What did Edward Snowden get wrong? Everything - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0811-liepman-snowden-and-classified-informat-20130811,0,2610260.story <comment><USER2> > This is done under tight and well-thought-out strictures. I witnessed > firsthand the consequences of breaking the privacy rules of my former > organization, the National Counterterrorism Center. As the center's deputy > director, I had to fire people, good people, and remove others from their > posts for failing to follow the rules about how information could be > accessed and used.

1\. We know from these leaks that is little to no practical control over access to all communications data, only a process that could simply be ignored without oversight. Andrew Liepman does not address this at all.

2\. Liepman makes no argument whatsoever as to why a warrant is no longer required to get access to our 'hay', as he puts it.

3\. It's fairly established the US is collecting the actual contents of private communications as well as meta data, Andrew Liepman strangely limits his discussion to metadata (which is also sensitive but less so).

4\. Andrew Liepman is publicly arguing for the abolition of the forth Amendment, and perhaps other parts of the US constitution, and perhaps also the United States itself. We have no idea whether Andrew Liepman is planning violent action against Americans, and need to arm ourselves with the tools to protect ourselves from men like him who seek to do harm against the United States of America.

</comment><comment><USER3> Having our communication intercepted, stored, and analyzed en masse is not bad because of whoever is in office today. It's bad because someone different, someone with less scruples, could be in office tomorrow.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I actually believe that the people in charge of this stuff today are at least _trying_ to be careful about what they're doing with the information they've collected. But once the infrastructure to surveil, analyze, and more importantly _store for all eternity_ everybody's communication is in place, you're leaving an awfully tempting pot of gold for the people in power a decade from now. _That 's_ who I don't trust.

In either case, saying mass surveillance and archiving of everybody's personal communications is OK because "trust me guys, I'm for realsies not gonna screw you" is ignorant at best and despicable at worst. I didn't elect this guy and I've never met him, and he doesn't have my interest at heart--his interests are catching terrorists, and soon _everybody 's_ going to be a terrorist. We're already calling nonviolent nuns terrorists: [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/protesting-n...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/protesting- nuns-branded-terrorists/?page=all)

<comment><USER4> > I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I actually believe that the people in > charge of this stuff today are at least trying to be careful about what > they're doing with the information they've collected.

They're passing intelligence to the DEA and IRS for domestic crimes, with orders from the top of the DOJ to hide that intelligence from everyone, even the courts, and only use it to construct a parallel case to prosecute with. I don't believe that's "trying to be careful" with the information. That's a blatant abuse of our legal system.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team- intel...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence- laundering)

<comment><USER5> Yup. We don't have to wait 10 years. The people with less scruples are in office now already abusing the system. If these are the norms of acceptable behavior now, I fear what they are going to consider acceptable (ab)use of the system in 10 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The author writes that, even though abuses are possible, they aren't happening and won't happen because, not only is the intelligence apparatus not interested in the mission-irrelevant data which could be abused, but those in a position to abuse are policed internally to ensure abuse doesn't happen.

Assuming this is all true, here's a thought experiment: in the event that this was no longer true and abuses were occurring, how would the public ever know? Since this entire process is impenetrably opaque to anyone on the outside, the public has only the assurances of those folks running these programs.

<comment><USER7> That is exactly the problem with these people: they refuse to acknowledge basic logic, so such a thought experiment is beyond them.

<comment><USER8> Does our discussion really benefit from comments attacking "these people" just for the sake of criticizing them?

Please don't take this personal, I'm not a US citizen and I don't like the NSA capturing and archiving my personal, "private" information either, but what do we get from just venting our anger in an online forum?

<comment><USER7> Suggest an alternative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The thing that this OP-ed misses is that the fear around this surveillance is that once we're done with terrorism, the "haystack" of data will be searched for tax fraud, drug deals, etc. If the writer of the op-ed could address those fears, this would actually be an enlightening read, not just a boilerplate response from someone in the intelligence community.

<comment><USER10> I wonder when the well-connected neighbourhood white knights will get access to that information, and at that point we'll truly be in Hell. Voting records are currently anonymous, but what of our personal opinions? Some publicly identify as a certain political persuasion, but privately they identify another political persuasion.

For example, there are people who truly believe in communism but any public endorsement of it is dangerous, and others adhere to economic conservatism but their feelings extend farther towards libertarianism.

What about when our neighbours attack us based on our online conversations? It's not as uncommon as you could think, gerrymandering and the electoral college already stir up seething and venomous hatred of The Other Party(TM).

It's not a matter of _if_ the NSA's treasure-trove of information leaks out, but _when_.

Imagine for a moment if Zimmerman were as evil as the media paints him, and, instead of callously shooting the Treyvon boy, he queried the local PRISM data distribution centre. He could instead engage in a smear campaign against the young man. In retaliation, Treyvon's allies gather data on Zimmerman that indicates he's a bisexual and he's a swinger with his wife. These "data wars" may seem far-fetched, but lately I've been feeling a bit more paranoid than usual.

How about job discrimination? Surely your _public_ online activity can directly influence the kind of jobs you can get, but the _private_ online activity could permanently damage your career prospects. Vetting processes nowadays check for a variety of red flags that are unrelated to activities that pertain to your job. Imagine if your entire browser history -- including the things you say, in addition to the websites you visit -- is indexed and stored in perpetuity. _And it 's all completely outside of your control._

Now let's take this a step further. The TSA manages a no-fly list that is well-known for false positives, and victims have no recourse over this at all. Now imagine that false positives occurred during job vetting processes and your job application is silently denied because someone else's unpleasant online activities were accidentally linked to your own. _Again, you have no control over this, and you also have no recourse._ There is nothing you can do to remedy the situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> >Let me break this to you gently. The government is not interested in your conversations with your aunt, unless, of course, she is a key terrorist leader.

I'm quickly becoming the go-to person for "what about the foreigners" comments, but I couldn't let this one pass:

By thst logic, since the NSA is tasked with spying on any foreigner without any kind of warrant or safeguard, all foreigners are key terrorist leaders, at least in the eyes of NSA employees/the USG.

Addendum: "Let me break this to you gently" was not a very reassuring thing to read from an ex-spook. Apparently, we're stupid and the intelligence community has to nudge us out of our stupidity with an additional helping of condescendence.

</comment><comment><USER12> > _But the intelligence community — always a less sympathetic protagonist than > a self-styled whistle-blower — actually has a good story to tell about how > seriously the government takes privacy issues. We should tell it._

Ok. Go on. Better late than never, right? Or is the condescending paternalistic boilerplate you stuffed this op-ed with your "good story?"

</comment><comment><USER13> He's actually wrong. If you read the executive orders that set up the legal basis for the classification system, it says to err on the side of lowering classification. I.e. not everything should be classified.

<comment><USER13> Sec. 1.2 (c) [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive- order-c...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order- classified-national-security-information)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Propaganda-filled statist bullshit. Appeals to authority, and uses ridiculous examples to justify it.

> But I worry less about what happens to this one man and more about the > damage Snowden has done — and could still do — to America's long-term > ability to strike the right balance between privacy and security.

The only valid balance is 100% privacy. A government that violates its citizens' privacy is not acting legitimately.

> Ever since Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency, > leaked top-secret material about its surveillance programs, he and the U.S. > government have locked horns about the nature of those programs.

He's trying to rephrase the story to be one of Snowden vs. the U.S. rather than the U.S. government vs. the people.

> Second, despite the grumbling from Snowden and his admirers, the U.S. > government truly does make strenuous efforts not to violate privacy, not > just because it respects privacy (which it does), but because it simply > doesn't have the time to read irrelevant emails or listen in on > conversations unconnected to possible plots against American civilians.

If it's archiving them, it has all the time in the world, and can search through them at later times and forward information to relevant agencies. And we already know this happens with the DEA and IRS, so his argument here is even more irrelevant.

> I know firsthand that Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA director, is telling the > truth when he talks about plots that have been preempted and attacks that > have been foiled because of intelligence his agency collected.

It doesn't matter how many attacks they believe they have foiled, that doesn't justify dragnet surveillance. Nothing does.

> Let me break this to you gently. The government is not interested in your > conversations with your aunt, unless, of course, she is a key terrorist > leader.

Trying to sideline the issue by suggesting ordinary people only talk about irrelevant things. What about journalists, politicians, political activists, and people who commit victimless crimes? As noted in a fantastic article by Moxie Marlinspike, laws can't be overturned without people breaking those laws: drug laws won't be overturned without people breaking the laws and using the drugs and wanting them to be legal, etc.

> Unfortunately, during the Snowden affair, many news outlets have spent more > time examining ways the government could abuse the information it has access > to while giving scant mention to the lengths to which the intelligence > community goes to protect privacy. We have spent enormous amounts of time > and effort figuring out how to disaggregate the important specks from the > overwhelming bulk of irrelevant data.

"Trust us. We have a policy." Not everyone is guaranteed to always follow that policy, and it's a secret policy, with no legitimate oversight.

<comment><USER14> > The only valid balance is 100% privacy. A government that violates its > citizens' privacy is not acting legitimately.

What do you mean by "100% privacy"? For instance, are wiretaps authorized by a warrant from a district court OK, or do those violation your 100% privacy condition?

