Jack Dorsey explains why Twitter fact-checked Trump's false voting claims - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/27/twitter-vs-trump-fact-checking-dorsey/ <comment><USER2> "incorrect or disputed information"

"This does not make us an "arbiter of truth." "

Deciding what constitutes incorrect or disputed information in a political climate absolutely does.

<comment><USER3> > Deciding what constitutes incorrect or disputed information in a political > climate absolutely does.

Absolutely not. Absolute means something and you're being hyperbolic, at best. It's the human condition to make selective decisions, including meta- decisions. It does not make you or I an arbiter of truth because we do it, nor does it make Twitter or youtube arbiters of truth. This is "equality of outcome", territory which is nonsense.

<comment><USER4> > you're being obtuse

No name-calling on HN, please. It's specifically against the site guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

The more polarized things become, the more all of us here need to breathe and treat each other well.

<comment><USER5> This is an interesting example - I'm guessing the poster said "obtuse" where he now says "hyperbolic". While "obtuse" is definitely just an insult, literally, my experience is that it's used colloquially with an implied "deliberately" prefix to mean not "deliberately stupid/slow" but rather "deliberately avoiding some truth as a rhetorical defense". Of course, better safe than sorry.

<comment><USER4> Right, it was edited that way. Commenters shouldn't edit things in ways that undermine existing replies—that's discourteous and can even be passive- aggressive.

Words that imply 'deliberately' are probably best avoided in HN discussion because they're mostly a way of attacking the other person. Another common one is 'disingenuous'.

<comment><USER6> To be fair the original comment (which is top comment at the time of this writing) is not making a good faith argument.

<comment><USER4> Commenters here need to follow the rules regardless of what someone else did. Otherwise we just end in a downward spiral, because it always feels like the other person started it.

If by the original comment you mean [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333929](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333929), I don't see any indicator of bad faith there. Maybe it's wrong or even very wrong but that's not the same as bad faith.

<comment><USER6> For posterity, the bad-faith in the original comment is based on the fact that the poster states that tagging something as disputed is itself arbitration. But the act of tagging a tweet as "disputed" is a purposeful deference of arbitration to 3rd parties. In other words, the action is the opposite of what he/she is saying and the poster is either self-deceived or wantonly obfuscating truth and deceiving others - very bad-faith.

<comment><USER4> I think you're reading that comment overly literally. But even if you're right, the psychological state you're deriving from it does not necessarily follow. You're the one filling in that step, and then using it to attack someone else ("bad faith"). That's the part we ask people not to do here, for what should be obvious reasons. Before you get to "the poster is either self- deceived", your post here is a fine critical comment and could easily just stop there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From a business standpoint, being proactive about misinformation being spread is going to make them stand out as a seemingly more moral company. More people will read and engage. The perception of the feature is slightly muddied right now because the fact check is being painted as politically biased. But the bigger picture is that helping people vote and be more informed helps people of every political background. If a tweet had the wrong date for election day and twitter had fact checked that, would correcting that be wrong as well?

<comment><USER8> It's exactly the opposite. People are going to cringe at their hamfisted and obviously partisan interventions and their transparently hypocritical justifications for them. I don't agree with the opposing side politically but this is a losing move. The fact that their "head of site integrity" is an extreme partisan is icing on the cake. I'm surprised to say this, as someone who despises Facebook, but Zuckerberg seems to be playing this smarter, trying desperately to appease both sides. It reminds me of a guy standing with a foot on each of two diverging trains, but at least he isn't shooting himself in the foot.

<comment><USER5> It sounds like you're defining anybody who is explicitly liberal or conservative as partisan, which is deeply ironic.

<comment><USER8> Maybe I used that word wrong. I just meant someone who's strongly on one political side. Those things mostly go together in a two-party system though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a dangerous precedent.

When a Democrat is in office, will Twitter appoint a rabid conservative to make the fact checks? Because it seems the current "Head of Site Integrity" has a long history of making incendiary opinionated posts against Republicans, rural states, etc.

Fairness should matter in the media. Without it, we're on a bad path.

</comment><comment><USER10> The whole fight behind voting really is political. It helps the left and it hurts the right. It's like gerrymandering. Sure, people have the right to vote and should be able to, but that's an intellectually dishonest way of representing changes in voting.

<comment><USER11> I'd argue that if increasing turnout to be more representative of the population as a whole hurts your party then there's something fundamentally flawed with what your party is offering to the populace.

<comment><USER12> Something to think about: the electoral college is halfway more representative of people who can't vote (minors, non-citizens) because, in a sense, the elector represents them, and their neighbors who did vote probably have similar political views.

<comment><USER13> How nice of my neighbors to vote for others. Increased voter turnout removes the "probably" though by directly sampling. And then you don't need anachronisms like the electoral college.

<comment><USER12> My point was about representing people who can't vote. Direct sampling ignores them entirely.

<comment><USER14> But we don't want elections to be decided by people who are not allowed to vote. If we wanted those people to vote we would simply let them instead of some weird indirect system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The initial warning label should have been simple and kept to objectively defensible claims.

"Donald Trump said people in California do not need to register to receive a ballot. This is false. See $governmentSite for further information".

It _was_ a mistake to use media organizations with partisan opinion sections as fact-checkers. The most important people to reach with that warning label are the most likely to dismiss any information from those media organizations. A warning label is useless without trust.

But, I am optimistic about Twitter's use of fact-checking. I've watched both sides of the political spectrum slip deeper and deeper into delusion, and this is one of the few glimmers of hope. Twitter has the platform, the reach, and the power to effect legitimate positive change. I feel increasingly every day that the truth is slipping between our fingers. This feels like one of our few chances to realistically combat misinformation.

I meet people from both sides of the political aisle who have _incredible_ blind spots. People who actively follow politics and yet often have never encountered basic counter-arguments to their narratives. The modern media landscape allows people to live ensconced in an information bubble. Twitter is the most bipartisan platform that exists, and thus in the prime position to pop those bubbles.

I appreciate that Twitter is attempting this step. This has almost no likelihood of increasing users and a strong likelihood of decreasing users. They have chosen to do something that will likely hurt their bottom line out of conscience.

