is being maximized for, all other keyboards are either completely incompetently designed and effectively not designed for human beings or suffer from more flaws than the ErgoDox does.

Researching ergonomic keyboards and ways to help recover from my injury as well as avoiding having the same thing happen again revealed that most keyboards had show stopping design flaws inherited from typewriters or as a result of maximizing for cost and ease of manufacturing rather than quality and usability.

As someone who wants to avoid re-injuring myself, uses a keyboard heavily, and uses emacs and vim as much as possible I choose what keyboard to use based on these qualities:

1) Modifier keys (shift, alt, control, and in my case option fn as well as another key to act as a fifth modifier so that I have hyper and super keys in emacs) must be accessible by the strongest digit humans have: the thumb.

Designing modifier keys such that they are solely accessed by the pinky while the other fingers remain on the home row, the least durable digit, is utterly bereft of intelligence.

The Kinesis Advantage and the ErgoDox satisfy this property.

2) Modifier keys must have a mirrored layout such that they exist in the same location on both sides of the keyboard.

The ErgoDox* and Kinesis advantage satisfy this property as well as the Truly Ergonomic.

The Truly Ergonomic does not feature an island for thumb keys though.

* Note that the ErgoDox is the only one that satisfies this if the user needs more than three modifier keys (alt, shift, ctrl).

3) When the hands are on the home row, the entire hand and forearm must be aligned perpendicular to the keys,* deviating from this is main contributor to RSI and why in part laptop keyboards are not comfortable to use for long periods of time.

Split keyboard designs are the best design for satisfying this requirement for as many users' body types as possible as the different halves can be arranged the appropriate width apart.

The split keyboard design is rarely found due to manufacturing complexity as well as increased component cost.

That requirement is why most keyboards can be immediately crossed for not being designed for humans.

The ErgoDox satisfies this property; as the degree of deviation from perpendicular alignment the worse the keyboard is to use in practice.

* Note that in the case of the fingers their differing lengths may be taken account for via a sunken key design which the Kinesis Advantage utilized where the fingers curl inward comfortably

Ideally, the keyboard design would also be such that it is trivially disassembled for regular maintenance, such as removing the grime that develops over time from using the device, however I have not found any keyboard which actually has this property; it is on my wish list for a keyboard.

4) While the fourth one is not necessarily a requirement, it is very nice to have and an expectation. I expect the keyboard to have quality components, which means no rubber dome switches used. Buckling springs, mechanical switches, or capacitive switches satisfy this.

Ergonomically speaking, capacitive switches require the least force to trigger a key input, however they also have no tactile feedback by themselves and as a result there is no indication while touch typing that the key was actually pressed.

Capacitive switches are the least popular due to their cost and also the need to modify them to have some sort of tactile feedback so that the user does not bottom out the keys.

Cherry MX switches are the most popular among quality keyboards, however there are other mechanical switches available such as the Topre ones.

What switches the user will prefer varies; however the user can modify them to require less force to depress or have greater tactile feedback if they wish or simply swap them out for another switch that still fits the keyboard. The Cherry MX switches fit the ErgoDox.

Personally, I like the Cherry MX Blues, but the Cherry MX Brows that the Kinesis Advantage uses also had a nice feel; your mileage may vary here.

On top of the switches and springs used, the keycaps can be independently sourced and swapped out through various manufacturers; depending on the manufacturing process the keycaps will have different properties, some having a flat design that appears on the DAS keyboard, others having a depressed surface.

While an entirely aesthetic choice, keycaps also come in many different colors; so if the user wants keycaps with pink elephants etched on top the surface that is possible.

So far, the ErgoDox keyboard has been the keyboard I have found the least flaws with, and I now use it over my Kinesis Advantage all the time except when traveling, at which point I am resigned to the unfortunate keyboard design laptops have.

The one flaw the ErgoDox has is that the island of thumb keys are not all comfortable and not awkward to access while having the fingers on the home row.

