More, less, and a story of typical Unix fossilization - <AUTHOR> https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/MoreAndUnixFossilization <comment><USER2> Now all we need is someone to modify less to recognize that its standard in is connected the output of more so that if you type `cat /etc/passwd | more | less` it could output something which, more or less, looked like the input.

<comment><USER3> I hereby award you a "Useless use of cat" award [1]

more < /etc/passwd | less

[http://porkmail.org/era/unix/award.html#cat](http://porkmail.org/era/unix/award.html#cat)

<comment><USER4> Somehow when I was learning Linux/UNIX 13 years ago, my default way of grepping for something in a file became `cat foo | grep bar`. I've tried, a bit, to break this habit, but can never stick with it. The only time it slows me down is when I'm trying to show someone something and they interrupt to ask why I do it that way :)

<comment><USER5> It's not a bad idiom to use. You can keep retrieving the last command, and change the grep term quickly with ^w . When the search argument to grep is in the middle of the line, you can't easily iterate over a bunch of search terms by hand.

<comment><USER6> Did you know you can start the command with the redirection operator?

        <input-file grep stuff

Unless you are concatenating stuff, I see no reason to use cat.

<comment><USER7> What if you just want to view the contents of input-file, unpaged. `<input- file` doesn't print anything unfortunately (curiously it doesn't error either).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> And then, of course, there is most: [http://www.jedsoft.org/most/](http://www.jedsoft.org/most/)

<comment><USER9> I have to say that when it comes to pagers, I more or less prefer most.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One advantage I find of more over less, is that it doesn't clear the terminal on exit. It's often nice to see what you have looked at above the command prompt. There is a "-X" option for less, but this also breaks mouse wheel scrolling.

<comment><USER11> Those horrid alt-buffer init and exit strings in terminfo and termcap are the bane of my existence. I almost never want that behavior, particularly when I've got a relevant section of a man page on the screen and want it to STAY THERE when I quit out of the pager. I use -X in less, but I really want a more universal solution, so I use a terminal type that doesn't have those strings, usually xterm-noapp. But it's not always available.

I'm not sure what you mean about -X and mouse scrolling.

<comment><USER12> Put something like this into your .Xresources:

For URxvt:

! Ctrl-Shift-A will show alternate screen URxvt.keysym.C-S-A: command:\033[?47h ! Ctrl-Shift-Z will return to regular screen URxvt.keysym.C-S-Z: command:\033[?47l

For XTerm:

! Ctrl-Shift-Z will toggle alternate screen _VT100_ translations: #override \n\ Ctrl Shift <KeyPress> z: set-altscreen(toggle)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interestingly, it occurred to me that NixOS might be in perfect position to enable painless "gradual migrations" of tooling.

Imagine alternative history of UNIX, where NixOS was invented _really_ long time ago, _before_ 'less' was created. Now, imagine we're Mark Nudelman and we want to add fancy features to 'more' (instead of creating a new tool named 'less'). We could do this freely, and all tools depending on peculiarities of "old more" could be pinned to use a "private" old version of the binary, while new ones would by default use the "new more". Then, the backwards tools could be gradually updated, until no one imported the "old more" and it could be safely removed from the nixpkgs repository. (While any external, non-nixpkgs package definitions could still backport the "old more" definition should they really need it.)

Does this reasoning have any holes?

<comment><USER14> I can imagine, though, that more(1) in that case would eventually fork, so that some software depended on my-more and others on his-more and still others on her-more.

And that-other-dude's-more would have a security vulnerability, and no-one would update it, and we'd all get pwned, oh the embarrassment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > In a sane world, Unix vendors would have either replaced their version of > more with the clearly superior less

But that's just the thing - 'less' isn't "clearly superior" to 'more'. It is (or was, maybe this has changed) heavier weight and offers more functionality that may not be needed. Having both commands lets script writers use exactly the tool they need for the job. And it's not like the extra 35KB of keeping the 'more' binary around is really breaking the bank.

<comment><USER16> The problem isn't the 35k, the problem is now we all have to spend a little bit of extra brain capacity, remembering the difference between 'more' and 'less', and how while you would imagine 'more' is better (based on the traditional English meaning of the words), actually, 'more' is the lesser product.

I wonder how many hours have been wasted altogether on people learning, and misunderstanding, which of more or less they should use?

<comment><USER17> Plus, `more` as a pager command at least makes a tiny bit of sense, but `less` is a ridiculously obscure command name for beginners.

<comment><USER18> Display _less_ at once on the screen, and make it scrollable instead, worked perfectly fine for me as an analogy. I actually find "more" less logical, because I can't find a similar analogy for it...

<comment><USER19> Matter of taste, I like the image of scroll to see _more_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is another pager, less advanced than more [http://www.unix.com/man- page/linux/1/pg/](http://www.unix.com/man-page/linux/1/pg/)

<comment><USER21> There's "most" pager discussed here a week or so ago, too.

(Incidentally that link returns a blank page for me on FF mobile.)

<comment><USER20> I missed most, I'll look for it.

The link to pg works on my FF Android. I'm using uBlock origin. Are you using some other adblocker or add on?

<comment><USER22> The link is similarly a white screen on Android Chrome for me.

<comment><USER20> Hopefully this works [http://man.he.net/?topic=pg&section=all](http://man.he.net/?topic=pg&section=all)

The page source is as simple as it could have been in 1996 :-)

The original link has a broken table layout with some unbalanced </table> and </tr>. Maybe that breaks rendering on your browsers, but why not on my Firefox?

<comment><USER18> For me, not only the page is completely empty, but also the page-source, so I don't think that it's a rendering problem and rather the server sending a 0-long HTML-file or something like that.

It also finishes loading rather quickly, so it would only make sense that it's not even downloading anything.

And neither Firefox, nor Lightning Browser (WebView-based), nor CyanogenMod's Gello Browser (Chromium-based) show any form of error and just happily render a completely empty page.

Also, I do get the favicon displayed, so at least some form of connection to the server seems to be possible.

Edit: Just had another idea. It works for me when I tell Firefox to request the desktop site. So, maybe the server just gets confused by a mobile useragent-string...?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I applaud all distributions that include the simplest tools. Sometimes - always the worst times - they're the ones that still work.

</comment><comment><USER24> I prefer less. Incidentally, the other day I was on a CentOS system where I wanted to paginate a log file and typed in "less". Turns out, unlike more, less isn't installed by default. Was a bit surprised because I was under the impression that most Linux systems would have had it in their default install.

<comment><USER25> Debian doesn't install it by default either - agree, surprising. On another note, even more surprising is less's behavior with colored output (you have -r and -R switches, which are almost, but not completely, alike; and in neither of them does page-up render properly).

<comment><USER26> I was pretty sure this is incorrect for at least Debian 8 / Jessie based on recollection. And now I'm 100% sure it's false -- _sigh_ [https://www.xkcd.com/386/](https://www.xkcd.com/386/) \-- having just installed it in a VM with only "standard system utility" selected (it is selected by default), and verified that less is installed.

<comment><USER27> I don't see it:

      $ docker run --rm debian:jessie less -V
      docker: Error response from daemon: Container command 'less' not found or does not exist..

while _more_ is present:

      $ docker run --rm debian:jessie more -V                                                  1 ↵
      more from util-linux 2.25.2

<comment><USER26> [https://github.com/tianon/docker-brew- debian/blob/c2882c541f...](https://github.com/tianon/docker-brew- debian/blob/c2882c541f5bd5cfdd28a505a4e635d42c7fd946/jessie/build-command.txt)

It's using debootstrap --variant=minbase, which (from the man page) "...only includes essential packages and apt." It makes sense that docker would want only the bare minimum. And to be fair, but getting into nit-picking territory, minbase is the default _for debootstrap_ , but debootstrap is not the default method of installing Debian: debian-installer is. So docker's Debian image doesn't install less, but they're not doing a _default_ install, as in invoking debian-installer, and keeping the preselected choices as much as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I can see the fossilization, but I don't see what's so typical Unix of that phenomenon. Windows still includes cmd.exe with all its broken, retarded features, while it has powershell, which is supposedly (no experience myself) a little less retarded.

<comment><USER29> cmd.exe starts in a second, powershell takes 5 and then another 10 to actually be interactive.