<comment><USER16> Social media platforms have been working to minimize effects of false news for several years now, and such measures are expected by politicians and the public.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's Debbie Wasserman-Schulz in 2008 saying mail-in voting leads to fraud: [https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1265698785813987328](https://twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1265698785813987328)

Why does the entire liberal establishment (and its "free" press) insist on the non-sensical notion that mail-in voting is _less_ prone to fraud than in- person voting? The DNC doth protest too much, methinks.

<comment><USER18> The "mail-in voting is fraud" idea is a transparent attempt to disenfranchise voters who happen to live in cities and don't have 2+ hours to wait in line.

Is in-person voting better? Republicans have been working to close in-person urban poll sites for years. They want to make it as hard as possible for city dwellers to vote, full stop. [1].

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/11/us- polling-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/11/us-polling- sites-closed-report-supreme-court-ruling)

<comment><USER17> Was it also a "transparent attempt" in 2008 as well? Or should Debbie be "fact checked" here? I'm getting all confused.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333504](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333504)

</comment><comment><USER20> I like Twitter, I really do. But Jack's statement make no sense.

If Twitter wants to step over its bounds as a platform, then it will absolutely be scrutinized as such.

What I find incredibly dishonest is that Twitter's head of "integrity" is a well-known troll who has on multiple occasions called Trump a nazi and more. How can we take their "integrity" seriously when it is led by someone with such an extreme political bias that there is no doubt this will impact what gets censored or not.

IMO this is not Twitter's role and a very slippery slope.

<comment><USER21> _who has on multiple occasions called Trump a nazi and more_

Regardless of what you might think about Trump it's a bad look for Twitter to have put someone so obviously partisan in that position [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/head-of-twitter- site...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/head-of-twitter-site- integrity-called-trump-white-house-officials-actual-nazis-and-mitch-mcconnell- a-bag-of-farts)

They have definitely stepped over the line of "we're just a platform" and into "we are taking editorial stances on things now".

Kathy Griffin, who recently called for Trump to be injected with a syringe of air, still has her account and still has her blue checkmark.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> >Per our Civic Integrity policy, the tweets yesterday may mislead people into thinking they don't need to register to get a ballot (only registered voters receive ballots). We're updating the link on @realDonaldTrump's tweet to make this more clear.

That might be the worst possible answer. That isn't what people on the left found objectionable with that Tweet and specifically signalling that out isn't going to assuage the complaints coming from the right.

</comment><comment><USER23> We live in such strange times. The party that for decades bemoaned moral relativism has, because of its skepticism of global warming and other supposedly liberal narratives, convinced a large swath of Americans, conservative and liberal, that the truth itself is relative, or at least to pretend to believe so. That's why people are so quick to disavow being "arbiters of truth" despite that once upon a time it was assumed everyone acted as an arbiter of the truth--who would dare give their voice to non- truths?

I keep returning to the notion that conservatives have become the standard bearers of radical leftist philosophies, such as poststructuralism's arguments about the non-existence of objective "truth". Republicans seem hellbent on proving this out. I've been arguing this for the better part of 20 years, though only recently did I stumble upon similar opinions, such as the satire piece, "Foreword to Newt Gingrich's Post-structuralism for Republicans: TrumpTruth and How to Make It, by Betsy DeVos, US secretary of education".

<comment><USER18> It's not that the truth has become relative - nobody is saying "you have your beliefs, I have mine." We are at each others' throats because there's vanishingly few shared facts.

There's hardly any mechanisms left to bring about shared truth. Even a life- threatening pandemic falls short.

<comment><USER24> Because the world is very big and we're really well insulated from most parts of it. Yeah there are hospitals full of patients in Wuhan, who cares. Yeah I can't go to Rome this year, because those frightened Italians closed shop, even though the plague is only in Northern Italy. Hah, those New Yorkers are losers, they don't even have enough morgues, probably because the constant crime! Damn these irresponsible city dwellers brought death to our doorsteps! Uh, well, Joe the neighbor got well after two day, so fuck these mask-donning gun-fearing science-suckers, don't tell me what to wear, and I won't cover my face, I'm not a Muslim woman!

And so on, and so on. The cognitive dissonance is palpable at every turn, but that doesn't help those who are in its grip. 100+ years ago people blamed that new thing, electricity, for the Russian flu, now people blame 5G. Just as sometimes lovely religious folks blame gays, rock and roll, and video games for everything.

There are very few clear cut things in our world that our brain accepts as such. (The Earth is round? Well, it seems flat to me. An anvil falls down faster than a pillow, so that must be because it's heavier.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What a mess. We should just return to catholic monarchy or at very least restrict voting to a trusted nobility. Democracy is really just a euphemism for rule by the media, and the media just serves private corporate interests. it's unrealistic to trust the average layperson to make decisions on matters of state. I wouldn't trust my cook to cut my hair.</comment>


Samsung's Report Says Galaxy Would Be Better If it Were More Like the iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20120807/samsungs-2010-report-on-how-its-galaxy-would-be-better-if-it-were-more-like-the-iphone/

<comment><USER2> As someone who has never owned a Samsung Android device, I was astonished by these slides. My biggest questions are:

\- how the hell did Apple get that report. They were the ones submitting it to court, right? Looks almost like industrial espionage to me.

\- Was this really the release software of the S1? Was it that bad? I remember people praising that phone almost like the S2 later on. Really? Some of those slides show truly hideously designed UI, like the 'next' button on the keyboard?

<comment><USER3> It's a court case - there's a process called "discovery" that lets you get a hold of information that looks relevant from your counterparty. It's entirely legal.

I presume it's the judge who gets to decide whether it's admitted as evidence, but until then I presume that the only people who can look at it outside of the cleared people at Samsung are Apple lawyer.

<comment><USER2> As a non American this is quite amazing to me. Couldn't that easily be used against someone in order to get to their valuable IP? Who decides what is relevant for the suing party to see and what not?