I think that the Grand Piano keyboard design ([http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=44940.0](http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=44940.0)) will rectify that issue though, and I am very anxious to actually be able to purchase a keyboard that utilizes the design as a result.

I love my ErgoDox and consider it state of the art as previously mentioned, however Acidfire's design would have all of the features I like about the ErgoDox while fixing the issue with the thumb key placement that the ErgoDox and Kinesis Advantage have.

Fixing that will cause the thumb keys to be even more ergonomic for users like myself that want a control, shift, alt, fn, and a fifth mirrored key that is comfortable to use frequently in chords (a prominent design property in computing outside of designs employed by vi/vim).

I wish laptops followed the same design somehow while still not being massive in scale to accommodate that.

An 11" or 13" laptop with retina or better resolution with sufficient battery life to last 12+ hours per charge and an ergonomic keyboard available without using an external device is my ideal laptop, unfortunately such a laptop does not actually exist, so I will have to make due with only having 2 of those wants until then.

In addition to using an ergonomic keyboard though, I also regularly take breaks from using my hands, especially from typing and gaming, and use the colemak layout.

The workman programmer layout is hypothetically an even nicer layout for English, however not having that layout available by default in any OS is a deal breaker, so I use the colemak layout for that reason.

Using an alternative layout has not resulted in issues with touch typing in qwerty still, I can switch between the two fluently still; I was somewhat concerned that touch typing with a qwerty layout would become an issue starting out, but in practice it has not been a problem whatsoever.

I also use evil-mode in emacs and make use of meta, hyper, super, escape, shift, and control so that I can use key chords that only consist of a sequence of one modifier key plus a one non-modifier key in the vast majority of cases.

Having a hyper and super key in emacs allows me to avoid experiencing as much collisions that occur with default key bindings in emacs due to ctrl, meta, and shift becoming so overloaded in modes; I also abstract out common commands between modes to use the same chords consistently as they are not unified across emacs modes by default regrettably.

Doing so greatly reduces the solution space and required learning curve when changing between modes and states and implementing new features.

Aside from being a vim refugee, still using vim for some tasks, and being as lazy as possible to the point of aggressively eliminating anything that is redundant, potentially automated, and reducing what is reducible in effort, the reason I use evil-mode is that having access to vim's modal design makes per state bindings available as well as per mode bindings.

As a result not only do I have chords that are composed of merely two keys to issue a command thanks to having a hyper and super keys, I also often have to press only one button to accomplish a task thanks to the potency of vim's grammar.

All of these habits come together for a very comfortable and efficient computing experience with as little hazard as possible to my health without a career change, plus I have access to C-x M-c M-butterfly ([https://xkcd.com/378/](https://xkcd.com/378/)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I liked the MS Ergo but, due to an office change, needed a wireless keyboard. I switched to the Logitech wireless keyboard and have absolutely hated it. The keys are too small and I make so many mistakes while coding, and that's after a year with it. Whatever you buy, check the size against the MSFT keyboard so that you don't do what I did: get stuck with a keyboard that's too small for you.

</comment><comment><USER12> I always wanted a HHK (happy hacking keyboard, [http://www.pfusystems.com/embedded- keyboard/hhkb/index.html](http://www.pfusystems.com/embedded- keyboard/hhkb/index.html)), but it seems impossible to get one around here (Brazil).

At home I use a razer cyclosa (not mechanical, but feels really good though). At work I use a dell keyboard (with a huge spacebar, I love it).

</comment><comment><USER13> I actually prefer the feel of laptop style keys so the apple keyboards get my vote. I find the low travel and light weight touch is easier on RSI.

</comment><comment><USER14> Having mechanical switches is a mandatory keyboard feature for me (and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find others who agree)

If you want to go all out get one of these [http://www.trulyergonomic.com/](http://www.trulyergonomic.com/) (ergonomic, kinda different keyboard layout, mechanical switches). There'd be a definite learning curve.