<comment><USER12> Modern crypto offers 100% privacy if you do it right. How would you enforce a court order to tap a conversation that's encrypted and the keys are discarded after use? It's tantamount to a court order to defy gravity. Sure, you can write such a document, and it might be constitutional to write such a document and you might even throw someone in jail for contempt for disobeying such an order. But... so what?

<comment><USER5> At the end of the day whatever crime you are trying to get them for is occurring in the real world as well. All that physical evidence should help with convictions.

When there is a murder, there is a body. When there is a rape, there is a victim. When there is a robbery, there are stolen goods. When drug trafficking has occurred, there are drugs. When there is child porn, there is a child involved. When there is a network breakin, there are server logs. When there is drug or bomb manufacture, there are raw materials.

The police should be able to put people in jail based entirely on evidence of a crime without ever having to rely on anything a potential suspect has said or written. If that's the only way they can put someone away, I question how much of an actual crime has even occurred. If you can't come up with physical evidence, has society suffered enough harm for it to be even worth jailing that person?

If all the physical evidence is still not enough for a conviction, then get a warrant and observe everything you can about that person of interest the old fashioned way. Eavesdrop on them with bugs (but don't remotely activate a backdoor in a phone that shouldn't exist). Stake out police officers at their house. Do undercover work. etc.

Will some people get away with their crimes? Certainly. And that's okay. That's the cost society pays for their privacy. Police work is expected to be expensive. The cost of investigative work is something that provides checks and balances to abuse. A corrupt individual will have a very hard time hiding the misappropriation of police resources for political or personal reasons. If you need to stake out cops at a politicians house to get dirt on them to blackmail with, that probably won't happen. If you can just type an email into the system, then the barrier is so low to committing such an abuse and the likelihood of getting caught so low, that you can be sure that that abuse will happen.

Also, keeping the cost high ensures that only those people who actually are terrorists, like active members of Al Quada are investigated. Right now the bar for investigation is so low that there has been a massive re- categorization of many domestic groups such as Occupy WallStreet as terrorists to be surveilled.

I have absolutely no qualms with paying more taxes to hire more detectives as the alternative to making sure that we catch the terrorists. Having a high price to pay for investigations forces us as a society to ask the hard question of what we actually think is worth investigating and what is merely a nuisance for some that we can live with. Paying for those investigations with our privacy is entirely too high a cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Second, despite the grumbling from Snowden and his admirers, the U.S. government truly does make strenuous efforts not to violate privacy"

How can this guy be so sure? More importantly, how can WE be sure? It's all secret.

<comment><USER16> And over that, they made perfectly clear that they don't care at all about privacy of foreing people (or the people connected with them in any way), in fact the main focus of the surveillace are european countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I actually believe a lot of what he is saying about the culture of US intelligence agencies. I'd bet that there's little to none of people, for example, extorting people by threatening to expose their fetish-porn habits. I'll even believe that the people who work there care about protecting privacy (insofar as one can when you work at an agency that keeps everybody's communications on hard drives). But there needs to be some oversight. There should be people from outside the Executive Branch with some actual power watching them. If you believe in the US's mass surveillance programs, then you should be willing to concede that, at the _bare minimum_ , this much should happen.

Of course, I don't think the mass collection should be going on at all. That data is too easily abused. If someone takes control of it who has less integrity, is less interested (or able) to prevent violation and corruption, then we have a massive problem. I believe this is what Snowden was referring to when he mentioned "turnkey tyranny".

<comment><USER4> Most ordinary people will never be on their radar. That's usually the case, even under tyrannical regimes. But that ignores the journalists, the lawyers, the rival politicians, the activists, the dissidents…

<comment><USER18> True, though historically in the U.S., the FBI has been the agency where those kinds of abuses show up. The foreign intelligence agencies have had more of a culture of viewing domestic affairs as petty and beneath them.

Trusting a three-letter agency's cultural norms isn't very solid protection, admittedly.

<comment><USER4> The NSA now does intelligence collection for the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> " _Let me break this to you gently. The government is not interested in your conversations with your aunt, unless, of course, she is a key terrorist leader._ "

Let us contrast this with what Hayden's remarks were (after which going on to compare the following group to Al Qaeda and the attack on 9/11 if you watched the speech [lets not forget the DoD internal report that came out recently about how the DoD is currently funding them [0], but that is neither here nor there…]):

" _Nihilists, anarchists, activists, Lulzsec, Anonymous, twenty-somethings who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years._ "

I guess this career CIA officer didn't get the memo that "terrorist" will be used when it is convenient.

[0] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-30/al-qaeda-backers- fo...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-30/al-qaeda-backers-found-with-u- s-contracts-in-afghanistan.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> >(The NSA) simply doesn't have the time to read irrelevant emails or listen in on conversations unconnected to possible plots against American civilians.

Possible "plotters against American civilians": -Occupy -animal-rights protesters -environmentalists -tax evaders -prominent politicians ([http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-york-times-nsa- ag...](http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-york-times-nsa-agent-was- reading)) -whistleblowers

<comment><USER21> human rights groups, eff, labour rights groups, black and latino leaders, etc.

We're talking about the kind of people keeping tabs and working against people like MLK.

In a country were some random governor can censor Howard Zinn from school libraries...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > I wish I could tell people the amazing things I witnessed during my 30 years > in the CIA, that I've never seen people work harder or more selflessly, that > for little money and long hours, people took it for granted that their flaws > would be scrutinized and their successes ignored.

30 years? Then those flaws include helping overthrow a democratically elected government in my country, among many others. That's a kind of flaw that needs to be scrutinized and prevented at any cost.

</comment><comment><USER23> > I realize many Americans don't trust their government. I wish I could change > that. I wish I could tell people the amazing things I witnessed during my 30 > years in the CIA, that I've never seen people work harder or more > selflessly, that for little money and long hours, people took it for granted > that their flaws would be scrutinized and their successes ignored.

It takes far more than doing Good to earn trust. You must also not do Bad.

</comment><comment><USER24> The "I know secret stuff and you guys just have to believe me" doesn't cut it.

The CIA have a pretty atrocious record. Gun and drug running, undermining other countries democracies because they don't toe the Washington line, funding and founding Al-Qaeda through its proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan.

Really this guy need go take a long walk of a short bridge.

What is really sad is that they all think like this. He isn't an isolated case.

</comment><comment><USER25> 4th Amendment says warrants are supposed to be specific. I don't have the background, years of reading or sophistication to understand how the general Verizon and other warrants are constitutional, so I believe these programs are unconstitutional. So this opinion piece is falling on my deaf ears.

They need to figure out how to do this constitutionally, at least at the broad institutional and program level, or not at all.

</comment><comment><USER26> "and if the goal is security, the harsh truth is that we should often err toward more secrets rather than fewer."

I thought the ongoing debate was to determine whether the security afforded by the secrets is worth it if it means establishing a surveillance state. The goal is not security at any cost, is it?

<comment><USER27> The actual truth is that we should err towards fewer secrets rather than more, because _secrets make you stupid_.

When the President and the people around him are acting on secret information, they have to lie about why they do things and they have to parse all response and criticism of their actions through a "if he knew what I know, would he still think that?" filter. The upshot is the President can be making boneheaded mistakes and utterly incapable of recognizing it because the relevant subject-matter experts that could TELL him this aren't part of the security apparatus - they can't tell him his "secret" info is bogus.

And the secret info the president sees isn't neutral. It gets assembled for him by people who _have a point of view_ so he's likely to see the info that supports what other people want him to think or what other people think he wants to hear. So it's easy to get stuck in an error cascade, where everybody inside the tent has a false view like "Saddam Hussein has nukes" which anybody outside the tent can see is idiotic.

The solution to this problem is transparency. Get rid of the secrets and our politicians instantly get a lot smarter and more able to notice and learn from their mistakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Yes, some things that are classified probably don't need to be. That may > undermine public trust and dilute our ability to protect the data that > really need protecting.

Import things that need protecting like the fact that the secret FISC court thinks what the NSA is doing is illegal -- that kind of important secrets. ([https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says- secret...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court- opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay))

</comment><comment><USER29> Well, this great, because it's a discussion about _what_ Snowden leaked, and not about which hotel he's staying in.

Apparently, the debate finally got big enough that those who support the NSA's actions feel the need to defend themselves, in detail, and not just oneliners. This is an open debate, in the media, very different from e.g. Alexander's talk on Black Hat.

Sure, we all disagree with him, here on HN. That's not the point. Everyone reading this can make up their own mind. The point is Snowden's leak is starting to have the desired effect.

</comment><comment><USER30> There are two issues here. The first issue is the author telling us that yes, there are real threats and that these systems have made the country safer. I fully agree with him here.

The second issue is whether these systems can continue functioning in a free society. Here we part ways. He wants to convince me by stressing that his personal experience is such that it's obvious. Once again, I have no doubt that he's telling the truth. The problem is that a democracy doesn't run on magic people having special knowledge that the average citizen is denied. Sure, we need secrets, but we can't have so much information under control by the people that have the power to imprison us. It just won't work, terrorism or no terrorism. (Although short term and on a small scale, sure, you can get away with it)

You can see the problem with this ends-justifies-the-means thinking when you think of all the other uses such a system could have helped. How can the government use this only for terrorism, and not murder trials? Why not civil cases? The problem isn't that the world is full of conspiracy-weaving ill- informed people; it's that this relationship of government to the people is _non-functional_ over the long term.