<comment><USER3> Check out the wikipedia page for some info:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)>

Ianal, but my understanding is that each side hires lawyers to go through the opposing side's documents. My understanding at this level is that while these lawyers may be working for you, they still owe a duty of care to only produce stuff that's of value to the court case. Unless your IP somehow involves the other side in some fashion, then that should be safe. But "confidential" documents showing how you modified your own product after a comparison with another product on the market is probably fair game.

What stops discovery escalating like you suppose is that there needs to be a basis for the court case, and that the lawyers looking at your documents have their own reputations to protect.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, no one's going to want to hire the law firm that accidentally leaked someone else's IP during a discovery process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article has a misleading title. Nowhere in the document does it state that they should or they will copy iPhone. It is just comparing their usability with Apple's. Quite the opposite, there is a page where they are stating they should differentiate and not look like iPhone's homescreen.

<comment><USER6> _> Quite the opposite, there is a page..._

One page out of a couple of hundred stating they should be emulating the iPhone's look and feel.

<comment><USER7> If you read the report and not just the article headline, you'll see that Samsung's report wasn't "hey guys, we should make our phone exactly like the iPhone" but, rather, "hey guys, here's things the iPhone does better than us - we should fix that, while making sure we differentiate our product"

<comment><USER6> What makes you think I didn't read the report? In almost _every_ page a direction for improvement is given to bring the S1 in line with the iPhone experience.

This isn't a 200 page report looking to make general improvements. It's a report looking to make improvements _comparative and in line with the iPhone_. Why else would they have a side by side comparison espousing the superior Apple UI/UX.

FYI for any phone fanboy's frothing at the mouth; I own neither an iPhone or a Samusung phone. I think both companies are guilty of some pretty piss poor business practices. The whole iPhone vs Android thing is reminiscent of the Sega vs Nintendo nonsense of the 90's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The other ten versions of this same article on the frontpage have vastly more honest titles.

</comment><comment><USER9> While the iPhone was clearly better designed than the Samsung phone compared to there, many of the comparisons seem to be a case of Samsung just assuming that whatever Apple did was better, even though the Samsung version was OK. It's like they took everything Apple did and defined it as being better than whatever they did. Granted, that was in fact the case at least 70% of the time.

<comment><USER10> Could you specify some slide numbers as illustration? I only read through the document quickly but I couldn't find a case where the iPhone wasn't indeed better.

Edit: found one example: the "second hand" thing on slide 49.

<comment><USER11> What's the point of making an internal presentation of all the points where the iPhone is worse and Samsung is better?

Samsung is trying to _improve_ their products, so they'll obviously compare their perceived products weak points against what they feel is a better implementation.

<comment><USER10> Sure. The question here is whether the iPhone is indeed better on every point. If Samsung's version is as good as the iPhone or better, and they still recommend to copy the iPhone implementation, then you can accuse Samsung of copying for its own sake rather than to improve the device. That is what TwoBit suggested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's important to note (when the article title is pure link-bait) that it's Galaxy S1 that's mentioned.

</comment><comment><USER13> This document basically completely exonerates Samsung. It proves that the Galaxy was an original design, and similarities to the iPhone were gained only after standard usability comparisons.

</comment><comment><USER14> Guys,

First, even with our fairly mad patent system intact, there is no law against looking at a superior product and brainstorming about how you can improve your product using the ideas contained there-in. And that is how it ought to be - should young painters back in the day have been prevented from studying Rembrandt because they would steal his ideas?

Then consider, there's no law about changing product in the general direction of a superior product _unless you violate a specific patent_.

Now further, if it is possible to patent any conceivable way to improve a product so that it is roughly similar to your product and solves the same problem problems as your product, then that should make us think even more about the insanity of patents.

</comment><comment><USER15> Interesting defence from Samsung. Not much else to say about this.

<comment><USER16> Then why did you bother?

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical or not. I have never seen a company use as a defence in a court of law the argument that if we had copied your product as you claim then our product would of been better. That I don't interesting and I'm not aware of any case were such a argument has been leveridged before and as such found that aspect interesting. I hope that answears your question if it was a question. If your aware of anything similiar in a technology companies many outing in courts approaching such a similiar argument then I'd be interested - has this argument been used before in a court?

<comment><USER16> Sorry I was glib but your previous post was ambiguous and didn't add much to the conversation.

<comment><USER15> Thats ok. What are your thoughts on this defence approach, is it something you have seen used before?

<comment><USER16> From my understanding, Apple is using this document against Samsung rather than Samsung using it as a defence.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a platform to organize social media messaging in a single place - <AUTHOR> So that I can see my customer's messages from Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp etc in one place and quickly respond from there itself? <comment><USER2> I'm sure someone is working on one, saying:

"There are too many competing social messaging systems - we need one, central system that brings it all together in one place."

[https://xkcd.com/927/](https://xkcd.com/927/)</comment>


Show HN: Automated Let's Encrypt Certificate Provisioning in Kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://blog.jetstack.io/blog/kube-lego/ <comment><USER2> Great stuff! I actually just finished a long session of reading through many of the docs & source for Ingress Controllers and kube-lego.

One piece I still don't quite get is why the Ingress Controller requires a default backend/404-server at all.

Could you please elaborate on why default backends are needed in general for nginx Ingress Controllers? It almost seems a bit extraneous to have another webserver just serving a 404 at / and a 200 at /healthz, especially if I'm defining specific Ingresses and their associated Services which could handle their own versions of those paths.</comment>


Rubies and Bundles - switching from RVM to rbenv - <AUTHOR> http://hmarr.com/2012/nov/08/rubies-and-bundles/

<comment><USER2> Why manage something manually when there are good tools to abstract it away in to the background? That's kind of the feeling I get when using rbenv + bundler.

Let me predicate this by pointing out that I manage a lot of Ruby projects (many are old) that require a wide variety of Ruby and gem versions. Obviously my solution isn't the best for everyone. Some developers will never have to worry about conflicting gem versions, because they work primarily on one project with one set of dependencies. The incremental value of the items I'm about to point out don't represent significant value to them. Enough with the disclaimers.