</comment><comment><USER15> I had a coworker swear by the Das Keyboard. Very pricey but was nice on the fingers and reduce typing noise. I have had this on my list of things to buy. I use a cheap HP SK-2880 keyboard meow but it is pretty comfortable.

[http://www.daskeyboard.com/model-s- ultimate/](http://www.daskeyboard.com/model-s-ultimate/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I've been using the Kinesis Maxim for years, and I highly recommend it. It's split, adjustable (both width and height), has great keying, and is very sturdy:

[http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/max-spec.htm](http://www.kinesis-ergo.com/max- spec.htm)

</comment><comment><USER17> The Microsoft Natural is my pick. Split enough for ergonomics, good key response, not very expensive.

[http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-A11-00337-Natural- Keyboard-E...](http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-A11-00337-Natural-Keyboard- Elite/dp/B0000642RX/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Deck 82 key. Glowing yellow symbols on black keys. Smooth action. Built like a tank. It's perfect.

[http://www.deckkeyboards.com/product_info.php?products_id=30](http://www.deckkeyboards.com/product_info.php?products_id=30)

</comment><comment><USER19> Goldtouch two axis adjustable ergo keyboard for Mac (and PC):

[http://www.goldtouch.com/p-2-goldtouch-v2-adjustable- comfort...](http://www.goldtouch.com/p-2-goldtouch-v2-adjustable-comfort- keyboard-pc-mac-compatible-usb.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER20> work: Kinesis Advantage home: IBM Model M (from my first computer)

the kinesis advantage has been a huge improvement for my wrists and elbows. the large space between where my hands are positioned has probably been the greatest factor.

</comment><comment><USER21> This keyboard is extremely good. I've been using it for years and I've never gone back to anything other than this.

[http://www.logitech.com/en-us/support/illuminated- keyboard?o...](http://www.logitech.com/en-us/support/illuminated- keyboard?osid=1&bit=32)</comment>


What App.net really can be (if we let it) - <AUTHOR> http://zensavona.com/2012/what-appnet-really-can-be-if-we-let-it/

<comment><AUTHOR> Bump.</comment>


Sears is Turning Shuttered Stores into Data Centers - <AUTHOR> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/05/23/ubiquity/

<comment><USER2> This makes sense. Most of the spaces Sears is closing are obsolescent for retail uses for several reasons. There is a vast over-supply of retail space in general, partially because the boom generated construction for the sake of construction, partially because the bust reduced consumer spending and partially because of the internet.

Retail shopping has also changed. Malls are being replaced by power centers and urban core retail is being revitalized. And there's Walmart for household items and Home Depot for white goods and Dicks for athletic equimpment etc.

One of the biggest changes is the way in which stores are placed relative to catchment. Driving patterns have changed and interstate access is more important than a high traffic corner for big box retail. Sears locations were based on the old model.

That said, their locations on older arterials tends to correlate with high levels of utility infrastructure. A collapsing retail micro-environment may mean surplus utility capacity. Which reminds me that another trend making Sears commercial buildings obsolescent is the radically improved energy efficiency of modern retail design - big boxes have skylights, etc.

[edit] A bit more about power supply. Local power companies sell power. That's how they make money. Like the Sears stores are surplus retail space, they often have capacity in the wrong places. They will cut deals in exchange for a long term return - it's why they run lines to a site in the first place.

<comment><USER3> Still, it's ridiculous that Sears fumbled so thoroughly information age. Their background as a catalogue store should've positioned them perfectly for online shopping - effectively just an expansion of the catalogue concept. Having a physical storefront in tandem with a catalogue is fantastic for returns and other problems, and their full appliance service model is also still an impressive product even today.

Sears was positioned to do far better than it did, even with its anachronistic department stores. The leadership just completely fumbled the information age.

<comment><USER4> They had a head start, too: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodigy_(online_service)>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Rackspace's corp HQ is a converted old mall (the entire mall) in San Antonio [1].