</comment><comment><USER31> What has the USG done that would engender this level of (misguided) trust??

"Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is good will and kind conduct more speedily changed." ― John Jay, The Federalist Papers

</comment><comment><USER32> If I might ask a meta-question, how could this story have gotten on the front page? The vast majority of the comments vehemently disagree with it.

<comment><USER33> Voting an article up implies interest, not agreement. People vote an article up to see it discussed more thoroughly. And, if they disagree with it, to have it get slapped down roundly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> What did the LA Times get wrong? Everything.

<comment><USER4> To be fair, the LA Times has been fairly good in covering this issue overall. This is an op-ed by a career intelligence officer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> What about the numerous lies about the existence and scope of domestic spying and data-gathering?

The existence of domestic spying is not at all surprising to me, but lying about it to the American people is deeply unfortunate.

</comment><comment><USER36> > The conspiracy buffs are too busy howling in protest at the thought that > their government could uncover how long they spent on the phone with their > dear aunt. Let me break this to you gently. The government is not interested > in your conversations with your aunt, unless, of course, she is a key > terrorist leader.

Let me break this to you gently. The president of the United States would never send burglars into the opposing political parties national headquarters to ransack the place and conduct espionage, in addition to many other covert and illegal actions, in an attempt to force the next presidental election his way. If the FBI and press began uncovering this, he would never abuse executive powers to strongarm the FBI, have congressmen of the same party attack television media licenses of the media companies reporting this etc. Oh yaa, this actually did happen. Within my lifetime.

It's good to hear the CIA can be trusted. In the 1980s, Congress banned the US from sending money to terrorists who were fighting to overthrow the elected government of Nicaragua. Terrorists who killed Americans like Ben Linder. Oliver North joined the National Security Council and began secretly funding these terrorists in violation of Congressional mandate. When it became public he was doing this and Congress began investigating, North testified CIA director William Casey shred all documents pertaining to his illegal activity, so that Congress could not find out what had happened.

The average American has no idea what it means when it leaks out that fibre optic beam splitters are making records of our conversations and data connections, or how something like XKeyscore work. We have a better idea of what is actually happening in this respect, which is why we have some extra concern. And a more realistic view of what is happening, despite what this former-CIA Rand Corp. apparatchik says.</comment>


Are Web Interfaces "Good Enough"? - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000815.html <comment><USER2> "Ajax improves the experience a lot, but it has limits and I suspect we've already seen most of the tricks that Ajax is going to offer."

This will be the new "640k ought to be enough for everyone"

<comment><USER3> Yes, I agree with you there. Never estimate what hackers can do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a good post. I especially like the conversation around Eckel's point about Flash perhaps being better suited for Web apps than DHTML/JS. I can't really put my finger on it very well, but Flash apps just don't feel real. I never really get the sense that I'm the one controlling the application.

<comment><USER5> I know the feeling. The same feeling I had back when people were still writing java applets. Maybe a normal user doesn't feel it- maybe it's the programmer in us knowing that there's a big layer running between me and the browser...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Certainly a good read-

While I tend to be a bit of a details oriented person when it comes to UI, the most important aspect is reducing friction to the user.

If a user has to go to your website, download a plugin, wait for it to install, restart their browser, and then go back, you're going to lose them. This is the same problem when it comes to downloading an application. You want to make it as easy as possible to get things going, as quickly as possible.

Ajax gives users this- Flash is useful, and with Flex may gain inrodes into whole-application development, but It's still hairy- While flash is installed in a huge portion of desktops, most of them have old versions..

Using it also ties you to technology owned by a company other than you. This is a key point- Look what Adobe has done with Acrobat- It's a great format, but for YEAR it got slower with each revision.. If this happens with Flash, there's nothing you can do about it. It's a closed standard, and you don't own it.

At least with browsers, users have a choice of implementation..

Adding Flash adds a layer of abstration- Each time you do that, you lose a bit of control.

I'd rather use a Ajax toolkit like GWT- Even if Google screws up, it's OSS, and I can fork from the version that worked well for me.

<comment><USER7> e1ven: have you used GWT? Any reactions/feelings about it? The debugging environments seem particularly appealing (especially for me - I'm a (very) experienced programmer, but not w/ web apps..

Also interesting is that while you could fork a version, since it compiles to JS and HTML, you could always just hack up the results when the going got really tough.

<comment><USER6> I've done a VERY small amount with GWT, but I've been reading the Mailing List since the announcement.. I plan on using it in the next project, but I don't have the Experience yet.

Beyond the fact that it's open, there's also that you can tie in other JS libs- So you have a lib you really like, you can import it's functions into JS, and use them as part of your application.

And while I agree that you could hack up the HTML/JS, that'd get really hairy for complex stuff- Although I think some people are doing that now to break things up better into modules.

<comment><USER7> Hacking the compiled code, would, as always be a last resort..</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Brilliant hack: Cool demo using an oscilliscope as the display (vid) - <AUTHOR> http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2007/08/youscope_oscilloscope_dem.html

<comment><USER2> Wow that is incredible!

> The explanation under the video doesn't pass my bullshit-o-meter.

Download the FLAC file and try for yourself then :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe he took inspiration from this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television>

I'll be brutally honest: Not cool. It's old and boring and not in the least difficult. The software is what would've taken a while to make, and even that would theoretically consist of little more that two for loops to scan through each frame of video and output it to the audio jack.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how it was done. The explanation under the video doesn't pass my bullshit-o-meter.

<comment><USER5> Why? The oscilloscope has an x and y input to control the spot and it's controlled by the sound card output. I'm curious to know what about the explanation you don't find believable.

<comment><USER4> The explanation leads me to believe they're trying to say that the music you're listening to was fed in to the oscilloscope, and that produced the pretty images and text, which is clearly not what happened.

Thinking about it some more, I suppose they wrote a program to manipulate the soundcard output, but I'm still interested in the specifics.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon in talks to buy cybersecurity startup Sqrrl - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/scoop-amazon-in-talks-to-buy-cybersecurity-startup-sqrrl-2518230342.html <comment><USER2> Strange that a company with $30m in vc funding would be sold for just north of $40m. Not sure if that's accurate</comment>


Glyphosate Found in California Wines, Even Wines Made with Organic Grapes - <AUTHOR> http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/27/monsanto-glyphosate-wine/ <comment><USER2> I am somehow confused. Are there anorganic grapes? Doesn't "grape" imply "organic"?

For clarification, im not a native english speaker.

<comment><USER3> Besides the definition you know, "organic" is a certification label used to brand crops grown that meet certain standards. Not using chemical fertilizers or pesticides is one of those standards[0].

[0] It's more nuanced than that, but it's good enough for this explanation.</comment></comment>


Want to Work for Jaguar Land Rover? Start Playing Phone Games - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/business/jaguar-land-rover-app-puzzles.html <comment><USER2> "They're very attractive in attracting candidates and keeping the short attention span of millennials. That's not an insignificant challenge."

Hmm. Wonder why they can't find anyone to work for them?

</comment><comment> UK-AL I work very close to them and looked at their job offerings. Their salaries are 'ok', increasing their salaries would make the largest difference.

</comment><comment><USER3> Will you get a job at their security department if you were able to hack the game?</comment>


Who Art Thou, Shakespeare? - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/who-art-thou-shakespeare/2019/05/22/94f27386-7bdb-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html <comment><USER2> Funny -- I just got through reading this: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/who- is-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/who-is- shakespeare-emilia-bassano/588076/)

<comment><USER3> Rather dubious line of reasoning though: Shakespeare writes women well, so he must have been a woman. Sure, but he also writes young men, old men, kings, drunkards, commoners, jews, moors and wizards very well. Maybe he was just a great writer?

<comment><USER2> It's not just that; it's also the absence of contemporaneous accounts of him actually writing anything. Doesn't it seem odd that he wasn't celebrated as a writer during his lifetime?

<comment><USER3> We don't have a lot of evidence about the details of Shakespeare life, which is not really surprising give the time period. And the article actually acknowledges with a few quotes that he _was_ celebrated.