Bundler has the ability to alter your Ruby env variables so that you can easily install and execute gems from any location. This is the feature that allows you to use completely different gems across many projects without any conflicts. As the author suggests, you can pass a path at the time you invoke `bundle install` as a means to specify this location. This allows you to segregate gems to avoid conflicts. The author also points out that the trade- off is "one annoying side effect: any binaries that are installed (e.g. rspec, foreman, cap) are no longer available in your shell's path". Bummer. I wonder if there's a way around that? Hey, we could manage our environment so that these items are in our path, but remain segregated. We could even write some tidy scripts that automate it for us. Enter RVM.

This is why I don't understand the drive to move to rbenv for developers who need these features. I use RVM _and_ bundler all the time. RVM doesn't preclude the use of bundler, and bundler doesn't make RVM obsolete. When I establish an RVM gemset and .rvmrc, I've abstracted away all the '-- path=./.somebundledir' and `bundle exec` nonsense. I only think about it once, then I'm free to use the tools without additional cruft. I'm probably happier than I should be that I can type `cap staging deploy:pending` instead of `bundle exec cap staging deploy:pending`.

If you don't need gemsets, or you're only managing a very small number of Ruby projects, I suppose I can understand wanting a simpler tool, but I don't find RVM terribly complex. A lot of people will say "choice is good", but principle applied without cause isn't good, it's just pedantic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps it wasn't clear enough, but the post pointed out that typing 'bundle exec' and explicitly using --path isn't necessary. Once you've added one item to your PATH, and two lines to your bundler config file, you don't need to think about it ever again, it just works. If you want all your gems in one place, simply remove the BUNDLE_PATH line and change the BUNDLE_BIN directory to whatever you want (presumably something within your home directory).

I don't want to get in to the rbenv vs RVM debate - they're both good tools and it's an issue that has been done to death. I linked to five articles in the post, and you can find many, many more with a simple Google. My personal motivation for switching was that bundler's overridden 'cd' function includes some commands that fail, which is fine under most circumstances but it breaks as soon as you use 'set -e' in bash. We spoke to the author and he said he said that RVM wouldn't be 'set -e' compatible in the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER2> To be clear, my goal is not to sway your decision, but to provide an informed discussion for those making the evaluation. Whether we want it to be, it is an rbenv vs RVM debate, because those are the tools we're evaluating.

My observation is that rbenv users often tack on additional ad hoc solutions to arrive at the same convenience provided by RVM. The primary objection I hear to RVM is the `cd` override, which is optional.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've never found it necessary to use the --path or --binatubs options with rbenv.

For --path, I just use the default which presumably puts everything in the main rbenv folder for gems. I've never had a problem with this.

For the problem of having to type "bundle exec" before every command that uses a binary from a gem, I've heard of two alternative solutions. One is aliasing "bundle exec" to "be" or something to make it quicker to type. The other is using zsh/oh-my-zsh instead of bash and using a plugin (can't remember the name off the top of my head) that automatically figures out what should be bundle execed and takes care of it behind the scenes. I've never had trouble with this either.

<comment><AUTHOR> The issue with not using --path is that gems will leak between different projects, so you'll probably run in to trouble when projects depend on different versions of the same gem.

I've also used shell plugins to remedy the bundle exec issue, but they've often caused more problems than they solve. I'd much rather just stick something in my PATH than use shell plugins.

<comment><USER4> I find it much easier to simply explicitly require a specific version in my Gemfile if I'm having trouble with a gem, rather than having the extra overhead of managing multiple sets of gems.

I think it's a more correct solution as well. You won't have any guarantees that Bundler will resolve the dependencies correctly in production when it doesn't in your development environment.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's also a good approach. The moving the bundler binstubs to a central location would work nicely as well, I imagine.

<comment><USER4> Absolutely.

I'm using oh-my-zsh with the bundler plugin, which aliases all binstubs to a function that prepends bundle exec if there's a Gemfile. It works very well in practice. rbenv handles the correct ruby version, Bundler loads the right gem, and it all falls back to the newest version on the system default ruby.

It's a few more moving parts behind the scenes than I'd prefer, but once configured it's completely transparent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sometimes the simpler solution is the more complex tool -- if that's what everybody already uses and if it already works. Just like RVM.

<comment><USER6> If the python community felt this way we'd all still be using easy_install and installing our libraries at system root.

<comment><USER5> I'm not saying it's always the rule. It depends on the context. If the context is a group of Ruby/Rails devs who are efficiently building applications in exchange for money, and the new(er) tool is one that:

1.) Ends with the same net result for the developer, and 2.) Adds a little bit of complexity on setup and rules around use, then

why switch? I'm perfectly willing to trade up my development tools, but I want a better net gain before I switch.

Perhaps that net gain will be to keep up with a growing number of devs who use it? We'll see.

<comment><USER7> You can use the right tools in the wrong way and be productive. You're still using them wrong. Most people use Bundler and RVM gemsets in a way that Bundler wouldn't even be needed. Rbenv forces you to learn the proper way of project management and it actually reduces complexity once people get over the small learning curve of using the correct tools for each thing. Bundler manages dependency, Rbenv just switches rubies. RVM adds so much more that it blurs the lines between things.

<comment><USER2> > Rbenv forces you to learn the proper way of project management and it > actually reduces complexity once people get over the small learning curve of > using the correct tools for each thing.

Boy did you overreach on this one. What about rbenv constitutes the "proper way" versus a tool like RVM? If the argument is that RVM abstracts away too much of the underpinnings, then you've just a made a philosophical argument that is in conflict with much of the work that we do as developers.

RVM is simply an environment manager. One should always understand the environment that they're managing, but using tools to increase the efficiency of that management is not in violation of the "proper way". If abstraction of underlying complexity is bad, we shouldn't be using bundler, rbenv, or even init scripts and package managers. We should start all system processes with the direct invocation and build and install software by hand, lest we not learn the "proper way".

If we accept that abstraction is not necessarily a bad thing, then we can recognize that there's nothing about rbenv that is any more "proper" than RVM, and we can all use the tools we prefer.

I prefer not to have to append '--path=./somedir' every time I run `bundle install`.

I prefer not to have to prepend 'bundle exec' to every shell tool in my toolchain.