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/realestate/commercial/rack...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/realestate/commercial/rackspace- revitalizes-a-defunct-mall-into-an-unorthodox-tech- campus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

<comment><USER6> Wild. I used to hang out at Windsor Park in the 80s. I still have a Rubiks Cube I bought there.

<comment><USER7> Katrina refugees put the last nail in the coffin at Windsor Park

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _"Sears and Kmart never deployed wireless on the rooftops, so there's no rooftop usage at present," he added. "There's tons of interest. I will put as many of the rooftops in play as I can."_

I wonder if they will consider covering excess space with solar PV panels? They could become a massive distributed power source, which would contribute somewhat towards the power requirements of the data centre below.

It's amazing to think of how the internet is changing cities and buildings. Reminds me of phone boxes that are being converted into other uses (such as electric vehicle recharging stations, mini-libraries and Wi-Fi hotspots) since they've been made obsolete by mobile phones.

[http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/10/spectrum-interactive- wifi...](http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/10/spectrum-interactive-wifi- hotspots-london-phone-boxe/)

<http://phys.org/news192197933.html>

[http://www.gadling.com/2012/08/19/british-phoneboxes- convert...](http://www.gadling.com/2012/08/19/british-phoneboxes-converted- into-libraries-art-spaces/)

<comment><USER9> Somewhat tangential, but still part of the core argument:

Most of the issue with power is moving it. Generating power is not trivial, but it's easier than moving power, which is still very inefficient. Distributed solar panels on the roofs of Sears facilities might offset their own carbon footprint, but it's unlikely that the power they generate would have a significant impact on the surrounding area.

This is the reason we don't have giant floating solar panels in the ocean, for example.

<comment><USER10> The bigger issue for renewables than transmission (we already transmit hydro and some nuclear power long distances) is storage and damand-matching. Conventional and nuclear plants (as well as hydro and geothermal) are _dispatchable_ power. The output can be dialed up or down to meet demand (faster for some means than others, hydro can spin on a dime, nukes and coal plants not so much).

For solar, wind, and tidal power, you get what you're given, and deal with additional demand by building overcapacity, through dispatchable power (conventional plants or biofuels in addition to hydro and geo), or by _building storage._

Building a nation-sized battery is a pretty heady task. There simply aren't sufficient mineral resources for many electrolytes (including lead) to build sufficient capacity, though some abundant salts and metals may be suitable. Efficiency matters far less than scale and cost.

Floating solar hasn't been built because solar panels have until recently been more expensive than conventional sources, and more significantly, because marine environments are _unbelievably_ harsh and electrical equipment will degrade quickly. It's far more cost-effective to simply build them on land. There's plenty of rooftops and unused acreage.

<comment><USER11> On the contrary, coal and nuclear thermal power plants take a long time to throttle up and down.

To increase the output of a thermal plant you need to increase the heat production, wait for the steam pressure to increase, then open the steam tap to increase the turbine power.

With the exception of New Zealand, which is ~80% hydro, most countries use coal for base-load, and hydro for peak generation.

Other peaking options are natural gas turbines and diesel generators, both of which are quick to start, and quick to throttle.

Additionally, Hydro power is easy to store - just leave the water behind the dam. Hydro will probably provide the national grid sized battery we will need to balance out transient generation like solar and wind.

<comment><USER10> _On the contrary, coal and nuclear thermal power plants take a long time to throttle up and down._

It's the fact that they can be throttled. _You cannot control the throttle on wind and solar._ You _can_ control the brake (how much of the generated electricity is released onto the grid). But if the motor ain't running you can't make it go. And if much of your power is dynamic and non-dispatchable, you've now got variance on _both_ the demand _and_ supply sides of your grid.

Hence: the need for storage. _If_ you can take the surplus available at times when you don't need it and store it somehow, _then_ you can match grid demand.

The problem with hydro is that there's simply not enough capacity. A small number of nations (New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden, Brazil) have large hydro capacities (and relatively small populations for the most part). For the US, and much of the rest of the world, most available hydro sites have been built out.