So it's still useful to me.

<comment><USER30> Plus who would use these weird script language. Common! Even bash scripting it's more easy that powershell!

<comment> vertex-four Err. Bash scripting is awful. Trying to figure out what chain of commands you need to pull out that one particular piece of data from the output of that command... I've seen a dozen lines to manage it in some cases before, or calling out to a script in Awk or Perl. And then it won't work when you update your system because somebody decided to update a command's output format just slightly.

Powershell is an object-oriented scripting language along the lines of something like Python, just with different syntax and more of a focus on managing services. It also has reasonable syntax for applying one command to the result of another - the pipe operator. And it's reasonable to use it in day-to-day usage as a command line.

I've written a Powershell script to change an Exchange server setting we needed to change ever so often, faster than I could ever write a bash script to do the same. Under Linux, I'd likely have given up trying to use bash to edit a config, and just started writing an m4 file which generates the config as part of a cron job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I preferred 'more' over 'less' only in situations where I just wanted to see the first couple of many pages of output from something (for example compilation errors where the root cause is at the beginning and the rest is meaningless). 'less' would then block user interaction while reading all input (interruptible with ^G), while 'more' would display the first page immediately and stop reading from stdin.

For all other use cases, 'less' seemed clearly superior.

</comment><comment><USER32> On thing the article misses on is that, at least in Linux, less is not a line by line pager, it controls the whole terminal screen area, so for example if you pipe output to a file that has terminal instructions (bold, color, cursor moves etc) and try to use less to read the file it will not give such good output. More just outputs the ctrl chars and lets the terminal emulator deal with them, so they are visible, Thus highlighting the benefit of simplicity over cruft.

Sometimes, because more does less, more > less.

<comment><USER33> The "-r" option to less will allow the "raw" control characters to pass through. "less -r" will do what you want.

<comment><USER34> That's great to know but you still need to make sure the process generating the output isn't trying to outsmart you.

For instance ag (silver surfer) needs you to specify `ag --color` otherwise it will detect you are piping it and disable colors.

And if I remember correctly, grep needs a `grep --color=always` to achieve the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I've used Linux for a decade-and-a-half, but I've never totally loved the shell, because of the need to learn this sort of pointless arcana. PowerShell was a massive step forward, and I had hoped that an Open Source, cross- platform equivalent would develop so that we could get past the current local maxima of 1970s-era design.

It's rather weird that the Open Source equivalent of PowerShell is now...PowerShell. Even if you don't like Microsoft or .NET, if you care about shells I'd recommend trying out PowerShell Core for an hour or two. It's only when you use it for a bit that you start to realize that _you can guess commands based on the rules and actually be right_ and how big an improvement that actually is, rather than the current UNIX method of having to memorize more and more obscure trivia in order to get the computer to do what you want. I'm not sure if PowerShell itself is a long-term answer because of the .NET and Microsoft dependencies, but it gets lot of things right.

It's time we dropped the "Bash is good enough" arguments. There are now new Linux users starting every day, and asking them to learn that less is better than more is not funny.

<comment><USER36> I dunno, I'm a long term *NIX person (Solaris 1994-2011, Linux on and off 1994-2006, Linux mostly 2006-now) I am now involved in more Powershell scripting on Windows than I have ever done before. I don't see - Get-Content -Tail 10 FILE as an improvement on - tail -10 FILE

I think when it comes to the combination of intuitive command names and terseness when required, VMS' DCL is still unsurpassed. Having commands with sensible names that can the be shortened and a really useable HELP system was a major plus and I've not seen anything match that since.

<comment><USER16> To me, the main advantage of Powershell is filename handling.

I know that if I do everything just right, then my scripts will handle filenames with spaces/newlines/other crazy characters, but I always mess up somehow. Nowadays if I ever want a script I'll distribute to people who might have spaces in directories, I write it in python even if it would be a 4 line bash script, just to avoid the issue.

<comment><USER37> I've never really had a problem with spaces in path names.

You should be quoting variables when they're used though, there is a shell style guide put out by google that deals with this stuff.

[https://google.github.io/styleguide/shell.xml?showone=Quotin...](https://google.github.io/styleguide/shell.xml?showone=Quoting#Quoting)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Or maybe we are observing an OS that is allowed to evolve with the needs and wants of its environment, rather than something created by decree.

</comment><comment><USER39> >On Linux, more is part of the util-linux package but its manpage outright tells you to use less instead

On minimal distros (say, Debian in the minbase configuration), more is more likely to be included than less. I haven't used any other small distros for a while but is util-linux normally there instead of other packages (actually, I wonder why minbase doesn't just use busybox).

<comment><USER40> Not a debootstrap or any sort of Debian developer, but I assume minbase is expected to be strictly a subset of the packages one would find on a regular Debian system, which would imply having bash, dash, util-linux and so on, rather than attempting to use busybox (which is Priority: optional).

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've recently been using Vim as a pager and it's great.

      :help manpager

Suggests

      export MANPAGER="env MAN_PN=1 vim -M +MANPAGER -"

Which doesn't work for me, but this does:

      export MANPAGER="/bin/sh -c \"col -b | vim -c 'set ft=man ts=8 nomod nolist nonu noma' -\""

</comment><comment><USER42> From the article:

 _I am not a fan of Solaris 's long standing refusal to touch anything._

This is what people often deeply misunderstand about traditional UNIX operating systems: one of Solaris' greatest features, in stark contrast to GNU/Linux, is the insistence on not breaking backward compatibility. Solaris has however delivered less(1) as standard since Solaris 8, so there is nothing stopping one from configuring their PAGER to it. In fact, I do the exact same thing in my OS builds of Solaris and SmartOS. It's called system engineering.

illumos has the entire GNU userland in /usr/gnu and it's packed with new features under the hood, but those will almost never be introduced such that they break someone else's stuff; it's the very advantage differentiator illumos provides over anyone else! And it's good engineering, adding new funtionality while not breaking existing one.

<comment><USER43> > one of Solaris' greatest features

Features are use-case specific. One person's feature is another person's bloat. (Personally, I side with the article author on this.)

<comment><USER42> Do you deliver any software for the platform you use, and if so, do you not mind when things suddenly stop working?

Or, are you responsible for delivering any services, and if so, do you not mind when someone else's changes cause you an outage?

Perhaps you have some private automation in place; do you not mind if your automation breaks because of someone else?

Apropos bloat, illumos is the only operating system codebase which gets faster and more efficient with every commit. If there are others out there, I have yet to see such a thing.

<comment><USER43> I see this as a necessary consequence of being human. Sometimes, a genius comes along and gets the design and implementation right for years to come. Most of the time, people try their best. But nobody can really see into the future.

I'm happy enough if people say "okay, we didn't get this quite right, but we learned and we've made it better". And if the new approach isn't compatible, well okay. The short-term pain is usually worth moving forward in the long- term.

And when this happens, it's usually not a technical issue anymore, but a communication issue, which is a way harder problem to solve. If your solution to the communication problem is technical, i.e. let's always maintain backwards compatibility, then there's still the issue of communicating what the new, preferred method is. So I feel that if you have great communication with the people who care, it shouldn't impact them badly in the first place.

The danger of backwards compatibility is maintenance cost, and stifling new ideas to solve an existing problem better - people won't bother, because the effort of making something new would be overshadowed by the effort to retro- fit old behaviour.

Still though, I get the point of changing stuff just for the sake of change is bad. I'll ignore the hyperbole about illumos though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> On plan9 the "terminal" window pages by itself (it is not a tty) but there is also p(1) [1] which does even less than more or less.

[1] [https://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man1/p.html](https://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man1/p.html)

</comment><comment><USER44> Fortunately, `more` may be a very small piece of software and may not clutter the /bin too much. Moreover it may already be used by some scripts displaying long output they want user to read briefly.

But there may be (much) larger softwares superseded by more modern versions, both present on the os.

</comment><comment><USER44> Do one thing and do it well, but...

\- If more and less are split in two: more does not page well (no scrollback), and less does two jobs: paging and blocking the scrolling.

\- If more gets dropped in favor of less: less is a rather good pager, and serve only its own purpose of paging lines of text in different way.

</comment><comment><USER45> TL;DR: less has better specs and replaced more for non-philosophically inclined sysads.