I prefer to have all my rubies and gemsets organized in a single location instead of spread out across my projects.

I understand that by using RVM a background process is altering my environment. I also know how to run `rvm info`, read the output, and understand the terms.

Those are my preferences. They're no more right (or wrong) than yours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just a little plug, I wrote this language-agnostic environment loader: <http://direnv.net> . Unline rvm it doesn't hijack all your shell builtins and is very lightweigh (keeps your prompt fast). I use it every day load load ruby/python/go/... projects in isolation.

</comment><comment><USER9> For something even simpler, check out redenv -- <https://github.com/damballa/redenv> . It tries to provide something which works more like Python's virtualenv, just doing the minimum necessary to setup an environment referencing a particular system-provided Ruby installation, but with an isolated gemset.

</comment><comment><USER10> In one of the linked posts they compare it to the rails vs Sinatra relationship, but in this case, since rvm and rbenv don't ever make their way to a consumer there's no real reason to switch.

I suppose if you're someone who has to work with multiple Ruby versions, it COULD save you time switching between them.

</comment><comment><USER11> But there is <https://github.com/carsomyr/rbenv-bundler> already.</comment>


Google Buzz Hacks for Users, Developers, and Haters - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/4_google_buzz_hacks_for_users_developers_and_haters.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+readwriteweb+(ReadWriteWeb)

<comment><AUTHOR> this shows you how to gain access to Google Buzz NOW, if you don't have access yet.</comment>


Three Types of Passion - <AUTHOR> http://blog.figuringshitout.com/nov-5th-day-23-three-types-of-passion/ <comment><USER2> "People with a passion with nothing are the ones who are content to lead an ordinary life. They are the ones who can grow up, go to school, get married, get a good job, buy a house in the suburbs, raise children and grandchildren and die utterly content with their lives."

This isn't quite fair. This describes people who are passionate about their family, their wives, their children. Maybe passionate about home repair. Maybe about their local community. Or even spots. And that doesn't even cover the fact that most ordinary suburban folk have hobbies about which they are passionate.

The article overall just seems to be placing labels on people, but leaving me with a question to the author of, "So What?"

<comment><USER3> Right, and labeling them is not much different from calling them dumb.

I think something's wrong with us "passionates." Why aren't we seeing any value in these everyday "content" people?

<comment><USER2> I am one of those everyday "content" people. I used to be "passionate"... doing startup work, personal projects, climbing mountains (literally), etc.

You know what? I'm happier now. I have more burdens, I'm in worse health, I have little personal time.

Yet somehow... still happier. Go figure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> like most things in life that we try to place into distinct and separate categories... it really can't be broken down that easily, I believe it's more of a spectrum of passion types where someone can fall anywhere from 0 passion to infinite passion.

And if you think about it that way, isn't that basically the same thing as saying we're all a little bit different in personality? Replace passion with commitment, honesty, intelligence, curiosity and you could make the same argument for each.

<comment><USER5> My point in this piece was that it's a mistake to think if this as a continuum and that these are actually 3 discrete classes. Misunderstanding arises for not appreciating this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dilemma: 1) The people who have "passion for everything" do not know about this trait of theirs. 2) The people who have "passion for nothing" do not agree to it. 3) The people who have "passion for one thing" have fear of going berserk.

Those who understand all these points are the fourth category people.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's also worth noting that people can move between 0, 1 and N passionate things during their lifetimes.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting rhetorical device, but I think a lot of people would have a hard time fitting themselves tidily into one of those categories. I'm probably more of a 3, although it can vary depending on what state of mind I'm in!

</comment><comment><USER9> I would rate myself as a 3, and one way I can tell is that I click on too many of the links at HN each day. Much time spent, not a lot done, other than... learning!

</comment><comment><USER10> "There are only three numbers in Computer Science. Zero, One and N."

Anyone know who said this? Google only gives a few results... that's what his thesis reminds me of.

</comment><comment><USER11> Starts slow, gets more interesting in the middle. The "people passionate about one thing", "people passionate about many things" is a bit cumbersome - I was mentally filling in "specialist" and "generalist" and "neither" for his points, which isn't quite precise but close enough. Still, interesting enough and short read, I'd recommend it's worth the read. Beginning is underwhelming, but some interesting observations in the middle.</comment>


How your mind protects you against hallucinations - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/how-your-mind-protects-you-against-hallucinations <comment><USER2> Clever test setup</comment>


The next version of DuckDuckGo - <AUTHOR> https://next.duckduckgo.com <comment><USER3> Hi all, thanks for checking it out and we're looking forward to your feedback! This next version of DuckDuckGo is in public beta. Here's the post about it I just made: [https://duck.co/forum/thread/5726/duckduckgo-reimagined- and-...](https://duck.co/forum/thread/5726/duckduckgo-reimagined-and- redesigned)

There are still a lot known issues that we're still working through before we can make the transition. I'm sure this thread will uncover more :)

<comment><USER4> I just tried it out. Wanted to find "phpng" that was released just now. Search returns results for "phong" and no way to force it to use the term phpng. Otherwise, it looks good and works as well as the other "older" one. Good job.

<comment><USER5> You can put quotes around phpng to force DDG to search that word. Though this should only be a temporary fix until the real problem is fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks great!

Your new maps need to have an on-map credit to OpenStreetMap, as that's where the map data comes from, and OSM's licence requires attribution. osm.org/copyright explains how.

<comment><USER7> It does. Click the "i" button: Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA

<comment><USER6> That's not on-map, that's hidden behind a click. osm.org/copyright makes it very clear that the attribution needs to be on-map. You don't see Google permitting people to hide their brand away like that!

<comment><USER8> Apple does this too in all of their uses of OSM in their maps.

There is some OSM community discussion on the UX behind this here: [http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21769](http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21769)

<comment><USER9> Apple's maps are not just OpenStreetMap - there's a lot of other data sources in it too.

For the OSM data Apple do use, I think it's quite old OSM data from 2010-2011 or something. As far as I remember, they used that because the license changed after that, so I believe that's under different terms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you are using DuckDuckGo for privacy reasons, I strongly suggest you use [https://startpage.com/](https://startpage.com/) instead.