I'm very skeptical about arguments based on what evidence "should" exist for historical events. _Why_ is is weird or surprising we don't have any plays in Shakespeare own handwriting? It is quite possible that Shakespeare didn't write much down himself and the manuscript have have was written down by someone else, e.g. some of his actors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://archive.is/LzGGh](http://archive.is/LzGGh)</comment>


Overcommit: A fully configurable and extendable Git hook manager - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> here's the link: [https://github.com/brigade/overcommit](https://github.com/brigade/overcommit)

thank me later ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah bummer! I can't edit links or delete this. I guess best option is to let it die.</comment></comment>


Ancient Computers in Use Today - <AUTHOR> https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224415/If_It_Ain_t_Broke_Don_t_Fix_It_Ancient_Computers_in_Use_Today

<comment><USER2> Single page link for those who would rather not read an article split up into five parts:

[https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9224415/If_It_...](https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9224415/If_It_Ain_t_Broke_Don_t_Fix_It_Ancient_Computers_in_Use_Today?taxonomyName=Hardware&taxonomyId=12)</comment>


Ask HN: my plan to create premium iPhone app on tight budget - <AUTHOR>

Ok, so here's the deal: I don't know how to program, but I've got some great iPhone app ideas that I'm sure will do well. (I know, I know, don't we all)
I'm trying to figure out how I can create a top-notch app on a low-price contractor budget.
I know I can get competent low-cost iOS programmers on odesk, but they're not going to know how to design the app and take advantage of all iOS features.
What I'm looking to do is hire a top-notch developer as a "consultant" on a short-term basis. I will explain how I want the app to work, and they will tell me the best way to develop the app, and any pitfalls I need to watch out for.  They will also provide a detailed outline of how it should be coded.
I can then use their outline and manage the project myself while working with the low cost contractors.
Does this sound like a plan that should work? Do you think top-notch app developers would be willing to do this? <comment><USER2> Even if you receive a plan for an application from a "top-notch" developer, work outputted by low-cost contractors, especially on oDesk or Elance, will still be terrible. If you want a quality application, with care and love put into it, you will have to pay a quality price.

I've personally been involved as a consultant in a job situation like this, and the client eventually just let me develop and program the application after he spent over a thousand dollars getting sub-par results from external developers. Even if you have something beautifully planned out and ready to be executed, like he did, there are still a world of things that could go wrong by hiring a lower cost developer.

<comment><AUTHOR> What if the app is relatively simple?

<comment><USER2> What would you consider to be simple? Paying for a developer to come up with a plan and then find someone else to execute it might be more complicated and costly than just going with one pricier developer. Would you be able to provide samples of what your going for (change the idea, obviously, provide links to sample apps, etc)?

<comment><AUTHOR> It would be similar to a guessing game. Where users guess based on photos that are shown.

<comment><USER2> Depending on how you provide the data for to the game, that doesn't sound too difficult. Just make sure the contractor knows how to make it look (provide graphical assets and whatnot), and also how you will be supplying the level information (hardcoding values is never the way for quiz style games, I would decide on a format to go by for providing the data). From there, just check up periodically on them and see how the app is doing. I'd create a private GitHub page for them to commit to and then build and test the app nightly to make sure everything is going well before they build or finish a feature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Unless your time is worth more than triple the going rate for a good iOS programmer on oDesk (>$25), you should spend some time (hours, not months) learning the basic fundamentals of programming for iOS, even if you don't know anything yet.

Without that knowledge, your contractors will put out something far worse than what you want, simply because you don't know how to ask for it in language they understand. It'll also take much longer for them to complete it, and cost you a lot more.

Better to pay them to clean up your errors as you make them than for you to pay someone else to clean theirs up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Can you sketch? A picture is worth a thousand words.

If you can create pictures either with a sketch pad or digitally then it will help your developer visualize it and make it work correctly.

Also "use cases" are very helpful. For example, instead of writing specs, write several stories about how a user might interact with the app. In my experience, these always help me develop a product more inline with the overall vision.

Lastly, you could send your sketches to a designer to create, then send those PSD/PNG files to the developer.

</comment><comment><USER5> So you have a great idea, you are 1% of the way to a successful App. The rest will rely on how you execute, and getting a low-budget iOS developer will result in a low-budget implementation, even if you bring on a consultant to guide the process.

Let's not forget that you will need a designer to, at the very least, produce the graphical components, even if they don't design the UI from the ground up.

Bottom line, if you are unable to do any of these pieces, plan on spending a legitimate amount of money to get to a releasable product.</comment>


Craigslist Hacked? - <AUTHOR> http://www.craigslist.com/

<comment><USER2> It seems craigslist has resolved the situation, and you're probably seeing the after effects caused by cacheing.

Additionally, there is already a discussion about this:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8650921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8650921)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is not a Show HN. Please read the rules: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html).

</comment><comment><USER4> What's being shown here?</comment>


Fastest Wi-Fi ever is almost ready for real-world use - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/fastest-wi-fi-ever-is-almost-ready-for-real-world-use/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29 <comment><USER3> "...with the downside of using frequencies that are easily blocked by walls. Even thin cubicle walls may block signals, Wilocity acknowledged. "

<comment><USER4> Not good for a house, but very useful for apartments in large buildings. You can have one wireless AP in each room (connected to eachother with wires), and almost no interference from the neighbours.

<comment><USER3> Is there no developing, competing standard that improves on current WiFi without these drawbacks?

<comment><USER5> 802.11n on the 5GHz band (most implementations use 2.4GHz) already does this. The real problem is the 2.4GHz band, which is simply over-saturated. 2.4GHz also penetrates walls really well, which is a drawback in apartment situations because it introduces more interference from neighboring access points (and many other devices operating on or near the 2.4GHz frequency - <USER2> phones, microwaves, etc.).

I've used a 5GHz 802.11n AP in my last two apartments; it's worked great every time. Most of the time I don't even see any other access points in range. Even if there are other APs, 5GHz has many more frequency bands available, so avoiding interference is simple. The only drawback is that so many devices don't support 5GHz. My smartphone didn't until I upgraded to the SGS III, and my Nook still doesn't.

Also, 5GHz is faster because the spec allows 40MHz channels.

<comment><USER3> So would pushing for 5ghz N be better than 60ghz?

<comment><USER6> AC is 5GHz @ 1Gbs and it is already available.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac>

[http://www.amazon.com/RT-AC66U-Dual-Band-Wireless- AC1750-Gig...](http://www.amazon.com/RT-AC66U-Dual-Band-Wireless- AC1750-Gigabit-Router/dp/B008ABOJKS/)

<comment><USER4> Yes, but it can also use several channels. This plus the AC standard becoming more popular will lead to overcrowding in 5 GHz also.

2.4 GHz has 3 non-overlapping 20 MHz channels.

5 GHz has about 23 non-overlapping 20 MHz channels.

Both go through walls, so you will get interference from neighbouring apartments no matter what technology you implement. The only solutions are to use a much higher frequency, or shield your apartment walls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As nice as the speed is, I think the real application is docking stations for mobile devices - think iPhone, android, etc. I take my mobile device with me, put it near a wigi router and all of a sudden I have a wireless keyboard mouse monitors etc all hooked up. No wires required. No setup, nothing!! Very cool for portability!! My friend comes over and they just bring their devices to the table and were using another mobile device fully integrated. The mobile device is a portable brain. Very cool!!

<comment><USER7> You could even automtically hook up your phone to your tv, etc. no wires needed. As long as your phone carries everything, it can be hooked up to anything automatically when you step into a room!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm looking forward to this. I have two great rooms that may have a dozen active devices at any moment. I'm ok with the single-room applications for both of these common areas.

I can imagine a lot of similar places in offices. Cubicles could have antanae attached or be made of a material that is more willing to reflect the beams; much easier than pulling wires.

<comment><USER9> >I have two great rooms that may have a dozen active devices at any moment.

If any of them are stationary, or mostly stationary, you might just want to run an ethernet cable. Even long ones are dirt cheap from Monoprice. For instance, I wired my iMac, my girlfriend's iMac, and leave a wire at our kitchen table, where laptops are most likely to be used, for about $12 shipped.

Transferring video files between machines is now fast, and we don't have interference from neighboring networks (or vice-versa). Ethernet also makes using distributed processing using Compressor ([http://documentation.apple.com/en/compressor/usermanual/inde...](http://documentation.apple.com/en/compressor/usermanual/index.html#chapter=8%26section=6%26tasks=true)) easy.

<comment><USER10> > If any of them are stationary, or mostly stationary, you might just want to > run an ethernet cable. Even long ones are dirt cheap from Monoprice. For > instance, I wired my iMac, my girlfriend's iMac, and leave a wire at our > kitchen table, where laptops are most likely to be used, for about $12 > shipped.

I think the issue for most is not the cost of the cables, but the inconvenience (and safety hazard!) of having cables running around the house. They also typically tend to look untidy.

For me it'a a decision between a wireless router (which I would need anyway) for $180-odd or an additional $200-$300 to get CAT6 wired up to two (2) rooms in the house w/ 2 sockets per faceplate (and a cheap switch to aggregate it all).

<comment><USER9> >w/ 2 sockets per faceplate (and a cheap switch to aggregate it all).