</comment><comment><USER46> Well, at least Yngwie Malmsteen doesn't agree with this nonsense: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZ48AE3TOI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZ48AE3TOI)

</comment><comment><USER47> I don't believe more is the first Unix pager - doesn't pg predate it? IIRC pg is the only pager required by POSIX.

<comment><USER48> pg and the System 5 side of things are notable by their absence from M. Siebenmann's article. But pg appeared in System 5 release 2 or (more probably) 3 whereas more was 3.0BSD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> So to sum up, more had more features than more but less features than less.</comment>


Record Label 'Infringes' Own Copyright, Site Pulled - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/record-label-infringes-own-copyright-site-pulled-081019/ <comment><USER2> I don't get why Quote Unquote Records is bothering fighting w/ the host to get the site back up. Granted I don't know if they're stuck in a contract or otherwise have reasons to sick w/ their hoster but my gut reaction is to go find another hoster and give the original hoster the finger.

<comment><USER3> > Jeff is being denied access to his data by the host and he says that since > he had a crash on his local hard drive, he no longer has copies of any of > the content that was on the Quote Unquote Records server.

I'm assuming they want the site up just long enough to move it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ouch. Behold the dangers of keeping your data "in the cloud".

</comment><comment><USER5> They should sue the host into the stone age.</comment>


Deepsig: Applying machine learning to signal processing and radio - <AUTHOR> https://www.deepsig.io/resources <comment><AUTHOR> Relevant article from DARPA: [https://www.darpa.mil/news- events/2017-08-11a](https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-08-11a)</comment>


How the Internet Changes Our Thoughts and Behaviors for the Worse (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theemotionmachine.com/the-dark-sides-of-our-digital-self <comment><USER2> It's more mobile phones than the Internet. I'm expecting a backlash.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _79% of online readers scan, rather than read word-for-word. Often readers > can't be bothered to dig into text in order to find a piece of information > or an answer to a problem._

Well didn't that make me feel like a shit as I scan read the article...

(Although in all seriousness I do reserve the right to be mildly interested in the overview of an article and not care about the details. I don't feel that is a flaw.)

<comment><USER4> I agree, there's too much noise out there anyway. With most articles you don't lose much by only quickly scanning it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> An interesting book on this topic: [https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What- Internet-Doing-Brains/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet- Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750)

A review: Carr—author of The Big Switch (2007) and the much-discussed Atlantic Monthly story "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"—is an astute critic of the information technology revolution. Here he looks to neurological science to gauge the organic impact of computers, citing fascinating experiments that contrast the neural pathways built by reading books versus those forged by surfing the hypnotic Internet, where portals lead us on from one text, image, or video to another while we're being bombarded by messages, alerts, and feeds. This glimmering realm of interruption and distraction impedes the sort of comprehension and retention "deep reading" engenders, Carr explains. And not only are we reconfiguring our brains, we are also forging a "new intellectual ethic," an arresting observation Carr expands on while discussing Google's gargantuan book digitization project.

<comment><USER6> It's only a problem if you're actually bombarded with alerts and linkbait and refused to read anything smaller than one thousand words long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> People adapt to their environment, and if their environment is dominated by shallow, fleeting interactions, it's hard to imagine that it doesn't have at least a temporary effect. The thing is, I don't see it being the dominant force in the life of healthy people. Young or old, your majority of social interactions won't be online, and you're going to be more shaped by consequential interactions.

Friends and family are just going to exert more pressure on who you are, and how you behave, than distant people you don't really know.

For a healthy person. For someone who is very isolated for one reason or another, then it can probably get very strange and unpleasant. That strikes me more as another symptom of whatever isolates, rather than an underlying cause though.

<comment><USER8> Have you ever seen a family eat dinner with the TV turned on? There's no conversation. Fleeting phrases here and there. Everyone watches TV.

It's the same when everyone's smartphone is on the table. Perhaps worse because you aren't even sharing the experience of watching the same TV.

All my friends are always inside my phone. Only some of them are in front of me. Guess who wins.

<comment><USER7> That's just a glimpse of their lives, not most of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems Dr. Aboujaoude has a pretty low opinion of people's ability to choose for themselves what they want. The gripes about incorrect capitalization seem particularly petty. There seems to be little consideration given to the fulfillment people get from exploring alternate versions of their personality. Basically, it seems like he doesn't like the internet and then sets about justifying his position.

<comment><USER10> He doesn't seem to like much technology that's newer than television, from all I can see. Too, the direct link is to an outright puff piece. I'm really surprised this has survived on the front page as long as it has, or gotten so near the top.

<comment><USER11> The explanation for the latter is probably that people identify with the subject and want to discuss it anyway.

I am sure many jumped straight to the comments, as I did. I just want to hear what this community thinks about the topic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It seems to me that the internet is turning us a bit into bumper cars. Everything just happens. We get a new tweet, then we open the phone, we retweet. A minute later, another notification from whatsapp comes in... From notification, to reward to action, we get stuck in that social loop.

We need to develop a more intentional relationship with our environment, friend and specially with ourselves.

<comment><USER11> That is exactly the mentality that allowed me to scrape back my concentration and productivity.

If I am to open my phone it has to be with intent. I need to be achieving something.

The idle twiddling of thumbs waiting for something to react to is what becomes a bad habbit, and drives the need to constantly check your phone even though nothing is happening on it.

<comment><USER11> That probably sounds really dry, but the real benefit of ditching the phone habit was to gain back the ability to fully engage in games, movies, conversation, and even playing instruments. I was finding the short lived reward cycle was invading everything I did,to the point where I couldn't even sit down and learn a 2 minute song.

<comment><USER12> Couldn't agree more. It's like we are constantly driven by these little shocks that makes us forget the only reality, the present moment. As you say, taking the phone off and escaping from it allows us to become a bit more grounded and fully engage in the present moment. Hopefully those stretches of time get longer, but it is a lifetime journey

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was just talking about this broad subject last night.

It feels as if the interaction of people with the internet especially through phones is causing a ADHD of sorts.

It is affecting peoples ability to interact with one another. I try daily to strike up a conversation with people I encounter. Years ago, you could have a really great conversation. These days it seems increasingly difficult to find anyone interest in having a discussion about anything.

<comment><USER14> Where I perceive a tendency to ADHD is in myself. I used to enjoy long in- depth journalism, now after a few paragraphs I get the urge to open another tab. I used to enjoy long plodding movies by Kubrick and Malick, now when I watch a 60 minute television drama I keep pausing it playing with my phone.

It's like my mean-time-till-context-switch has gotten shorter out of habit.

<comment><USER15> I feel similar - being used to the distraction of switching between multiple tabs while waiting for a page to load, while a video plays on the second monitor, scanning the feeds on my phone on breaks. I can't focus to read a book and a movie takes days to watch. But it's not the internet.

I used the internet for years without any attention-span decrease or distraction features. When it was gopher, telnet, IRC, email, and BBSes etc. running on a DOS PC with no multitasking. (OK, I cheated, I had a TSR that let me switch between up to 3 programs, but RAM was limited and you were only using one at a time.)

It's the combination of multitasking OSes, putting a lot more things on the screen(s), and ubiquitous pocket supercomputers. That's led us to a new standard way of living where we're always trying to do several things at once and expecting context switches every few seconds. That makes it hard to do anything deeply and fully, or focus on anything for a lengthy time; it feels unnatural.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: My manager says I have to figure out my career myself. Is he right? - <AUTHOR> I am a team lead in a mid-sized startup.
Unfortunately, our company doesn't have proper career advancement advice or plan for "basic" levels like Juniors, Mid-level devs, and Seniors. There are role definitions but no guidance on how to progress from one to another.
With the Team Lead role, it's even worse. Nobody I asked around was able to tell me how one goes from a Team Lead to an Engineering Manager or an Architect (two possible roles "above" the team lead).
Now, I've been asking my Engineering Manager to give me at least some ideas about what I should be focusing on to learn skills necessary for the Engineering Manager role, but he can't tell anything except that I should become "visible". He says that if I were indeed ready for that role, I wouldn't be asking about it in the first place. Because "people at this level have to deal with a lot of uncertainty all the time," and asking for a specific career path is the demonstration of my inability to deal with uncertainty and take my career in my own hands.
This makes me feel doubt myself, but on the other hand, I see that other companies, especially those I consider to be successful, do have a clear career path beyond the Team Lead role.
Am I wrong for asking for something clear at this level? Should I indeed figure this out myself? <comment><USER2> I feel like that is the norm for small companies. It has certainly been my experience albeit outside of any engineering or development roles so far. They don't have the resources (their own time, especially a start up, or money to hire) to use on career planning like bigger companies do. Could he have given you some more friendly advice? Probably. Is it his job to: no.