DuckDuckGo isn't much better than Google; both of them hijack your links. This gives an opportunity to track what you click on. If you watch carefully your links go to "r.duckduckgo.com" \-- this page also doesn't use SSL. For example:

[http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip...](http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDuckDuckGo)

StartPage doesn't hijack links, it (optionally) uses POST and you never send a referer header so traffic looks organic.

<comment><USER11> > StartPage doesn't hijack links, it (optionally) uses POST and you never send > a referer header so traffic looks organic

... and looks like MSN Search results from 2006. Not just ugly and cluttered, which I don't mind too much, but dysfunctional too: no keyboard navigation between results nor editing the search query without using the mouse to focus the box. That is an immediate no-go for me.

<comment><USER12> You can make it look like this: [https://i.imgur.com/jMucQvl.png](https://i.imgur.com/jMucQvl.png)

I'm not entirely satisfied with startpage either though. What we really need is a local search proxy that goes via Google/Bing however you like, e.g. 1) using clearnet without cookies and cleaning up links (Google, Startpage, Bing) 2) via Tor automatically falling back if you get captcha (with option to do the captcha if you don't like results) 3) Like 1) except via some VPN/Proxy

The results from each source (or multiple) could be normalized and the local app can offer any kind of interface you like.

I'll write it at some point, but if anyone wants to steal that idea — please do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So: feedback.

The contrast is too low. It is hard to read on my (relatively bad) laptop screen.

Popins only when your mouse is over something are frustrating. My mouse is not tied to my eyes! In particular, if you're scrolling with your mouse in the center of the screen, the pop-in happens a moment after you stop scrolling, which is distracting. Also, I don't like hiding information by default in general.

Additionally: there is no way to view the full URL for long URLs - <USER2> expand, but only to a point.

The top header staying put is bad from a screen real estate POV. I've got a widescreen screen, and as such I'm cramped for vertical space but horizontal space is ample.

Finally: having the right arrow to the left of the domain to search the domain, and the popin on the right saying "more from <x>" seems redundant.

</comment><comment><USER14> Having been using DDG as my primary search engine for pretty much 6 years now, I really disliked the new redesign.

As mentioned in another comment, the contrast is really bad, I find it hard to read and focus on a given result. This is much worse when using f.lux.

I also disliked the left-align on everything, I rather have it centered as it currently is. When using big widescreen monitors there is a lot of whitespace in the middle of the screen and the results show up all the way to the lower left corner... It is pretty uncomfortable to look all the way there and this makes it harder on the contrast part too because there is so much bright light already coming from the background and the font color is a light greyish. This is specially worse in multi-monitor setups.

The image and video search tabs are great, and I really like the fact they replace zero-click results when you click on them, but I wouldn't leave them in the fixed header, there is just no need for them to be there. This would reduce the size of the fixed header and make it even better.

When scrolling results using j and k, the greyish background it adds to each result makes the contrast even worse. I remember when they were yellowish, they were better back then, imo. But current design works too. I also miss the current border around it, it makes it much easier for you to find yourself if you are switching tabs and going back to the results page. I haven't measured, but the font also seems a couple pixels smaller, is it?

It is also harder to distinguish between results. It all seems like a blob of text, hard to skim through results looking just at the title. In the current design this is fantastically easy, given titles are blue. I only read stuff below the title if the title is of interest. In the new design this is much harder to do, there is not enough contrast between the title and the text under it. Keep it blue, there is absolutely no reason to change this.

<comment><USER15> All of what @ rcamera said.

I really like the current visuals and layout much better than the beta, particularly the contrast and blue links. I also like the favicon to the left of the page title in results.

I actually like the instant suggestions. And I like the "Images" and "Video" buttons at the top, _HOWEVER_ I'm a massive !bang! fan, and will differ to !i and !v. Although I would prefer that both methods go to a generic images and video searches (as opposed to Google Images and YouTube). ALSO, for me when I roll over a link I want to see the url in the bottom of my browser (forgetting what Firefox calls this) and I'm not getting it with the new layouts Video suggestions.

<comment><USER16> +1 on the blue links. Sure, on most websites blue links might look like the 1990s are calling, but on a search engine with a list of results, there has to be /something/ to set apart each result from its neighbors. I also like the brownish urls on the current layout, just because it also serves to set apart each result.

Unfortunately, in terms of readability, the new layout is a major step backwards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well kudos on letting my right click and copy URL from search results! I hate how Google insists on using [https://www.google.com.bo/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we...](https://www.google.com.bo/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fguides.rubyonrails.org%2F4_0_release_notes.html&ei=E-BnU4K0IaTNsQT6x4LwAw&usg=AFQjCNFpeY6-5J6FqUmWRt- TOBA76MX3Qg&sig2=yDluopjR_TRPimLQt-ohvA) \- yeah Google, totally makes sense.

Godspeed duckduckgo!

<comment><USER18> The reason Google sends you through a redirect instead of directly to the site is to prevent those sites from tracking what you searched to get there. When websites look in their referrer header they'll see [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rc...url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rc...url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.org%2F...1,d.aWc") instead of "[https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=example"](https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=example").

This gives them the advantage of you only being able to see what Google Searches brought people to their site through Google Analytics.

<comment><USER19> > _This gives them the advantage of you only being able to see what Google > Searches brought people to their site through Google Analytics_

Search terms come in Google's Webmaster Tools. You can only get them in Analytics if you hook up your Webmaster Tools account to your Analytics Account.

<comment><USER20> It is true that it does promote analytics. However, one key feature of Google analytics giving privacy as a normal user is that you can never actually look at the profile of a user. You can look at stats such as 10/100 people used the "Best Hammers" search term, and that 80/100 people come from the United States. But you can't say look at X IP address and see where they come from, what browser they use, and what search term they used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> fsck--off I use DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine and have had a positive experience using it.

This redesign incorporates two of the worst design trends today: very low contrast text and gratuitously, obnoxiously large fixed headers.