Other options include geothermal. There's a vast potential under Yellowstone National Park, though it's politically untenable to even contemplate tapping it (a USGS survey of US geothermal resources didn't even mention it): <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/>

Iceland, Hawaii, Japan, and Kenya also have very significant geothermal potential.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm a little surprised by this. The article implies that shuttered Sears stores already have the power and data capacity to function as a data center, but I can't imagine why. Compared to similar sized buildings (office buildings or factories, mostly), Sears retail locations don't seem to have a lot of power- or data-intensive needs.

Sears does have some amazing infrastructure (lots of square footage, locations at key transportation points in densely populated areas throughout the country, huge parking lots) but those aren't really the kind of features that data centers are usually optimizing for. I'm sure they're finding creative uses for this infrastructure, but I doubt it's anything like a data center as we think of one.

<comment><USER13> The article mentions that the target locations are standalone buildings with good fiber and power already connected. They mention 5 megawatts for one location.

I don't know why a Sears location would need lots of power (beyond tons of lights and powerful HVAC units), but I can see the need for quality and low- latency data: retail POS generates a large amount of transactional data, and you need low latency for database syncing and credit card/loyalty card transactions.

<comment><USER14> > retail POS generates a large amount of transactional data, and you need low > latency for database syncing and credit card/loyalty card transactions.

I've always been curious about what sort of infrastructure the average big-box retail store actually needs. My local Walmart can't have anything but a wireless uplink, unless they actually installed 5+ miles of fiber or something when they built the store.

<comment><USER15> This Quora answer gives a little insight in to the needs of a modern store: [http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-new-instantaneous- payment-s...](http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-new-instantaneous-payment- system-being-used-at-Target)

Also these stores basically couldn't exist without robust inventory management systems. There is probably more technology in the average big box than we realize.

<comment><USER16> I was told that every time an item is scanned at the register at any Walmart store, it updates an inventory database in near real-time (I assume there is some sort of message queue with that kind of volume and distribution). Then their system automatically places replenishment orders with their vendors when the inventory of that item goes below a certain level. They are a well-oiled machine, focused on making sure that they almost never lose any sales due to being out-of-stock, nor waste money on carrying excess inventory in their warehouses. Mismatching inventory to sales will drive a retailer out of business very quickly.

This is also part of the reason why they are able to push "everyday low prices" instead of discounts. Discounting is what you do with the excess inventory when you messed up and ordered too much of something.

<comment><USER17> The system is Retail Link and there's quite an ecosystem around it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Don't forget Rackspace turned an abandoned mall into their HQ

[http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2013/03/21/stormi...](http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2013/03/21/storming- the-castle-inside-rackspace.html?page=all)

<comment><USER19> And if anybody is looking for more photos, [http://www.rackspace.com/blog/get- an-inside-look-at-the-rack...](http://www.rackspace.com/blog/get-an-inside- look-at-the-rackspace-castle-via-google-street-view/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Interesting move -- feels like this is a natural response to the not-so-sudden realization by "normal" folks that you can get a BIG multiple on $/sqft as a data center over a more traditional tenant.

A parking lot is better than an empty lot. A warehouse is better than a parking lot. And a data center is better than a warehouse :)

The good news for us consumers is that as the supply steadily ticks up, pricing will come down (at least for space - who's to say where bandwidth costs go).

<comment><USER21> >A parking lot is better than an empty lot.

Paving paradise, &c ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It bothers me that the biggest issue I have with this article is that "blue light specials" were K-Mart, not Sears.

<comment><USER23> I guess the author thought he could get away with it since Sears and K-Mart are the same company now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Not quite retail, but Amazon's main Data Centre in Dublin is the former main warehouse used by one of Ireland's largest retailers. It's gone from being full of beans and nappies to servers full of kitten gifs.

[http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/02/09/amazo...](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/02/09/amazon- buys-dublin-site-for-data-center/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Cooling costs ! Buildings whose whole structure doesn't take data center cooling requirements into account are at a significant cost disadvantage over modern ones built specifically with cooling optimization in mind.