That being said if you don't feel like your skills are being acknowledged, you're not learning new skills while on the job (unlikely in a start up but possible) or that the leap to the next step seems to great at your current job, you could just leave when you do feel ready and have learned enough, seeking your next job at the next level above your current. In the interim try to work with your engineering manager As much as possible to learn from them.

</comment><comment><USER3> In my view: where you want to take your career is up to you. Your manager should provide you with the guidance of how to get there.

Going into management is different than continuing on the IC path (at least in most companies). As a principal or architect, your job is to find the technical areas that should be explored (e.g. should Kubernetes be used, or Rust or something else), what are the implications of these technologies as well as how well they will solve the customer problems. Splitting the project and working with the rest of the team to have a sound solution. As a manager your job will be to deal with people and conflicts that arise due to various misalignments. Motivating people, making sure projects get delivered, taking responsibilities for things that you weren't aware were happening. Setting direction and making sure everyone is informed on what is going on. These are just the highlights, once you get into the position you get to see the different nuances, e.g. how to talk with person A vs person B. Figuring out what motivates them, what upsets them, what are they good at. Observing people and providing them guidance on how to achieve their goals.

</comment><comment><USER4> One piece of advice (more like a suggestion) that I can give, after working in the industry for so many years - nobody cares about your career. I've worked in 10+ places, all they cared about was getting max work done from me. I've rarely had a conversation with my bosses about my career, my preferences etc (though most of my managers have been good to work with).

I don't blame my managers/bosses - they are busy figuring out their own careers, they just don't have the interest or time to help someone, unless it directly and immediately benefits their own case.

I've seen this repeatedly - people advance their careers by doing one of the two : first, they are loud and persistent in asking for more money, better position etc and highlighting their work. Second, they jump jobs every 3 or so years, getting better pay and title every time.

You might be the best at what you do, but nobody will care unless you _make them_ care.

I wish someone had told my younger self about this.

</comment><comment> Pete-Codes I learned the hard way that no-one is going to plan your career for you.

It's good you are being proactive. But unfortunately lots of companies aren't clear about how to get promotions etc..is there someone in HR you can talk to? Or the founders?

I would just make sure you're at your A game if you are looking for promotion routes as well.</comment>


Facebook ignored racial bias research, employees say - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-management-ignored-internal-research-showing-racial-bias-current-former-n1234746 <comment><USER2> _In an effort to be neutral, the company's hate speech policies treat attacks on white people or men in exactly the same way as it treats comments about Black people or women [..]

Employees said that this policy means the company's automated content moderation tools proactively detect far more hate speech targeting white people than it does hate speech targeting Black people, even if the hate speech targeted at Black people is widely considered more offensive -- a hypothesis supported by academics and the company's own internal research.._

To avoid such an outcome, reddit used to explicitly allow hate speech against "majority" groups (in the US, despite reddit being used globally):[https://web.archive.org/web/20200629172643/https://www.reddi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200629172643/https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules- reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or)

They've since changed the wording to be less explicit, only forbidding hate speech against "marginalized or vulnerable" groups, without mentioning that this means hate speech against other groups is still allowed. The examples they give show their intention is the same: "Some examples of hateful activities that would violate the rule: [..] Post describing a racial minority as sub-human and inferior to the racial majority": [https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules- reporting/acc...](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules- reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or)

It would be interesting to see how they would apply this rule to a South African subreddit.</comment>


How to Pretend That You Are Smart (Featuring PG) - <AUTHOR> https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/07/how-to-pretend-that-you-are-smart?ref=briefingday.com <comment><USER2> Two things:

1\. Take PG like an opinion piece in the newspaper.

2\. This article so vehemently tries to criticize PG for his lack of sources, but it itself does not provide sources or data to support their criticism; instead it raises more rhetorical questions. Before you go out to publicly criticize someone, make sure you've got your own ground covered. Otherwise, it is just a metaphorical stone fight between the two. I'm looking for a chess game, not a stone pelting contest. Perhaps with both parties dressed, suited and politely dismantling each other's tactics with reason, logic and data. It could be a draw or it could lead to a checkmate. Both acceptable and the game concludes with a handshake.

Also some low blows to SV folks - CEOs and "intellectuals".

That was really glib and poorly organized, written and put forth.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't stand politics anymore but obviously Paul Grahams piece was an opinion piece. All the criticism in this article is completely unfounded and the whole article is just an attack piece as far as I can tell. Ridiculous

</comment><comment><USER4> I haven't read PG _that_ carefully but had a bit of an idea that he could be on the pretentious side and that he seemed to hold public opinions that one is "supposed to" hold. So I started to read this article with positive "pre- judgement" I suppose, but the author's entire point was to question PG's assertions. However, the assertions seem very likely to be true to me, to the point that it is the author (Nathan J. Robinson) who has the burden of proof. So I have to agree with the comments that are already here, this is just an attack piece.

</comment><comment><USER5> The author clearly has an ax to grind, and seems to be heavily invested in defending the authoritarian zeitgeist.</comment>


An Open Letter to Tesco UK - <AUTHOR> http://44con.com/2012/08/02/an-open-letter-to-tesco-uk/#more <comment><USER2> I think calling this an open letter is a bit misleading, as it makes me expect some kind of useful content or opinion. This would be better described as "An Open Sales Pitch To Tesco UK", as it can be summarised as:

Para 1: "Tesco has security problems, as noted on Twitter"

Para 2: "Tesco should pay for our security classes"

Para 3: "Tesco should pay for our security classes"

Re: "We just wanted to help out and had no direct way of contacting you." - given that a large part of security awareness is information gathering, I would be surprised if this is the case. It took me thirty seconds to find a way of contacting the IT Director for Tesco.com (well, I found his contact details - he might have a gatekeeper to keep sales pitches away).

I applaud your sense of timely marketing, I hope it works out. Your ad certainly raised my interest in learning about V-SAT vulnerabilities.</comment>


Eric Holder sends a follow-up letter to Rand Paul [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/LetterToSenatorRandPaul03072013.pdf <comment><USER2> Not a fan of Holder's original letter on the topic, and had to give Paul credit, but from an entertainment standpoint, the terse response and answer are pretty funny. "You have now asked an additional question" -- yes, a 12-hour long question.

Either way, happy to have a solid "no" on this answer and annoyed that it took a 12-hour filibuster to bring that about.

\---

One follow-up point now that I've thought about it: a lot of that statement depends on the definition of "engaged in combat." If I wasn't mistaken, wasn't part of the problem that the definition of this was so loose?

<comment><USER3> Call me a skeptic, but I see a loophole in that answer:

"...not engaged in combat..."

Define Combat.

Would Christopher Dorner's circumstance been classified as "engaged in combat"?

I would suspect that, yes it would be. Thus Eric Holder's position would be that a weaponized drone strike against him would be authorized.

However, in congruence with his earlier statement, the Dorner case could be considered "extreme" - as such, we need a much more clear definition of both 'extreme' and of 'combat'.

Could anyone opposing any LEO/Fed/gov agent be considered to be "in combat"?

What if they (the civilian) are being shot at, have no weapons but are being attacked by an LEO (Like the ladies and gentleman in the two trucks that were shot at by LAPD)?

So, while the terse nature of this response is slightly amusing - it's also scary.

EDIT: heh - you noticed the same thing I did whilst I was typing this...

<comment><USER4> The Administration cannot deploy military resources against Christopher Dorner because he is not a person, nation, or organization involved in the attacks on 9/11.

Once again: we are at war with al Qaeda brand terrorists and personal hygiene products. It is no doubt our stupidest war ever, but it is an actual war, unlike the war on drugs, and the authorization the Administration has to drone strike people comes from that war and nowhere else.

<comment><USER3> The road is being paved. What is to stop local law enforcement units from having weaponized drones within 5 years?