I dislike fixed headers on any non-phone/tablet UI because almost all laptop and desktop screens are widescreen. Fixed position elements on the sides of the screen make much more sense, although poor implementations are very unpleasant and can create a jarring parallax effect. Unfortunately, fixed elements on the sides are soooo MySpace and have fallen out fashion, and many sites waste most of the space on the sides. The header in the redesign in obscenely large and the new page shows me less results at a time.

I have young and healthy eyes with 20/20 vision. Even so, when I use my laptop for coding and reading text, I turn the brightness down because it is easier on my eyes and does not give me headaches. I believe that the best practice is to make text #000 on a white background or very light background (like news.yc does), and to let users adjust the brightness of their display if this is uncomfortable. There have been assertions by that lighter text with white is better (and unfortunately this is the latest and laziest design trend), but I have seen no formal evidence of this and believe that this is mostly a combination of overbright display screens and poor text rendering by OSes and browsers. If you turn the brightness of your screen down, you solve the "too much contrast" problem (if it ever truly existed) and can tell when any text isn't #000. For me, DuckDuckgo's current snippet display color is to light at #333, and ridiculous at #595959. If I set the brightness of my laptop to the maximum setting, the snippet text is more tolerable but still uncomfortable.

I dislike the neo-flat, iOS-like buttons, but they don't really make the site any harder to use. I find that neo-flat buttons are almost have an underlying hypocrisy. The idea behind the flat painting movement is that you can discern what was called "optical depth" without using traditional perspective to mimic the depth you see with stereoscopic vision. The neo-flat movement is based on the idea that you don't need to underline hyperlinks or add perspective based shadows and gradients to distinguish what a button is because you can just use colors alone or make _everything_ a link. If this were really true, then you wouldn't need to make the neo-flat buttons change colors when you mouse over them, because it should be obvious that they are links. You can see similar hypocrisy in Google's A/B testing of non-centered labels in certain neo-flat buttons on their websites (especially YouTube).

Edit: I rewrote the first sentence of the third paragraph to make it more clear.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the feedback! Our current version also has a fixed header, and that can be turned off in the settings, which we plan to make work in this next version as well.

Noted on contrast. We will look into it more -- that's exactly the kind of feedback we were hoping to get.

<comment><USER21> I'm in the camp that actually likes the new look. It conveys a modern minimalist view while the extras just get out of your way.

I've been mostly against flat design for a number of reasons but IMO, you've achieved a great design. I _really_ like the minimalism of the hamburger button. Again, everything just gets out of your way.

Perhaps enlarging the font-size of the search result snippets might help with the contrast complaints - personally, I like your use of the grays. Again, it conveys a modern design.

I really hope that there will be an updated iOS app soon too :)

<comment><USER22> >it conveys a modern design.

That's a terrible reason to pick a design. If you have no justification for a design other than 'lots of other new websites do this', then you have no justification at all... unless your purpose is to blend in and be forgotten.

<comment><USER23> Ah, but an old design conveys amateur quality, which does not compete well in people's minds with Google, etc.

<comment><USER24> I don't think that Levi-Strauss is losing market share for not being trendy. A strong, working product trumps fashion, in my book.

<comment><USER25> Levi-Strauss uses a deliberately retro design language as a core part of its marketing. All those rivets and obvious stitches serve little purpose other than to project an faux-naive olde timey image. I can't see any reason for DDG to follow a similar design approach, unless they want to go for the Steampunk user base.

<comment><USER26> This is not true. If you are a desk jockey then maybe you don't need rivets, but they (along with all stitching besides the back pocket stitch design) certainly help keep your denim together if you are the least bit hard on them. Ripping off pocket corners or blowing out crotch stitching is something that happens. And I'm pretty sure Levi's also offers denim with non contrast stitching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Hey Gabriel, congrats on the new launch! The new autocomplete -as-you-type feature made me curious: you mentioned that you don't associate queries with IP addresses, but does DDG save queries?

<comment><USER28> Looks like an already asked question:

      To be clear, we still don't collect or share personal
      information and auto-suggest does not impact that at all.
      I   appreciate it may make you and others uncomfortable
      and we're sensitive to that, but it is not a change in
      terms of privacy. We simply do not associate queries with
      personal information (e.g. IP addresses) and in fact
      don't store any of it at all.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7700960](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7700960)

<comment><USER27> I saw that, but it was very delicately worded. For example, if Gabe doesn't consider the search query to be personal information, then his answer would allow DDG to save/store search queries. That's why I asked for clarification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> First impressions are good. Looks clean, I like auto complete. I also like the autocomplete for shortcuts (!).

I've set it as my home page (was already using ddg for my main search).

Is there a way to turn off the links at the bottom under the search? Set as homepage, etc? I keep mousing over them and the popups are distracting. I understand why they need to be there for new users.

Great work and thanks for what you do.

<comment><USER30> To continue about auto-complete, would it be possible to add Tab button as a valid button to go to the next item (Shift-Tab to go back)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm getting a weird bug that's making the results page un-usable:

When I move my cursor up and down in the results area, the listings start scrambling around like crazy. I can't even tell if they're being scrolled through or if they're just randomly changing.

I am on a Lenovo Yoga 13 (which is an ultrabook with a touchscreen) using Chrome 34.0.1847.131 m on Windows. I suspect DDG thinks I'm on a mobile device and then interprets cursor movements as finger swiping.

Edit: Yep, seems to think I'm on a mobile device. Menu is hidden behind a menu icon, but I can't get it to open with a mouseclick--only with a tap on the screen. The site is _completely unusable_ for anyone with a Windows 8 laptop (ie, laptops with touchscreens), unless they're using it exclusively as a tablet.

</comment><comment><USER32> I sure hope I am not the only one who dislikes the new look. Ref:

1\. Old DDG: [http://s388.photobucket.com/user/cubancigar11/media/snapshot...](http://s388.photobucket.com/user/cubancigar11/media/snapshot2.png.html)

2\. New DDG: [http://s388.photobucket.com/user/cubancigar11/media/snapshot...](http://s388.photobucket.com/user/cubancigar11/media/snapshot1-4.png.html)

There are so many problems here:

1\. Poor contrast of font-colors.

2\. Poor choice of font - bold doesn't really standout as much as it should.