<comment><USER2> The buildings do not have to be full to bring in more revenue than when sitting empty. Once they pay for operating expenses, everything else is profit. In many cases, I suspect the buildings are paid for, so the value of the real-estate is a sunk cost.

These aren't going to be on Google's scale. This is Ace Hardware not Home Depot. Optimization scales accordingly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Now, all they need to do is to turn all the ghostmalls into hackerspaces and we are on to something.

<comment><USER10> I think that's Makers: <http://craphound.com/makers/>

One of the few fiction books I've read in recent years that's bent my mind.

<comment><USER26> Where do you think I stole the idea from? Great book.

<comment><USER10> It's a good enough book to make the association concrete.

Agreed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm not sure I understand this. Retail real estate is all about increasing footfall, not just the size of it. Hence why you see the airport bombarded with shopping nowadays. Unless there are particular Sears locations that don't see benefit from adjacent footfalling (just made that word up) retail outlets, then it makes sense. But then it wouldn't make sense for Sears to be there in the first place if the footfall opportunity wasn't there or couldn't be created there.

<comment><USER28> Times change, I've seen this locally. In the US Midwest, various metro areas have lost population over the last couple decades. As a result, they don't need as much retail space to support the current population. Something has to give. The Sears closest to me is attached to a condemned mall. Sears stays open because they own the building though. The reason they're there is because originally, the mall was _the_ place to be for retail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm not surprised at all, given the Sears real estate portfolio. In Indianapolis, a company converted an old mall into a data center, and it seems to be working pretty well [1]. Retail buildings probably have a decent connection to the power grid, so it would really make sense to make use of the open spaces.

[1] [http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2012/10/30/lifel...](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2012/10/30/lifeline- data-centers-announces-second-phase-at-former-shopping-mall/)

</comment><comment><USER30> the erosion of shopping malls continues.

warrants noting that malls require anchor tenants to work. It's the convenience of to being able to go to one location and get clothes, tools, make-up, music, videos, books, etc, that makes malls work. I know people have been predicting the demise of the shopping mall since their introduction but this will be interesting to watch.

</comment><comment><USER31> I realize they have a building with lots of empty square footage, but how do they get enough power, bandwidth, cooling, etc?

Data centers built by Google, Facebook, etc. seem to all be built from the ground up, and close to things like power plants.

<comment><USER32> Also, wouldn't the premium of leasing or owning "retail" style property make the cost of maintaining the building too costly? I don't think Sears needs a datacenter on main street, or within a strip-mall.

After RTFA I pulled this:

"Farney acknowledges that many of Sears' mall-based retail locations aren't viable for data center usage. "I don't think the industry is yet ready for a mall-based data center," he said. "That may take some time. The stand-alone location is optimal.""

It seems they are considering it more for certain stand-alone locations.

<comment><USER2> The real-estate deed for any mall location almost certainly precludes such uses by covenant. If they didn't, Sears would never have bought the property in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The challenge I see here is power provisioning. With the space that a Sears store offers, you'd be hard pressed to put 10 to 50 MW of power into it. But perhaps if you already have the land covered smaller things are more desirable.

</comment><comment><USER34> But will they be using all those CompuServe disks they never sold as hipster coasters? That's what I want to know.

</comment><comment><USER35> Tomorrow:

Google buys SEARS, register as a new G4 provider.

</comment><comment><USER36> Good use of the sites.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is an opportunity where they could usher in a new glorious era of personal cloud computing that solves the problem of the government basically owning your hardware, software, and the usage of your software if the government catches you (or the software) so much as jaywalk.

Instead of selling floor space, they could subdivide the space like the "storage building" units. The customers could pay for a rack, and they would need a key to access it. Legally the hardware, software and data would be owned by the owner, and not the government. Anyone else would need a warrant to come in and rape your data, software, and hardware just like if the server was next to my bed.

Part of the reason why I have all my servers in places I own is because of this problem. This is a brief opportunity to explore cloud computing and give the communists and socialists who want everyone to share a common purse on the computing front a black eye.