Honestly, what I beleive will happen is FLIR enabled drones assisting in all LEO efforts.

Take a look at my friends video he took this weekend.

This is a tri-copter with FPV goggles he uses to fly it. He built one that can hold several pounds and has a gymbal for holding a full size camera.

<http://vimeo.com/61156472>

Here is the setup:

[http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1718160&...](http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1718160&page=40#post24085992)

Weaponizing is the easy part - paving the multi-year path until its "authorized" is the tricky part which they are currently attempting.

<comment><USER4> The road you're talking about is technology. The road Rand Paul is talking about is endless power grabs from the legislative branch by the executive branch.

The road you're talking about is real; the road Paul is talking about is fanciful. The Senate voted to give Bush and his successors this authority 98-0.

Incidentally: as long as we're careful about ensuring that technology doesn't allow LEOs to gin up probable cause or introduce evidence that should be excluded, I'm not sure why I should on general principles oppose adoption of technology by LEOs.

<comment><USER3> The issue is that while it is subtle, the constant adoption of greater and greater technical capability by the LEOs is that its a slow, but constant stepping path toward _enabling_ tyranny.

The reason being that 1) a extremely technically enabled LEO system is one that is completely abstracted from the reality of its citizenry. 2) it creates an institutionalized dependence and sense of superiority on and due to said technological capabilities. 3) create a propoensity to rely on the technology more-so than the human instincts and filters, thus, we see much more of a "system" which will victimize people more regularly. Any and all murders by police will continue to be classified as "unfortunate" yet nothing will be done.

Police are already far too poorly trained to deal with anything remotely stressful without shooting first.

I am fully opposed to any and all pushing of technology onto an already overly trigger happy, callous system in lieu of more, actual training.

<comment><USER4> This is a very good reason not to give the police _armed_ drones, or, for that matter, new arms of any sort. I'm right with you there. The militarization of police forces is a real problem.

It is not a very good reason not to give the police better surveillance technology.

Crime victimizes more people than police forces in the US do. I'm not saying that means LEOs don't victimize people; they do. I'm not saying that means we should turn a blind eye to police abuse; we should not. But when we do risk/reward calculations, we need to keep in mind that the greater ambient threat is of crime, not police abuse. Sometimes, the police will ask for things that tip the scale the other direction. But we have to make a case for how; we can't just assume it.

Keep in mind: I'm one of the people laughing and cheering at the guy in the video saying "no thanks, no, I won't be pulling into secondary screening" at the CBP checkpoints; I've given to the ACLU. Surveillance is scary. It's just not _intrinsically_ bad; it's bad in a context-dependent way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Read an interesting column the other day that pointed out that in Washington there's plenty of bipartisanship -- when it comes to creating the security state. Not so much for other things. Paul ended up taking a hit from all sides on his mini-filibuster. And it was a rather odd assortment of politicians that supported him.

I'm glad the AG saw fit to answer after six weeks, and it looks like Paul is happy with the answer -- for now. This type of thing is a hall of mirrors, though. What defines "combat"? Were the Americans targeted in Africa participating in combat?

Supporters of Paul will say that he's only following the questions, that the administration is stonewalling. Supporters of the administration (and the Republican status quo) will say that such questions do not deserve answers. So here we are.

Bit of a sidebar: I honestly feel that these libertarian themes are going to play a big role in politics over the next few years. I feel so strongly I created a blog yesterday to summarize libertarian-oriented news and commentary to record how it all plays out <http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/>

Note: we should also be clear about the larger picture. A senator, who is charged with overseeing the "architecture" of the government, asked an executive department official for some clarity on an issue. After six weeks he received it and is happy with it. There's nothing binding here. He just got an opinion on how things are currently being interpreted. The president is perfectly able to re-interpret the law in a different way tomorrow if he chooses. In fact, one of the reasons for asking the question it to determine whether additional legislation binding the executive is required.

There's a much longer post here about terms and language and how we got here. The Congress authorized the president to take any necessary action against terrorists. Either that authorization has to end, or we need a very fine- grained examination of just what that language means, perhaps with more instructions from Congress. In either case, in my mind this is the normal thing that Congress should be doing.

The question is answered. The issue is not settled, and that's fine.

<comment><USER6> "these libertarian themes are going to play a big role in politics"

I sure hope you're right.

<comment><USER5> Remember I didn't say they were going to _dominate_ politics, just play a big role.

The reason I say that is because it was clear to me yesterday when Paul took the floor that millions of people both Democrat and Republican were with him. It was the establishment that was going bonkers. Partisans on both sides of the aisle didn't know what to do.

That means there is a place in the center for some kind of pragmatic libertarian movement to challenge the old guard in both parties. I won't lie to you -- the odds are extremely long that it amounts to anything. But it's the best chance I've seen in 20 years or more, and that's worth spending some energy recording, sharing, and encouraging it.

<comment><AUTHOR> _It was the establishment that was going bonkers._

In what way, by failing to agree with him?

<comment><USER5> Linsday Graham: "I do not believe that question deserves an answer."

John McCain: "...if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms..."

[http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/rand-paul-receives- respons...](http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/rand-paul-receives-response- criticism/)

<comment><AUTHOR> 2 comments hardly seems like the entire establishment 'going bonkers'. While I think his question deserves an answer, I agree with McCain that it's nothing more than a stunt. If Rand Paul were really serious about this, why not introduce a bill to amend the AUMF, which is what the President such broad authority to determine who is a combatant and deploy force accordingly?

As a US Senator, Rand Paul is among the most powerful individuals in the country. He can introduce legislation to add an oversight or reporting requirement to the AUMF, or to make determinations of enemy combatant status subject to legislative or judicial review, even posterior review...or any number of other variations. Of he can craft new legislation definingthe acceptable scope (if any) of drone deployment within the US by military or civilian authorities. Either would be more productive and more actionable than grandstanding demands for answers to questions that the Attorney General has answered already.

It's a funny sort of libertarian that wants to amend the Constitution to forbid abortions and prevent some people born in the US from becoming citizens, instead moving to a regime where citizenship is inherited.

<comment><USER5> Sorry. Looks like you wanted an argument. I just thought you were asking for examples. Have a good one.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wanted you to back up your rhetoric with something substantial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is meaningless because of the weasel words "not engaged in combat." The president can determine that anyone is "engaged in combat."

<comment><USER4> No, they cannot. Holder testified under oath at the Senate about this; specific examples were given.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've long been curious about this: In the Civil War, the United States killed hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers, (without a trial, of course). Yet the fifth amendment explicitly states that "No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Does anybody know how the Lincoln administration justified the use of deadly force during the Civil War? Presumably this would be a reasonable precedent to look at when determining the legality of killing American citizens without a trial.

<comment><USER9> Lincoln and Grant suspended habeus corpus for this reason. Leaving aside the preliminaries, once the shooting started the government had an armed insurrection within their borders.

Article 1, section 9: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Following from that, imagine telling an army that it is under arrest. :)

<comment><USER4> We didn't suspend habeas during World War 2, and we did kill US citizens in Europe.

<comment><USER10> > we did kill US citizens in Europe

We did? Was it on purpose [1]? Can you provide some references?

[1] I'd certainly believe that it's almost impossible to have a nonzero amount of friendly fire casualties in any military operation of this size.

<comment><USER4> A nonzero number of American citizens of Germanic descent left the country to fight for Germany before the US declared war.

<comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure that travelling to another country and joining an army currently at war with the US makes you fair game. In fact: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481>

<comment><USER4> It's also the Article III section 3 Constitutional definition of treason. But we didn't put those people on trial; we defeated them in combat.

<comment><USER9> Sure, if someone commits treason and then surrenders nicely, put them on trial. But if they are shooting at you, what are your options? The technical crime of treason being committed by some percentage of people in an opposing army seems to be a real distant second to the shooting. How do you arrest an army?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do you actually have to been engaged in combat or just contemplated it. Yeah, it's not like anyone has ever been entrapped by the FBI.

</comment><comment><USER12> Rand Paul is an idiot. Of course the president doesn't have the authority to order drone strikes on american citizens on american soil. What a waste of time and energy. Anybody who supports what Paul did is at best ignorant of what the government actually does and at worst a fumbling moronic buffoon.