Oh—we just run it along baseboards and tape the cords in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This isn't 'wifi'. 60GHz is not practical for general purpose wireless data connections. It's a 7Gbit wireless link, which will be great for beaming something to your TV, or for a wireless bridge link between two buildings, or any of myriad other specific use cases. We don't need that much bandwidth on our wifi, and we certainly don't need the tradeoffs.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best laser printer for home use? - <AUTHOR> I need duplex printing and ethernet.  Color not necessary.  Ideally under $300.  What brands / products should I look at? <comment><USER2> I had an HP laser (actually three), and the replacement cartridges were so expensive that I bought a Brother 2270DW (d for duplex and w for wireless/wired/USB). I buy the high capacity ink cartridges and it is much cheaper and much faster than the HP. I've never had any regrets - having used it with Windows, Mac, and even Ubuntu one time. (I love HP - but I don't know why they price their cartridges so high. I literally threw away my color laserjet because replacing all the cartridges cost almost as much as the printer itself. And then they have those cartridges which are "smart" and refuse to work once the date and number of images have passed - so I can't just shake the cartridge or print and accept the fact that it will be a "faded" print. No more HP for me.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Are the JetIntelligence toners the ones that stop working after a certain date? That sounds very sketchy.</comment></comment>


600 Years - <AUTHOR> http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter2.html

<comment><USER2> This is a fairly old meme - Circa 2003 - though I think they've added a new introductory paragraph. Turns out it was mostly a hoax. Still an enjoyable read.

[Citation: <http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread_archive.asp?threadid=8951>]

<comment><USER3> This reply is pretty interesting: [http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread_archive.asp?fid=1&thr...](http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread_archive.asp?fid=1&threadid=8951&currpage=1&pp#post13)

Myself and some friends have been wanting to take such a tour for a while now. Hopefully some day soon, I'll actually get a chance to. It would be an amazing experience/</comment></comment>


Uber Eats: couple who ordered pizza get part-eaten, mouldy sandwiches - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/06/uber-eats-gross-mouldy-sandwiches-toronto <comment><USER2> quality control is hard at scale.

i don't understand why it's so hard for people to order from a local shop with an owner they trust?

sometimes you reap what you sow</comment>


Show HN: Social Minecraft clone with shooting - <AUTHOR>

It is a new game much like Minecraft, but with more Deathmatch. Made it in my freetime.
Arenas, built by players, can be shared on Twitter/Facebook/etc. and are ranked by how often they are played.
You can play it in your browser at: http://julius-eckert.com/game (On OSX only Safari works...)
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBr8ZD9Uto
Do you like it? How would you improve it (including the website)? <comment><USER2> Reminds me of Ace of Spades[1], another minecraft/voxel like game just like Minecraft that's an FPS as well. Only for Windows though, but really fun. And free unlike Minecraft.

[1]: <http://ace-spades.com/>

<comment><USER3> This game is fun. As a side note, I got it running on Linux through Wine rather easily, so it's possible to play on other platforms than just Windows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Since it feels kinda like paintball, it'd be neat if you could choose team colors for player clothing as well as ammo colors...then make the colors stain stuff you shoot.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's actually really fun. I think the end all greatness of this would be if I could play minecraft, and enter an arena, and start playing this. (guy can dream)

I love the jump height...do not change that.

Powerups might be cool, but not necessarily required.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also I added climbing. While jumping, run against a wall and hit Space again. You will "rejump".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's really neat. Would be good to see how many players are on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea. Will become especially important, when the game gets a real multiplayer mode (there are only bots right now).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> make it work on Linux ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> I would love that. Even on my Macbook it only works in Safari (with bugs).

I chose to use the Java stack (LWJGL-Libraries), because Minecraft uses it (compatible enough to be successful).

Would like to do it in WebGL, but a JS-only version is not possible on current browsers. There is simply no way I can set the mouse position.

Anyway, I hope I will find the time to hack something together which will make it compatible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This reminds me of a game concept I came up with a while back I called "Last Man Standing". Players are put in a 3D world with completely destructible buildings and must hunt each other down one by one until only one player is left. Although it's a free for all, each player is assigned a target and can see where their target is at all times, so there's no hiding. Players can shoot through walls, foundations, and collapse buildings and destroy anything in their way. Because all buildings and obsticals are destructible, eventually there will be nothing left for players to hide behind. Once a player kills his target another is randomly assigned to him. You can also kill other players you meet along your way. Also, your target might be player#12 but his target is someone else. Anyway the gameplay was suppose to be quiet different than most games of the same concept. Instead of hiding and camping, everyone knows where everyone is at and everyone has someone to kill and be killed by. There is no hiding, no camping. And you have to keep moving.

I REALLY like Pew Pew Arena and see a lot of potential in it. Honestly, for me, it's much more fun than minecraft for the following reasons: \- I can delete objects from far away \- I can spawn objects from far away \- So I can build and destroy much faster \- Shooting is unlimited \- the world has edges, it doesn't go on forever, it also has a bottom so I can make enemies fall through.

I wish: \- there was a secondary weapon like a "bomb" that destroys an area the size of 3x3x3 blocks at once. This way it's possible to kill other players by destroying the ground beneath them until they fall through. You can currently do this but it takes way too long to destroy the map block by block. \- when other players are behind blocks or far away and not rendered, an onscreen marker should show up to let you know where they are so you can find them. Bots aren't very good at hiding but when real people start playing, it's going to be really annoying finding them when they're hiding.

</comment><comment><USER8> Thats pretty good! Add some textures and weapons and you should be good to go.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. Why do you want textures? And what kind of textures? Do you mean green boxes should look like grass?

<comment><USER9> This seems to be the effect in Minecraft, too. The initial draw to Minecraft was that it was a ridiculously simplistic sandbox, but now users want an infinite number of improvements: better textures, anti-aliasing, better shading, and less "blockiness".

It's an effect in pretty much any piece of software. See also Firefox, which used to be prized for it's minimalism, but is now considered bloated next to Chrome. Eventually Chrome will get Minecrafted too.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft's Getting Rusty At Stealing from Apple - <AUTHOR> http://m.readwriteweb.com/archives/video-surface-vs-ipad-microsofts-getting-rusty-at-stealing-from-apple.php

<comment><USER2> <http://imgur.com/gallery/hXeAU>

<comment><USER3> I was beginning to wonder if anyone remembered Windows XP Tablet Edition since 2002 happened a while back.

According to my 10 year old niece: "The Lord of the Rings movie came out a long time ago." So, when I see things like this, I think the person who made it is probably ten years old also.

Edit: Relevant <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwJhpcrjR7Y></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any Workspaces for Windows 10 with keyboard support? - <AUTHOR> After holding out for last couple of years, i finally switched to Windows 10 (from Windows 7) this Christmas! :-)
While the upgrade went through without any issues, and all my tools seem to be working properly, i have lost one MAJOR feature - multiple desktops/workspaces.
I used to use Dexpot on Windows 7, which has intermittent issues after upgrading to Windows 10.
Any suggestion for customizing the built-in workspaces feature in Windows 10, or any 3rd-party utilities for Windows 10, that support keyboard-shortcuts like:

  - moving active window between workspaces.
  - switching to specific workspace (without cycling through all).
 <comment><AUTHOR> After experimenting with a few free tools i could find online, have settled on using "Better Desktop Tool" on Windows 10.

      - Its free for personal use.
      - Supports customizable keyboard shortcuts for virtual-desktops / workspaces.

[http://www.betterdesktoptool.com/features.html](http://www.betterdesktoptool.com/features.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> It's built-in for Windows 10. Check this link: [https://support.microsoft.com/en- us/help/4028538/windows-10-...](https://support.microsoft.com/en- us/help/4028538/windows-10-multiple-desktops)

<comment><AUTHOR> Tried it.

Without keyboard-shortcuts for common flows like moving windows between workspaces, i found it too slow/cumbersome to use.

Hence wondering whether there's some Windows tweak to enable keyboard- shortcuts (especially moving windows between workspaces), or some 3rd-party utility that works on Windows 10.</comment></comment>


Working on this front-end framework, looking for suggestions or feedback - <AUTHOR> http://decorator.codable.org/

<comment><USER2> Some feedback:

1\. Having to wrap each column into a `div.block` AND then inside a `div.inner` is too verbose. Are you sure you can't find a simpler solution for your grid system?

2 Reading the about page and the documentation, I don't see why/how this is different from the Bootstrap and Foundation, so why I should switch from robust framework to yours.

3\. Overall it looks nice, good work :)

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't have to wrap it into inner it's just my own example, gonna update the dox soon with better dox and examples. That's why I'm asking some feedback. Thanks for the feedback. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Also the Idea is to first create a framework and then create a ( framework ) drag and drop layout builder on top of it with some nice examples where user can chose from examples and customize it, for easy yet nice looking prototyping. I like bootstrap but to me it's too similar looking on almost every website that is using it.

<comment><USER3> nice work, i like it! but... drag and drop layout builder on top of it (bootstrap) do exist alot.

[http://shoelace.io/](http://shoelace.io/) [http://www.layoutit.com/build](http://www.layoutit.com/build) [http://jaykanakiya.com/bootstrap-grid- builder/](http://jaykanakiya.com/bootstrap-grid-builder/) [http://neokoenig.github.io/jQuery- gridmanager/demo/simple_li...](http://neokoenig.github.io/jQuery- gridmanager/demo/simple_light.html)

Now you could customize your bootstrap theme :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you plan on utilizing your GitHub project ([https://github.com/uloga/decorator](https://github.com/uloga/decorator)) to accept issues and pull requests soon?

<comment><AUTHOR> Soon, I'm working on finishing the framework first, I can only work in weekends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think you mean "striped" (referring to tables) and "divider" (referring to the navbar). Definitely needs some spell checking.