My pain point is "I want boat loads of CPU cycles and Internet connection speeds, and I want physical legal ownership of the rack space, hardware, software, AND data, and I don't want to have to buy a building that I have to air condition, power, internet connect, secure, and pay taxes on.

<comment><USER38> _This is a brief opportunity to explore cloud computing and give the communists and socialists who want everyone to share a common purse on the computing front a black eye._

Wow, where did that come from?

Cloud computing is communist now? I could have sworn otherwise.

<comment><USER39> I'm pretty sure that it's more of a window into the poster's psyche rather than an observation of fact (esp. based on the next post.) I guess right-wing totalitarian dictatorships _don't_ want to read your mail?

<comment><USER40> Your comment is a bit of a window into yours - disparaging remarks made against the left wing don't imply support of the right wing.

<comment><USER41> Read their second post - that person is either very, let's say, eccentric, or under the influence of a psychedelic.

<comment><USER40> Yeah, I made that reply before I saw that second post. It doesn't really change much though - something tells me he's not a supporter of totalitarian right-wing rule either.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The deal With Dirt Cheap Dirty Boards PCBs - <AUTHOR> http://dangerousprototypes.com/2014/04/16/the-deal-with-dirty-cheap-dirty-boards-pcbs/

<comment><USER2> The 'Dirty Cables' business could be a huge win for the DIY market, it is a real weak point that folks are constrained to existing cables. With a custom cable you can build interconnects effectively that enable multi-board projects (like the old Cupcake 3D printer from Makerbot) without weird wiring harnesses. _That_ is a cool thing to be coming down the pipe.

<comment><USER3> I don't quite understand this comment. It's true that cabling can be labor- intensive and require expensive equipment to do properly, but making custom cables isn't really difficult. Certainly not to the point that I'd say they are "constrained to existing cables."

I've had a weird fascination with cable-making ever since I started using large circular connectors so I looked at the Cupcake build sequence guide for cabling. It is odd that they specified RJ45 connectors in some cases, but I put that down to their low cost. Is this what you're referring to?

<comment><USER2> Typically DIY inter-board cabling is either insulation displacement (IDC), some sort of DB-9/15/25 or a variant of RJ-11/12/45\. Heathkit used to have folks build cables with Molex KK crimp on connectors (which was very time consuming) but you could combine things like power lines (AWG22) and signal lines (AWG28) into the cable bundle. Today there is a tremendous number of connectors for which making your own cable is problematic at best, for example the .5mm spaced IDC cables, or the FFC connectors like the camera connector on the RasPi. I looked into getting an LVDS connector for LCDs (typical laptop screen) to something more DIY friendly, tooling was $2500, and cables would be $25 each, minimum 10) Did I want to invest nearly $3K to get one cable? No, but if enough people were interested it gets to be lower cost. Setting up that infrastructure as a service (making cables in small to medium quantity) would be, in my opinion, quite aweseome.

<comment><USER3> OK, I see now

I missed that because all of my cabling needs are easily met by manual assembly: most custom cables I make are for CPC (Circular Plastic Connector) "Cannon" type connectors and the Series III contacts are still doable by hand (although machines do a much better job of crimping). 2mm pitch connectors are the limit of my ability.

My biggest problem is doing a good job in volume. Thankfully I've found a wire processor with very low setup fees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What's the difference to iteadstudio, seedstudio or elecrow? I ordered boards from these three and found them excellent! Pricing is similar. But the more of these services, the better I guess.</comment>


Show HN: Submit a Claim to the TSA - <AUTHOR> http://tsaclaim.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN, here's the accompanying blog post that talks about the project: [https://medium.com/@austinhutchison/citizen-experience- sf-95...](https://medium.com/@austinhutchison/citizen-experience- sf-95-712c08a2aed7#.ajgtjc6nv)

The experience filing a claim with the TSA is painful, I've tried to make it less so. Hope to get some great feedback.</comment>