</comment><comment><USER13> As many others have pointed out, "engaged in combat" has the potential to be interpreted in dangerous ways.

I think the drone issue is distracting people from what I feel is the more important issue: Our government has taken the official position that it can legally assassinate its citizens. So they can't legally kill me with a drone... small comfort if they can just assassinate me in some other fashion.

(yes, I know that government agencies have assassinated American citizens [not to mention non-citizens] in the past, but making it official doctrine is quite an escalation)

<comment><USER14> Yes, the issue of drones is extraneous. A drone is no different than a gun, the former just has a longer range. It's just fluff around the question of whether the government can kill unarmed and non-threatening citizens.

<comment><USER4> ... which they cannot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So they can kill American citizens engaged in combat? Great. What's combat?

<comment><USER4> Holder testified about this under oath in response to adversarial questioning from Senator Cruz and was clear that without an imminent threat that would endanger America (this was stated several different ways, all under oath) the US couldn't use lethal force of any sort on a terrorist on American soil. The example used was of an al Qaeda terrorist sitting at a cafe; a "cafe strike".

Holder said not only would lethal force be inappropriate (he actually started by saying "with the facts you've provided we wouldn't even be able to arrest the person"), but that the Constitution would not permit the Administration to use it.

<comment><USER16> Yeah the problem is that the Justice Departments definition of "imminent threat" is so loose that you could pretty much classify anything as "imminent".

They are playing really fast and loose with the lexicon they use.

<comment><USER4> This is why I pointed out that the question was phrased in multiple different ways, because I realized I was writing on a message board for nerds and that someone was going to try to litigate the meaning of the words "imminent" and "threat". If you watch the testimony, it was more specific than that.

<comment><USER16> This is from the Memo to congress from the Justice Department:

"The condition that an operational leader present an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future"

<comment><USER4> That refers to al Qaeda militants overseas. It is exactly the same logic as the logic that allowed Allied airstrikes against Nazi armor and troop placements in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For the country's top lawyer, this is awfully ambiguous grammatically.

There are two different possible interpretations of the wording of this letter:

1\. The President cannot order the use of a weaponized drone to kill an American, unless that American is engaged in combat on American soil.

2\. The President cannot order the use of a weaponized drone to kill an American on American soil, unless that American is engaged in combat.

<comment><USER4> If I understand (1) and (2) correctly I believe the Administration claims the authority to do both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Of course he was 'engaged in combat'...there was a military missile headed his way! Also, the drone was launched from Guantanamo Bay Cuba and it and the missile were in the air, not on the soil. Thus, the President didn't 'kill' anyone on 'American soil'. This person was clearly a terrorist who was engaged in combat with the American people by trying to prematurely detonate one of our freedom rockets with his face. Sure, there may be other ways to look at it, but that depends on what your definition of 'is' is."</comment>


Ask HN: Review my concept for an online court substitute - <AUTHOR>

I'm in the very early stages of development right now, but with such a complex industry I thought it'd be good to get some feedback from HN.
Circuit192 is simply an online arbitration platform. Its a form of alternative dispute resolution that is usually legally binding.
To use the service, first two parties would agree to the terms of the arbitration. They then both submit a testimony and supporting documents to the service. We'll then select a professional from the appropriate industry (through LinkedIn) to fairly arbitrate the dispute. The point is to make the whole process as painless as possible, while still giving just and valid resolutions.
So what do you think? Potential business or legal nightmare? (I'm leaning towards both myself). Thanks in advance as always.
Link: http://circuit192.austinbrandt.net/hn/
More details: http://austinbrandt.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/business-idea-voluntary-arbitration-network/ <comment><USER2> I'm not a J.D., but I think you're going down a legal path that can't be taken. It seems very weak from a legal standpoint that anything not approved but a judge or JP in a courtroom setting would be binding. Since your users already have the courts or lawsuits on the mind, you could become the next target for promising something that won't have legs in court.

If it were positioned as a mediation/negotiation service (not a judging service) to reach congenial resolution before the need for a court appearance, you may have something. But make sure you get every lawyer you can find to look at this to find the potential legal repercussions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback aspir, you really hit on the main point of conflict for me at this point. I haven't yet decided whether I want to bill this as a judging or negotiation service. In accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, this type of dispute resolution actually is binding. The Supreme Court has ruled on this several times in fact. If the parties so choose, however, they may choose to state in the terms of the arbitration that judicial review may be sought afterwards as well.

I see the problem being more of whether people would be willing to have a binding decision enforced upon them by an online service. Establishing legitimacy while bootstrapping is going to be tough.

And yes, I will certainly get every set of lawyer eyeballs on this as I can before launch. Thanks again!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable:

Link: <http://circuit192.austinbrandt.net/hn/>

More details: [http://austinbrandt.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/business- idea-v...](http://austinbrandt.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/business-idea- voluntary-arbitration-network/)</comment>


Ask HN: Free versions of 37Signals Products - <AUTHOR>

I use Basecamp and Highrise extensively for my business. However, I have a number of non-profits that I work in and would like to use Basecamp and Highrse there too, but it is too expensive. 24$ for the first Highrise plan seems excessive.
Does anyone know of equivalent products that are open-source or free?
Thanks. <comment><USER2> <http://www.projectpier.org/> if you can afford to host it yourself.

Consider joining NTEN or TechSoup for more help in this dept.</comment>


People count money differently in different parts of the world [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.wimp.com/flipcash/

<comment><USER2> I'm very interested as to who is behind wimp.com. They seem to be aggregating a lot of previously popular videos and using them as reddit linkbait. And it seems to be working, at least, it has been recently -- <http://siteanalytics.compete.com/wimp.com/?metric=uv>.

</comment><comment><USER3> $ is not a generic symbol for money. Also, that video is very inaccurate, Africa for one certainly does not count in that manner all over the continent.

People count differently, but the counting methods vary across countries and areas a lot more. People who deal with money a lot also tend to count differently from normal people.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting demonstration using what appears to be brand new bills (although the paper looks thicker than there is something printed on them that looks like it says "FOR GAME"), but what would be more interesting is if the method of holding and counting is based on the size, shape, paper quality, age, and condition of the bills.

</comment><comment><USER5> I tried to remember how I count them, then realised that I've never had a wad of bills.

</comment><comment><USER6> Not hacker news

<comment><USER7> If you think so, please flag instead of commenting.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

<comment><USER6> Fine</comment></comment></comment>


Oops Wikileaks: Informants Who Aided U.S. Named in Classified Reports - <AUTHOR> http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/informants-who-aided-u-s-named-in-classified-reports/?src=twr <comment><USER2> Not oops wikileaks, oops US that can not keep their secrets bottled up and/or convince their personel that it is to every bodies advantage to keep those secrets safe.

This really is collateral damage, but of a different kind than the one where a village gets blown up in order to get a few insurgents. (and creating a whole pile of new insurgents in the process).

Don't blame the messenger, wikileaks really is just a dumb pipe (in spite of their aspirations), the person that leaked this carries the responsibility, both the good _and_ the bad, and his superiors carry the responsibility for allowing that person access when they apparently could not trust him.

<comment><USER3> Another news organization would have withheld their names, so your "blame the leaker" argument doesn't seem very convincing.

<comment><USER2> In spite of their ambition to be seen as a 'news organisation' I don't agree with that.

Wikileaks is just a dumb pipe that vets information for basic correctness and then throws it before the wolves.

They shouldn't change the data in any way because that would mean a measure of editorial control and hence responsibility, also, once you start censoring some of the data you are on a slippery slope.

What they did with their collateral damage video was utterly stupid, it has reduced their status tremendously in my opinion. Their latest play to become the CNN of leaked data is a further move away from what they stood for. They're now actively turning themselves in to an anti-war propaganda machine. Maybe we need one, I don't know but wikileaks was an invaluable resource the way it was, it has become strongly tainted.

<comment><USER3> I agree that their past editorialism hurts their credibility. As you say, it really undercuts the "big dumb pipe" argument as a defense whenever there is collateral damage from leaked information.

I really hope Julian Assange can figure out how to navigate the many minefields involved in a site like wikileaks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I really like wikileaks in principle, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that 6 months from now the Obama administration will give a report naming some random Afghan, exposed in the wikileaks files, who was killed by the Taliban in reprisal.