On a similar note, I think your class names need some work. I find them unintuitive at times.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, fixed that typo. I'm gonna work on class name improvements, definitely great feedback. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good on you for working to create your own framework. You'll learn a ton. I tried to look in a mobile safari and it did not look great. Frameworks need to be mobile compliant in today's web world.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's gonna be responsive, still working on it, now I'm just looking for some feedback so that I can improve it before final release.

here are few responsive template examples made with it:

[http://start.codable.org/](http://start.codable.org/) [http://blog.codable.org/](http://blog.codable.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Admittedly haven't looked at in too great detail, but what separates this from Foundation or Bootstrap? It seems pretty similar on the surface, but without the large communities around the other frameworks.

</comment><comment> a-ghost-fart Would be nice if your examples prevented default on click, found myself at the top of the page a whole lot by being too curious. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for that and thanks for the useful feedback, still working on it, gonna take 2 weeks off to finish it...

I'm testing the FW first by creating some layouts.

Here are few examples: [http://start.codable.org/](http://start.codable.org/) [http://blog.codable.org/](http://blog.codable.org/)</comment></comment>


John McAfee offers to unlock killer's iPhone for FBI - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35611763 <comment><USER2> > With all due respect to Tim Cook and Apple, I work with a team of the best > hackers on the planet. These hackers attend Defcon in Las Vegas, and they > are legends in their local hacking groups, such as HackMiami. They are all > prodigies, with talents that defy normal human comprehension. _About 75% are > social engineers._ The remainder are hardcore coders. I would eat my shoe on > the Neil Cavuto show if we could not break the encryption on the San > Bernardino phone. This is a pure and simple fact.

[Emphasis added.]

His team will bluff its way into the phone.

(Quoted from McAfee's original op-ed referenced by the original linked article: www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone- for-free-2016-2)

<comment><USER3> The problem is that there is no one to bluff at this point, I'm still not sure what exactly happened but apparently some one "changed" the password, the reports conflict as to whom actually done it and very between LEO techs (mainly FBI) to the IT department of the county pretty much unlinking the device from the Apple ID used or initiating a password reset in which case the old password is no longer valid for the backups of the device.

I've tried to go over the documents that the FBI submitted to the court and I couldn't get a clear answer who owned the device, but it seemed that it was at least partially managed by the county.

The FBI had the original Apple ID password and could access the device in theory but it seems now that after it's been unlinked or some one has changed it to a completely random password (as it doesn't seem like some one did it intentionally to interfere with the investigation) so there is no one to really socially engineer.

<comment><USER4> >The FBI had the original Apple ID password and could access the device in theory

That makes it pretty clear which institution switched the Apple-ID on the device, don't you think?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So why can't he replicate the setup with another iPhone 5C and prove what he's claiming?

Or is he asking for the raw forensic image of the phone's mass storage?

</comment><comment><USER6> I remember an interview where he was insistent that z CIA operative was watching him from the bushes in his front yard or something. This guy is not Donald Trump-style kayfabing crazy, he has legitimately lost connection with reality.

<comment><USER7> Now if he had said it was an FBI/NSA agent, _that_ would be believable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So a libertarian helps the FBI to break into a device (instead of rallying to Apple's defense) to prevent big bad government from passing law that would make any device breakable? Makes total sense.

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh John, Is there anything you cannot do?

<comment><USER8> Uninstalling McAfee Antivirus (video) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg)

<comment> Syrup-tan I would consider NSFW ~2:45 into it</comment></comment></comment>


Interactive Guide to Blog Typography - <AUTHOR> http://kaikkonendesign.fi/typography/

<comment><USER2> The interactivity here makes this guide a really great resource. People who would normally just scan (Like me) end up clicking the buttons on each step and can then read the sections that sparked an interesting change.

Would be nice to see it extended with some screens on using constructs like footnotes/sidenotes/captions etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the "p + p" trick to not text-indent initial paragraphs:

<http://kaikkonendesign.fi/typography/section/7>

Looks like that's an "adjacent sibling selector":

<http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#adjacent-selectors>

And it looks like it's well-supported since IE9:

<http://www.quirksmode.org/css/contents.html>

<comment><USER4> I'm often using it to select stuff like h2+div { ... }, label + textarea { ... } or (LESS-style) label { & \+ input, & \+ select { ... } }.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm always conflicted on reducing contrast by making the text very slightly grey instead of black (or the background very slightly grey instead of white).

The problem with this is, as so many times, that on the web you have no control over what people use to display your content. On an awesome display with tons of contrast I would very much agree: straight black on straight white can be unnecessarily harsh and toning it down a bit (a bit being important here) makes everything look more pleasant.

However, on a bad display with low contrast further reducing contrast can be a bad idea.

On balance I would argue that screen technology is by now good enough to allow for slight reductions in contrast that at least have no ill effects in the vast majority of cases and have a positive effect on above average displays.

Oh, and another advantage of not using straight white or straight black is that you can add color (a slight tint, don't touch color if you are inexperienced) to it.

(Also, I would recommend searching out the worst display you can find to test your designs. That helps with more than just whether you picked the right contrast.)

<comment><USER6> On an even awsomer and properly calibrated display, it also reduces the contrast below acceptable levels a lot of the time. (The high brightness sells in the stores, but it's pretty horrible for actual use.)

<comment><USER5> I was also talking about properly calibrated displays. I should know. I'm using one. (Though realistically, no one uses a calibrated display. They can be ignored for all intents and purposes.)

I find that if you use a good display, straight black on straight white is just too harsh for me. Slight reductions in contrast do most certainly not and never will lower the contrast below acceptable levels on those displays. They do have the ability to display plenty of contrast for the human eye to work with.

(Did you only want to annoy me with your pedantry or what's going on with you?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is just lovely and very well-timed for people starting new year's resolution blogs next month :) Congratulations to the author.

Would supplement it with this: [http://www.pearsonified.com/2011/12/golden- ratio-typography....](http://www.pearsonified.com/2011/12/golden-ratio- typography.php)

And the super-handy related tool: <http://www.pearsonified.com/typography/>

<comment><USER8> As someone with a background in both mathematics and typography, I'm still trying to figure out how people come up with that sort of nonsense.

There are times when constants like the Golden Ratio are relevant and the exact value matters or some useful property doesn't apply. This is not one of those times. There is absolutely nothing "perfect" or "optimal" about the typography you'll create from this "solid mathematical basis", no matter how much TeX you use to typeset your equations or how many colours you put on a chart. In fact, with a lot of popular web fonts today, you'll get very dubious results.

That entire article is just a glorified troll, which I'm only responding to in case anyone impressionable reading your post otherwise thinks it's worth anything.

<comment><USER9> What a poor comment and wholly unnecessary. Even though I agree that the golden ratio article here is fanciful to a fault, the whole premise here is to put some thought into typography and calibrate text to look its best.

The math here is entirely relevant: knowing what the measure / font size should be, or at least figuring out minimum and maximum dimensions, that makes a difference. Got a responsive text container? Make sure it doesn't become hard to read. And the type of font you use (different fonts have different metrics, character widths, etc) makes a difference, it adds considerations that can lead to better design. People should put more thought into making their texts as readable as possible - it benefits everyone.

The waxing lyrical about golden ratios is a cheap way to drive interest and add allure, it gets the eyeballs. I think it's clever and it makes an otherwise dull topic interesting .

<comment><USER4> > _Even though I agree that the golden ratio article here is fanciful to a > fault_

This is, dare I say, the mistake. What's emphasised in those articles about the golden ratio is that it is _golden_ where what actually matters is that it's a _ratio_ , and therefore creates patterns and introduces consistency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Really great guide that seems to nail some of the basics. I can tell the difference between a great reading experience and a mediocre one, but I can never seem to pinpoint the reason for that difference.

Is there a tool that "evaluates" a page for some of these typography basics on a live website? Maybe a bookmarklet. I know at some point it becomes a matter of looking with a trained eye and personal preference, but many of the parameters could easily be computationally evaluated. E.g. measure, line height and paragraph spacing, color/contrast, maybe even visual hierarchy.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is awesome. I don't know much about typography but every time I try to learn something, I give up pretty quickly because of the overwhelming amount of (boring) information. I love how this guide is set out in easy to read and consume chunks that flow well from each other.

<comment><USER12> Even knowing some little things about typo, this guide is a pretty good example for an interactive tutorial.

Thanks to the author, as it reminded me of some things, I should change on my personal site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can anyone give some tips for using text on a dark background?

<comment><USER14> I've been wondering why people seem to prefer to code with a dark background, but read prose with a light background. Or am I wrong?

<comment><USER15> When coding, you usually fine-tune your editor color scheme: light text colors on a not too dark background are relaxing for my eyes.

When reading, instead, you cannot easily change the color scheme of web pages with black background and painfully high contrast.

Example of a website with color scheme alternatives:

<http://www.textfiles.com/directory.html>

«AAAAH! MY EYES! Click here if you prefer a black and white color scheme.»

<http://www.textfiles.com/wdirectory.html>

«This is a special "black on white" version of the directories in textfiles.com for people who, for various reasons, have issues or trouble with the green on black color scheme of the site.»