That will be the beginning of the end of wikileaks.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hopefully nobody gets killed over this...

<comment><USER5> Whoever leaked this is guilty of treason, and if any of the informants get killed over this, the leaker should executed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does "wikileaks" provide any service beyond promoting the material it is given? I mean, if I wanted to leak classified data, I can think of lots of ways that would be as technically effective and much, much safer than handing it to wikileaks.

<comment><USER7> Their strategy, as I recall, is to make sure the information remains available even when it's politically unpopular. E.g., they provided info about Kaupthing when some media in Iceland was gagged: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikileaks#Ban...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikileaks#Bank_Julius_Baer_lawsuit)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not really, it is not wikileaks job to care about either side of the war. Just because the western powers favor one side, doesn't require wikileaks to do the same.

</comment><comment><USER9> So I imagine that this gives the moral high ground back to the US Government? (sarcasm)

</comment><comment><USER10> Preliminary statement from the government, without giving detailed independently verifiable information that could be used to confirm the safety claims; I guess we'll have to wait on a leak to know whether this was a real concern or part of an anti-wikileaks strategy.

<comment><USER11> "A search by The New York Times through a sampling of the documents released by the organization WikiLeaks found reports that gave the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing credible information to American and NATO troops."

<comment><USER12> they continued 'But the 75,000 documents WikiLeaks put online provide information about possible informants, like their villages and in some cases their fathers' names. '</comment></comment></comment>


TechBritain unveils a revamped interactive map of the UK startup scene - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/uk/2013/12/07/techbritain

<comment><USER2> Well done to the team. Being based in Scotland I really appreciated the work Shaun and Doug have put in to connect the community here with other tech communities across the country. Also add to that the great job they are doing in the Manchester community.

All the best to them with this new version of Tech Britain.</comment>


Taco Bell and the Golden Age of Drive-Thru - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/11_20/b4228064581642.htm

<comment><USER2> _It's as if the great advances of human civilization, in everything from animal husbandry to mathematics to architecture to manufacturing to information technology, have all crescendoed with the Crunchwrap Supreme, delivered via the pick-up window._

You'd think we'd try to go to the moon or something...</comment>


JSON Sucks - <AUTHOR> http://nocarrier.co.uk/2012/04/json-sucks/

<comment><USER2> The real problem with XML isn't XML, it's the APIs of XML parsers. JSON took over because the parser APIs are dead simple to code to, while XML's APIs tend to have this bureaucratic committee-designed API feel.</comment>


On the Existential Beauty of Peanuts - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/11/the-existential-beauty-of-peanuts <comment><USER2> I loved this article.

If you haven't seen it before, here's the '94 strip being mentioned:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTPKWqhUAAAtZco.png:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTPKWqhUAAAtZco.png:large)

And here's my personal favorite strip:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTPRUASUEAEY9Cb.png:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTPRUASUEAEY9Cb.png:large)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the link to your personal favorite. Reminds me of something Woody Allen said in "Annie Hall": _There 's an old joke - um... two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life - full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you like this, check out [http://3eanuts.com/](http://3eanuts.com/)

Peanuts strips with the third panel removed. Often revealing some existential angst.

<comment><USER5> Google's cache shows a legitimate site there, but all I see are squatter-style advertisements linking to 'sedoparking.com'.

<comment><USER6> It looks like the A record is correct, but the AAAA record is not, so those of us with IPv6 see the parking page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I saw this a few days ago and really enjoyed it. I always knew this about Peanuts but never actually realized it. Horton is a great writer.

</comment><comment><USER8> And here I thought they were talking about peanuts.

</comment><comment><USER9> Was anyone else disappointed this wasn't about the legume?

<comment><USER10> +1</comment></comment>


Jessica Hische - Why you should not hire me for web design - <AUTHOR> http://jessicahische.com/spendstoomuchtimeinternetting/ <comment><USER2> Answer: Because her text is so small (10px Georgia!) and low contrast at the standard size that it's painful to read. Probably looks lovely in print (like most of her portfolio) but no decent Web designer would ever set type like that online.

<comment><USER3> To be fair, the whole post is about how she is not a web designer. She implicitly acknowledges her shortcomings in that regard.

<comment><USER2> Except she seems to argue that's because she's not good at the Web specific technicalities. She also says she could respond positively to "I just need you to do the .psd file designs" requests, but believes the whole process should be handled by one person/team.

A good print designer should realize that tiny gray serif text on white wouldn't be particularly reader friendly, as much as a Web-only designer should know that Comic Sans will suck just as much on a billboard.

<comment><USER4> That's actually exactly the kind of thing that prints _beautifully_ though. That would be much easier to read if printed than it is on a computer screen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> She seems to have a better understanding of web design-related issues than most "web designers". Now I want to hire her.

<comment><USER6> She knows her craft well that's for sure! And I'm glad that she knows when to say NO.

<comment><USER7> why?

<comment><USER8> Until you say no, you are a slave to every request that comes your way. Much better to be selective and stick to your strengths - excelling at everything you do.

PS: Why is always a valid question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Her typography is absolutely beautiful, that's for sure.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I thought it was appropriate for a print specialist. It's a blog and it's her personal space, she can use whatever font she wants and it's totally fine. I did of course get so shocked by it i had to inspect elements and thought, "She's going crazy with her fonts here."

If you aren't a professional, stick to arial and verdana and the web will thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like her quote on this page: [http://jessicahische.com/spendstoomuchtimeinternetting/?p=15...](http://jessicahische.com/spendstoomuchtimeinternetting/?p=156)

      The work you do while you procrastinate is probably
      the work you should be doing for the rest of your life

The fact that she uses unreadable urls and text-images argues strongly that she's right about NOT hiring her to design web pages.

She writes well though and, once you print her work, it's beautifully readable.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't know if I agree that web design is more complex than print design. It's just completely different.

<comment><USER13> Web design is definitely very much less straightforward than print design. Having an understanding of typography, graphic design, layout, etc. is sufficient to get by in print design (more or less). In web design there are so many bizarre quirks of the trade that those fundamentals just aren't enough. The depth of knowledge required just to make a simple bordered box with rounded edges on the web is insane to the point of being kafkaesque, especially if you have to make it look pixel perfect in every single popular browser (including IE6).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been a fan of Jessica's work for a while.

This article is great and wish more people would read this–especially ones who think graphic designer == web designer.

Of course, Jessica is great at what she does (possibly the best). She doesn't need other work. Those who are mediocre at one at it have to take on other jobs (and are usually mediocre at that too).

</comment><comment><USER15> We looked at some of Jessica Hische's lettering work in a typography class I took at a local art college. I believe it was some Tiffany & Co displays she did. Her designs are obviously of unusually high quality and beauty.

That type of work really is much different than web design. It's more like illustration. Her own personal style shows through most pieces. It must take a huge amount of time to produce one of these.

It would really be a waste of her artistic ability to do traditional online work, though I can see it for particular branding and logo design applications. You can see Tiffany did exactly that on pieces 8-10 which are web samples.

</comment><comment><USER16> I understand her point. However, if I am offering one thing but people keep repeatedly asking for another thing, then maybe that other thing is what I should (also) be offering. Seems like pretty good feedback from the market.

<comment><USER17> People often repeatedly ask you for things which are bad ideas for you to offer, though. Web design is, ahem, being quickly commoditized at all but the highest levels. If you command a good wage as a print designer, and fill as many hours as you care to sell, why would you start at the ground floor in something you're not good at competing with more skilled, more experienced, more technical folks willing to work for $15 an hour?

Similarly, I will probably never implement my #1 feature request ("How can I make cards with pictures?") If anyone here thinks they can bang that out in the proverbial weekend a) if you do I will send you customers and b please tell me if the support burden ends up being as hellacious as I expect it will be.

<comment><USER18> Why do you think it's so difficult?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If it were me, I'd take advantage of the potential customers and the SEO that seems to be making her a popular destination for a related field.

1) Hire a good web designer. 2) ... 3) Profit.

This would be a prime example of being flexible and observing the market. Of course, to her credit, she seems to have no desire in growing a business, and just wants to do her thing. I can respect that.