<comment><USER14> So it would seem that the ideal color scheme for a website would be moderate contrast with light text (perhaps in various colors) on a dark background, rather than what appears to be the web designer consensus of dark text on a white or nearly white background.

<comment><USER15> I don't know. The two scenarios differ because when coding you often stare at one line, whereas when web surfing you often skim the text. It sounds as a subjective feeling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> my god man, i guess it's just me but the contrast on this page is so bad i can't read a damn thing (it fades to gray 1 second after loading)

<comment><USER17> Did you try out the interactive part (by clicking "Begin")? The greying is a cue that the right column is actually the presentation itself.

This is probably a good argument for using more nonsensical lorem ipsum text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Very nice, I am just missing some references to some of your claims, for example that 65-90 characters is the perfect width . I can of course google it and find it but I think it would still be good to include it on the site.

<comment><USER19> The measures you can try with the buttons (40, 65 and 90) are to see how the text looks on the edges of these guidelines (which I've written as 50-80 characters).

It's not a scientific number by any means, rather a general "consensus" derived from all the typography literature and articles I've read. The measure is not as simple as it seems, though; Readers seem to prefer a shorter measure while reading speed is actually increased with a longer measure, like shown in this study:

[http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/LineLeng...](http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/LineLength.asp)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I just started working on side project for a better blogging platform for myself and this information will really help be have some good defaults for the app. Thanks for this very informative and very well done demo.

</comment><comment><USER21> Excellent guide! I always wondered about the science behind typography but could never muster up courage to read boring theories. This was quick and fun!

</comment><comment><USER22> I wish someone created something like that for web design. How to turn a crappy looking website into a great one, step by step, interactively.

</comment><comment><USER23> Great tutorial.

One question - What's hinting? Wasn't explained as clearly as it needs to be for a tutorial aimed at non-designers.

</comment><comment><USER24> Wow... that's _exactly_ what I needed for a small site I'm building right now. Thanks, author(s); thanks, stevoo; thanks, HN!

</comment><comment><USER25> The subheadings should be closer to the paragraph underneath it. Otherwise it looks freely floating between two paragraphs.

<comment><USER19> Agreed. I'm going to fix this in an update.

<comment><USER26> The margin under the subheading should be the same (or at the very least not smaller) than the bottom margin of each paragraph, otherwise you end up with the subheadings looking like they're attached to the paragraphs that directly follow them, creating a false hierarchy with a single paragraph rather than a selection of paragraphs. If you want to give each section extra separation increase the margin above the heading instead of decreasing the one below it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Very nice...

Also I am very happy to see that Twitter Bootstrap has a lot of the things in this site already there.

<comment><USER28> This is true, although I find the default body text size in Bootstrap way too small, and often wonder if others do too. It seems to fit the "text wedged into elements of a Web tool" use-case it originates from better than longer body text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Great site, good read. Definitely will come back to it when I design another blog.

</comment><comment><USER30> An excellent presentation, the interactivity really gets the message across!

</comment><comment><USER31> This is really awesome! Great site and info!

</comment><comment><USER32> Section 11 seems to be broken (I popped it open in the inspector). Looks like it's not connecting the toggleBlack method up to the text.

Chromium 18 on Xubuntu 11.10

PS: This is an awesome resource. I've always noticed the things that you talk about but I never knew _why_ I noticed them.

<comment><USER19> I'll look into it. Thanks!</comment></comment>


The Hacker Way: How I taught my nephew to program - <AUTHOR> https://stopa.io/post/246 <comment><USER5> Neither of my kids have any interest in programming or computer science or engineering at all. I sometimes wonder if i could have done something different to spark their curiosity. Welding, working on cars, stupid arduino tricks, lasers, 3d printers, hacking, rockets, robot clubs, computers everywhere...I've tried a lot, but nothing really stuck.

One's just got an undergrad in healthcare and the other likely headed for art. I'm stoked they found things they love and I'm sure we'll still have lots to talk about over the years... just probably won't be vi vs emacs lol

<comment><USER6> My Dad was in the RCMP. Growing up, I briefly considered following his footsteps but in the end, I just wasn't the right kind of person. I was more into science, math and computers than sports and gravitated towards computers, programming and general mischief making. Along the way, I got heavy into security and privacy.

My Dad retired 17 years ago and since then, he's gotten heavy into computers. He knows more about Mailchimp than anyone I know. And though I ended up with a marketing degree, he's become my de facto email marketing consultant.

Now that he's heavy into computers, I see all the neat ways he's influenced me (and vice versa). Security, particularly opsec is a passion we both share. After many conversations, I'm starting to realize that he's actually the one who got me into the field way back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Now when we talk about his career, it's clear that he instilled the idea of hacking into me. He wasn't into software systems, but he was into human systems and he was relentlessly resourceful when it came to solving their problems.

Looking back with 43 years of experience, I realize how much of an influence my Dad had over me. I don't know that we'll ever have a vi versus emacs debate, but holy hell, do I ever feel lucky that I got to know my Dad on this level.

I hope to live long enough to get to know my daughter on that level. And friend, I wish the same for you!!!

<comment><AUTHOR> This is such a beautiful message. Thank you for sharing

<comment><USER6> Thank you friend. I'm feeling quite emotional now after writing it. I'm glad it resonated! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That all rings pretty true for me. I wasn't a fan of math as a kid, or anything I associated with school really. I got into programming through Game Maker, because video games were something I legitimately cared about and liked. It pretty much changed my life and gave me something to aspire to.

Now that I've grown up, my primary interests lie in virtually all aspects of computer science, and I no longer consider making games to be much more than a hobby and passion project to spend my free time on. I only wish I'd have had a mentor of some kind in the world of CS, so that I could have gotten into it earlier in my childhood. Major props to you for being an awesome uncle :)

<comment><USER8> Dude, hell yeah. Game Maker changed my life. I was so proud to be able to script my own stuff and be able to hang with the older kids in the irc channel. None of them believed an 11 year old was writing his own pure-GML games!

Now, decades later I'm finally pursuing that little dude's dream, although games also lost their luster for me on the intervening years...

<comment><USER7> > although games also lost their luster for me on the intervening years...

Yeah. I still like writing small games from time to time, mainly just to serve as programming exercises or for fun if I'm bored. I had to accept at some point that I don't have the wide variety of skills needed to make my any of my dream games on my own (and also the time commitment to make a whole game by yourself can be insane). If I were to make a serious effort to do so, I'm pretty sure I would just be disappointed and feel as though I'd wasted my time because the final product wouldn't live up to my fantasy. To realistically do it, I'd need to either sacrifice a lot of creative control by collaborating with people, or wait until I've eventually acquired enough skill in the areas of art and music et cetera to pull it off by myself.

<comment><USER9> 100% in the same boat, finally coming back to a bit of personal game dev. Just do a little every day (or a few times a week). Try sketching a couple things. Play D&D or any other more creative game to learn design. You're wayyyy more likely to make a good game if you set out to make 10, then waiting forever to make the one "good" one. Just keep trying and practicing.

<comment><USER7> Thanks, that's good advice. I do oftentimes get arrogant and overestimate my ability, when I get the game dev itch. As with anything, there are some things you can only learn from experience. I think I have a pretty good amount of experience in the "playing games" department, but I sometimes erroneously assume that it will directly translate into my ability to _make_ a good game. I can't count the number of times I've spent like a week straight working on a game project I'm passionate about, only to be met with the sobering realization that I've set my sights too high. You're absolutely right that I'll be more likely to make a good game if I set out to make ten of them. I need to get better at planning projects I'll actually be able to finish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Eventually, he wanted to make the news site do dynamic things: How can you > hide and show content? How can you make buttons work? Well, time to learn a > little bit of javascript.

It's amazing how much you can do with only CSS nowadays. From simple interactive visual elements[1] to whole mini-games[2] with only HTML and CSS. I think kids would appreciate the notion that it's all there, possible - <USER2> they take the time and hack it up.

[1]: [https://css-tricks.com/css-only-carousel/](https://css-tricks.com/css- only-carousel/) [2]: [https://codepen.io/collection/AKkZro](https://codepen.io/collection/AKkZro)

<comment><AUTHOR> Heck yeah! He surprised me too - it's been a while since I've went deep on the frontend, so he surprised me with some of his knowledge of box, etc :}

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Kinda like Montessori except with code? When I see kids build things in Minecraft I wonder if those skills translate to programming later in life. I believe I was lucky in that when I was in grade school even websites by professionals were so janky and amateurish (in a charming way) I felt like there was no barrier and anybody with a text editor could figure it out.

<comment><USER12> >Kinda like Montessori except with code?

There's an education theory called Constructionism ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_(learning_theo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_\(learning_theory\))) which is all about kids learning through active engagement with the material. Montessori is one constructionist method.

Seymour Papert was a pioneer of constructionist theory and contributed to the Logo programming language as well as writing the book "Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas" which became the namesake of the LEGO robotics line which it inspired.

"Minds in Play: Computer Game Design As A Context for Children's Learning" is another book that uses game design (and Logo) as a platform for constructionist education.

Constructionism has been important to the development of computer interfaces as well since it inspired Alan Kay and his Dynabook concept (which inspired the iPad), which was designed with the intent of making a child-friendly computer.