</comment><comment><USER7> just another smug navel-gazing twenty-something who is engaging the age-old conceit of false humility

since she's already got a full schedule of clients, she's decided to offer up this pithy little bon mot of narcissism veiled as honest advice

let me summarize the next ten thousand blog posts that will emerge from the tumblrverse and their brethren:

"pffffft" (make eye rolling gesture)</comment>


Amazing photo of Italy lit up a night -- from the space station - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11776703

<comment><AUTHOR> More amazing photos from the "Cupola" capsule here: <http://www.esa.int/esaHS/SEMG2856JGG_index_mg_1.html></comment>


Toward an inclusive hackathon culture - <AUTHOR> http://timmesserschmidt.com/blog/2014/09/10/hackathon-culture/ <comment><USER2> This contains a list of links as opposed to content.

Anyway, here are the first two links:

[https://medium.com/@superandomness/hackathons-are-for- hackin...](https://medium.com/@superandomness/hackathons-are-for- hacking-2bba198ffebd)

[http://rubinovitz.com/post/97138278847/the-future-of- hackath...](http://rubinovitz.com/post/97138278847/the-future-of-hackathons)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's depressing that in 2014 this is something being discussed at all.

It's equally depressing that otherwise intelligent people will try to argue against codes of conduct, not realizing that as white men, they have literally no say in the matter (or at least shouldn't, even though many throw around their weight and privilege in order to disrupt things). I'd think that in a community so forward-looking and forward-thinking, people would have enough sense to be on the right side of history, instead of going down with the ship clutching their confederate dollars.

<comment><USER4> _not realizing that as white men, they have literally no say in the matter_

...Wait, we're excluding people from discussions on the basis of race and gender now? And calling that "forward-thinking"?

<comment><USER3> Uh, yes, when it comes to women's safety and women's rights, men have literally nothing to add to the discussion. It isn't the 1800s. Men do not own women's bodies or spaces.

Thinking that your opinion is universally relevant is simple entitlement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What is the exact problem with someone saying "One of the reasons I attend hackathons is to hit on chicks"? Is it the phrasing or the concept itself? Would it be more acceptable to say "One of the reasons I attend hackathons is to meet interesting and attractive women", or is the idea itself the problem?

I can definitely imagine someone objecting to being described as "a chick" instead of "a woman". However, I don't mind being described as "a dude", and I don't really understand the difference between the two.

<comment><USER3> It's the concept. It objectifies women. A hackfest is not a nightclub or a dating site. Having to constantly turn down sexual advances is awkward, and many times physically dangerous, and it has an effect of excluding women from spaces.

It's basic male entitlement to think that women should be receptive to their advances, at any time and in any place. Having to fend off creepy, socially awkward men makes conferences and the tech field as a whole incredibly hard to be in as a woman, and as a result, computer science is dragging literally all of STEM down with its grossly imbalanced gender ratio.

<comment><USER5> It seems an overgeneralization to claim that a heterosexual man flirting at a hackathon is by definition "objectifying" her or that it implies that he thinks "that women should be receptive to their advances at any time and in any place". It is equally plausible that he's interested in her as a person (and not as a mere object), and that he respects her right to reject his advances. I acknowledge that it's certainly possible that a man (or woman) could make advances in ways that are disrespectful and that shouldn't be tolerated, but I don't see how expressing romantic or sexual interest in this context is intrinsically evil.

I agree that disrespectful behavior should not be tolerated, but I don't believe that all expressions of romantic interest outside of dating websites and nightclubs are intrinsically disrespectful.

<comment><USER3> I don't recall stating anything about definitions; however, if you're a man approaching someone at a hackathon, you probably don't know the person otherwise (or you'd do so at a more appropriate place and time) and you're probably doing so on the basis of appearance (i.e., objectifying women). You're probably doing so because you think she'll be receptive (I have no idea what logic constructs these thoughts but men have them nonetheless).

I would say that your comment is a perfect example of male entitlement. Is it really so impossible to restrain yourself for the few hours a hackathon lasts?

Regardless of whether you actually are the one "nice guy" who would be respectful of a declined proposition, women have no such luxury. Because of our cultural focus on blaming women victims of sexual assault, women are taught (and rightly so) to be cautious of men, and a man becoming violent or threatening because of rejection is incredibly common. Forcing a woman to go through an incredibly stressful and frankly frightening experience, because you feel _entitled_ to do so, is simply chauvinist. It demonstrates that you think your right to hit on women is primary compared to women's safety and mental well-being.

If you don't think that's intrinsically evil, I guess you just don't think women are human to the same degree you are, which is pretty common sentiment in tech circles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Consider it during judging.

I was recently at MHacks as a sponsor, and our 3 top hack choices were half or more than half female. We gave shout-outs to 2 of them, and our sponsor prize to our top choice.

At final presentations, the top 14 apps were seated separately from the rest... People started to notice it was an all male group. It looked and felt wrong. There's just no way that all 14 of those teams were more worthy of stage demos, and it's not encouraging for future participation.

<comment><USER2> Can you link the 14 + 3 apps and let us evaluate them?

I do believe discrimination exists in our industry and have written about it, but I don't like to automatically assume its the default reason.

<comment><USER6> This is the full list: [http://mhacks- iv.challengepost.com/submissions](http://mhacks- iv.challengepost.com/submissions)

I can't seem to find a list of the top 14. Here's an article than mentions a few of them: [http://t.co/DdOmmQiaLY](http://t.co/DdOmmQiaLY)

The ones we liked: Leaftagger (a very useful developer tool for iOS developers) [http://mhacks- iv.challengepost.com/submissions/26195-leaftag...](http://mhacks- iv.challengepost.com/submissions/26195-leaftagger)

Comfort App (not my favorite idea, but the entire process worked flawlessly, and it was very polished.) [http://mhacks- iv.challengepost.com/submissions/26197-comfort](http://mhacks- iv.challengepost.com/submissions/26197-comfort)

FB Crypt - I normally super-hate any sort of browser extensions at hackathons, but seamlessly PGP encrypting/decrypting Facebook Chat was a great challenge. [http://mhacks-iv.challengepost.com/submissions/26314-fb- cryp...](http://mhacks-iv.challengepost.com/submissions/26314-fb-crypt)

Another trend I see is that if the hack appears sexy or innovative, even if it is not, it will go far. Android for iPhone took 2nd place... It was pitched as if an AOSP copy of Android was running on the phone, but quickly became clear it is just screen sharing like VNC. I've become a serious hackathon judging critic. YC Hacks finalist group was mostly embarrassing.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing the links. To be honest, I am not well-informed enough to judge them.

As for: "Another trend I see is that if the hack appears sexy or innovative...it will go far." I hate that too, but now accept it as reality. I am actively working on my showmanship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1\. Don't be a dick. (Seriously it's a bit disturbing how much work goes in to using lots of words to try to define this explicitly, only to end up with key parts being subjective anyway ("offensive" is in the eye of the beholder, etc).)

2\. Don't forget that drowsy driving (say, after staying up hacking all night) is at least as dangerous as drunk driving. (And of course drowsy _hacking_ is just silly, for much the same reason.)</comment>


Interactive Network Packet Builder - <AUTHOR> http://wirefloss.com/wireit/

<comment><USER2> Very cool project. It would be even cooler if you could actually _send_ your hand-crafted packets to a modifiable host/IP once you're done. To test if the user actually succeeded in creating a valid packet.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, that would be nice!

<comment><USER4> The complete Python based graphical scripting environment with import/edit of Pcap files and other goodies beta is scheduled for release in mid-to-end of July. If you want to be a beta tester, follow @wirefloss on twitter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great tool.

A clear text output box would be fine (since there are a few text based protocol which could be handled more easily if we would have clear text instead of hex).

<comment><USER2> >A clear text output box would be fine

Or allow user to toggle between them.

<comment><USER4> Yep, it's all there already :). See my comments about beta release above.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Say u have a single packet Pcap, with a multi-layer binary encoded packet. Click the button, get a complete editable stack graph pre-populated with values from the packet. Edit layers _in concert_ (no annoying Copy/Paste between layers as in wirefloss.com). When done, click and auto-generate a Python code stub sending the new packet to a wire. Coming soon!

</comment><comment><USER6> Any chance there is an open source repo for this somewhere?

<comment><USER4> Oh, well... no :(. The tool will be free, but it's not going to be open source. At least, not initially.</comment></comment>