I'm certain Minecraft is a gateway to developing technical thinking, especially if kids start wanting to mod the game (and maybe even make their own mods, at which point they have to reason about the underlying system).

<comment><USER11> I remember reading an old research paper (pre-minecraft) that tracked long- term effects of kid-friendly languages like logo and scratch-like languages vs textual-based programming like basic. It found that the former got more kids engaged but there was minimal lasting impact (none of those tracked became programmers or stated any interest in learning more as adults). The later got fewer kids interested initially but those who did get interested had a high chance of carrying those skills into programming careers. The results would probably be very different now, but that paper really colored my thinking when I first read it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm a grown professional, and this is still the way I learn. I think this is just the way some brains work.

My office and hard drives are filled with half finished projects, and I've probably forgotten how half of them work. I'll reinforce my learning when I pick it back up.

I only recently realized the joy of allowing myself to switch books when I feel like it. I've always loved reading, but sometimes I can't sit through the whole thing without something else catching my eye.

My environment as a kid allowed me to work that way and I will be forever grateful for that. It is the reason I now love what I do for a living. If your child's brain works this way, I feel that allowing this type of learning is the best thing you can do for them.

</comment><comment><USER14> Glad to see this post and read all of other comments. Currently as a senior designer, I always wanted to be an engineer when I was a kid, so deep into computers and electronics. But my environment didn't allowed me to become one, and I always resent this.

So this summer I started a "Summer Code Camp" with my nephew (14), bright kid, also into computers but also living hard times to learn stuff at school, fails at math, and not properly aligned with current education system to learn. So we started from the beginning, I only know HTML, CSS and basic Javascript. Using freecodecamp.org for our lessons, at first we started physical, I go to him couple of times each week for our sessions, to warm things up, once he get used to the website and basic structure of the code, we build a Discord channel for video meetings, sharing screens, and channels for resources, inspirations, docs and archive. He plays basketball at school team and really into the game, NBA fan, of course a gamer. So we are keeping our conversations around them, building stuff for these topics. Installed Visual Studio Code to his computer so he can use the code he learned offline and build stuff from there. His interest is growing each day, but of course as a kid he lacks of disipline. Which is not important at that point actually, because we're having fun. Hope to take this to the next level once we started Javascript and build more dynamic stuff.

As the schools are opening next week, I'll teach him how to deploy stuff and show off to his friends. Also thinking this can be good way to make things stick more deeply. Kids like to show off.

The Hacker Way. This is the way.

</comment><comment><USER15> I was self directed as apparently are many software engineers so I've always assumed that the best way to teach would be to let kids direct themselves and they can ask questions if they get stuck.

Well, this video claims I'm wrong. Self directed study doesn't fit most students according to the research presented in the video.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ib43q3uXQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ib43q3uXQ)

you can jump to 11:00 if you want to jump to the part about learning.

<comment><USER16> I think that self-directed and self-motivated learning for _programmers_ is critical. All the best programmers I know are almost entirely self taught. I think the best way to go about it is first motivation (they have to really want to be able to make things) and then an introduction (here's a REPL, type 2+2, hello world, here's a function, here's Google, stackoverflow) and then provide help when needed.

Every time I've seen kids take this path, it's very black and white - <USER3> they quickly learn to learn on their own, and succeed, or they need guidance/lack motivation and fail.

For non-programming, I think learning on your own is far less critical.

<comment><USER15> I think maybe things are being conflated here. (1) being motivated (2) being self directed (3) being made to figure things out on your own

The video above basically says vast amounts of research show that showing people the answers with explanations is far more effective than saying "figure out on your own". Not only are people given the answers with explanations more able to solve the problems they are more able to apply them to future problems.

It also seems to say being directed (being given lessons) is usually better than leaving it up to the student what to study (of course there are exceptions for some students)

I know for me I didn't invent link lists, hash tables, sorting algorithms. One way or another I was taught the solutions. But I was often self motivated. Still, I was taught via assignment how to open a file, and read and write to it. As well as how to implement a bubble sort. Enjoying programming I enjoyed learning those topics but it might have been much longer for me to apply them if a teacher hadn't taught me both by choosing what to teach (so not self directed) and explaining it (so I didn't have to invent sorting). I had no idea I wanted to know about those topics until after being taught.

<comment><USER16> Sure, I'm not going to argue with the research's applicability to learning in general, but I think that programming is a clear exception. The majority of the best programmers in the world learned what they did in a mostly self- directed way. This is unique in comparison to the vast majority of other fields. For a while, there was a counterargument to be made that that was because of the relatively modern invention of programming, but this is clearly not the cause anymore - the first CS diploma was awarded in 1953, and now in 2020 you can get a CS bachelor's everywhere from liberal arts colleges to online. Go to those CS bachelor's students and you'll find that of the best, the majority were competent programmers before starting their degree.

> I was taught via assignment how to open a file, and read and write to it. As > well as how to implement a bubble sort.

And I learned those, as millions of programmers, on my own - <USER4> documentation, and Google, and so on.

That said, I certainly don't think that the _only_ way to be good is to be self taught. I have met people who went to university with zero prior CS knowledge, and they ended up excellent programmers. But to be entirely honest, that is a small population. It's an uncomfortable topic for universities - nobody wants to sell an expensive degree to become a programmer, with the prerequisite that you're already a programmer - but my university did admit that the students that were already programmers before starting did significantly better in every way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Principle D is a good one!

I used to volunteer to teach elementary and middle school kids computer engineering. I believed we had better engagement when we stuck to "real world" tools (such as breadboards instead of littleBits, Arduino instead of Scratch)

</comment><comment><USER18> Games can be an especially good path to explore for teenagers. There are many disciplines that come together to create something. Even while focusing on one aspect of game development, you can build a desire to pursue another.

For me, it was 3D art that got me hooked. Followed by programming to make my art do something.

<comment><USER19> Games were may path into tech too. Though I don't think it's generally applicable. Having tried with nephews and other kids I think it takes a certain combination of desire to create, grit, and community feedback. And/or I'm just a bad teacher.

<comment><USER20> Problem with games is that you need to have actual artistic inclining to produce something decent.

It looks cool and is a good attraction, but people who could be actually good tech programmers will be offputted by reality of making games - which involves a lot of drawing, making sure it looks good and slowly iterating on boring gameplay till it is not boring.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I was a self starter. My interest in game programming kept me wanting to go learn programming. And I did.

But it was incredibly hard to progress my skillset, and to some extent still hard today.

I got a hobby that kept me learning day to day though: 3D printing.

</comment><comment><USER22> Very timely for me as I am teaching my 15 year old programming. I started with python and am using the excellent slides from this course at Cambridge as our guide: [https://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/service/support/training/download...](https://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/service/support/training/downloads/course- files/programming-student-files/python-courses/pythonab)

</comment><comment><USER23> Great article and the two most important things to really go forward with are to take notice of what they like and take interest in it. I've had to talk to my wife about it, because she doesn't care for video games at all, but as I tell you she doesn't have to like them just show interest and ask questions. Just like the author mentions it can chain together to spark other important interests (reading and other skills). I don't enjoy a lot of these games my kids like, just don't have much depth or are obvious ploys to get you to spend real money to play to win. But instead of complaining about it I play with them and introduce them to other games.

</comment><comment><USER24> my mother let me pull apart VCR's and TV's because it reminded her father (deceased) my granddad, the rule was I could break anything I wanted but I had to repair it or pay to get it repaired. until the day the I.T guy found my stash of porn.

</comment><comment><USER25> Hello @stopachka :) Thanks for sharing, that was a really nice to read the story. I was wondering if the state of "He began designing apps with paper and pencil." was also inspired by your influence?)

</comment><comment><USER26> I have been teaching my daughter with Scratch 3. I taught a few classes at her school back in December. I posted my lessons online so the kids could go back and review them.

The kids really enjoy it, especially 4th and 5th grade.

I got a cutebot and interfaced it with a microbit. My daughter and I made an obstacle avoidance and track following program using the block based programming this past week. She had a blast. I think if you make it fun for the kids, they really get into it.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't practise programming because, so far, I've found more valuable and enjoyable things to spend my time on, and my computers do what I want of them for the most part. I know anything I would be interested in programming would involve a steep learning curve (many layers of existing software to wrap my head around), so it's on the back burner for now.

</comment><comment><USER28> Good advice, thanks for sharing.

I'd just keep in mind that there are no guarantees that kids will share our passions, even with the best approach. Humans are complex systems - it is very hard (and you would need need a lot of data) to make any general statement about things like this.

</comment><comment><USER29> > What if you threw in some adventure novels after that, like Dune?

Dune... An adventure novel... I'm gonna press X on that one.

The paragraph as a whole makes a lot of sense though!

</comment><comment><USER30> I taught my brother to program with AWK;

</comment><comment><USER31> For those of you interested, there's a great book about play called Homo Ludens, from Huizinga.

</comment><comment><USER32> 11yr old has a successful Youtube channel about unreal mods. I'm a prog but I can't catch up with his skills cos he's working in a completely different medium to me (VR, Sound?). 15 year old is a silly sod buying 'gaming' hardware to play click games. His only hope is girls I'm afraid.</comment>