3\. Font spacing has increased which forces me to scroll down thus breaking my thought process.

4\. Icons now take vertical space instead of horizontal.

5\. Mouse-hover color change has poor contrast. On my desktop I can only see it through a specific unnatural angle.

<comment><USER33> I think it looks better than the original, though. That giant red bar at the top, with a yellow box underneath always reminded me of the original ask jeeves search page, with its giant blue bar up top [http://i.imgur.com/7LYUXre.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/7LYUXre.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I hate to say this, because I am a BIG fan of DuckDuckGo, but I think your ranking algorithm can be improved.

I collect domains for my open source project, OpenDomain. The sites do not actually have too much valuable content - just placeholders so people can find them.

I just checked, and quite a few of my domains are listed very highly on DDG. Not that I am complaining, but I think they are rated high just because the keywords are in the domains themselves.

For example, "NoSQL", "JSON", "Free TV", "liposculpture", "WebPlatform", and "Helpher" all scored top hits for my sites.

I am not asking for my sites to be removed specifically, but we should try to get better results - I have done NOTHING for SEO on these domains - just owned the keyword.

<comment><USER35> I've also observed that, .com, .net domains rank much higher (even if it's not any good) as compared to less popular extensions (.me, .co etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> In general, it looks really good.

\- I'd like some more focus on keyboard navigation. Make sure that everything looks good when tabbing, even if you've used arrow keys first.

\- Anti-phishing: A long domain name will trim the end in the "More from ..." link. Instead it would make sense to trim the beginning.

\- Needs better contrast.

</comment><comment><USER37> Why does DDG display rover.ebay.com links in search results?

From my understanding rover.ebay.com is used for ebay affiliate links. Is this one way DDG makes money? If not, why would they display rover.ebay.com links in search results over traditional ebay links?

EDIT: Looks like I answered my own question. They generate revenue through affiliate links.

For anyone else curious, here's the link - [https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and- affiliates](https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates)

</comment><comment><USER38> Finally: A redesign that isn't a 'remove everything useful' one. That said, the low contrast text is a pain to read (still some metro-ification, I guess), the results page's information density is too low, and the scroll effect feels like I'm on the brink of getting motion sickness (something I've only ever experienced with javascript fake scroll, I might add)).

Also, horizontal scrolling: Please, PLEASE, no. It's just horrible and should die.

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't understand how a service can be both secure and centralized. You'd have to give 100% of your trust to a single entity. I'm not pointing fingers, but DDG is a good example of this situation.

If you want greater security, you have to allocate trust amongst many entities. This is a practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance problem ([http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/16444-practical-byzantine- fault...](http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/16444-practical-byzantine-fault- tolerance) ).

My current trust model is primarily made up of my friends and family; not a third party organization online, regardless of how they market it. If I put my trust in them, my security would only be compromised if ((N-1)/3) worked together. (see [http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.824-2012/papers/castro- practical...](http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.824-2012/papers/castro- practicalbft.pdf)) Wouldn't my activity be more secure if it was built upon that?

I'm not proposing any implementations; just food for thought.

</comment><comment><USER40> DDG has been my primary search engine for nearly 2 years. I love you guys for both your service and your mission.

You've struggled in the past with local searches and map inferences to non- address searches (think "Godwin Park Houston").

I threw those at next.ddg and the result back were very good. I don't see having to !g a query for these in future.

I'll edit as I use the beta in the next few days but first impression is "Hot damn, it works! Good job!"

Edit 1: There are still dot coms and business I search for that I don't get the "map this for me" option. Examples:

[https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=cpap.com](https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=cpap.com)

[https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=men%27s+warehouse](https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=men%27s+warehouse) (do I want a wiki article or do I want to find the ones close?)

[https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=whole+foods](https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=whole+foods)

Edit 2: The UI is so clean and nice.

<comment><USER41> Try this query: [https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=whole+foods+falls+church+va](https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=whole+foods+falls+church+va)

<comment><USER42> [http://www.bing.com/search?q=whole+foods+falls+church+va&go=...](http://www.bing.com/search?q=whole+foods+falls+church+va&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=whole+foods+falls+church+va&sc=2-25&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=7991e2a1bb3240d39d121259048b70d7)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I love Duck and the focus on privacy it has, but lately I've been using searx and had more success with it than ddg given the same queries. You can find running instances here: [https://github.com/asciimoo/searx/wiki/Searx- instances](https://github.com/asciimoo/searx/wiki/Searx-instances)

</comment><comment><USER44> Please make the fixed header half as tall. Put "Images Video" to the side of the search box.

This is nitpicky, but I don't like how an entire result is a link with a hovered background color. I also don't like how additional content appears when hovered. Please don't trim the URL and hide it unless the result is being hovered on.

</comment><comment><USER26> Something that has bothered me in the old version as well as this version is the wiki-summary/product/images/videos header. Often times (especially when im using a VPN) the search results load before whatever needs to be loaded in the header, so I will go to click a result and then the header expands into my click. This means I go to a page I did not intend. It needs to be a fixed size or its size needs to be determined before listing search results.

<comment><USER45> I totally hate that Header too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Of course the first thing I did was a vanity search of my name and I have to say I'm really impressed (and a bit shocked) by the quality of the results:

All my social media profiles, all my websites, every project I contributed to, even websites where people credited me for my work when they used it in their own projects, all neatly sorted and with great context information. Definitely on par, if not better, than Google and visually much easier to digest. Amazing job!

<comment><USER47> Wish I could say the same :\\. The top result for "David Celis" is a LinkedIn directory of people with my name. The first result that's actually me is my Twitter account, at number 3. My actual homepage, [http://davidcel.is/](http://davidcel.is/), doesn't even appear on the first page. Guess I need to become more important?

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm not up to date on what kind of algorithm you're using, but last I checked you were still mostly relying on Bing, is that true? Are you guys working on your own search/indexing engine so you don't depend on any of the big guys that might eventually pull the rug from under you?

I guess what I'm saying is, if Microsoft were to deny you access to Bing tomorrow, would DDG still be a pretty good search engine, or would it fall apart?

</comment><comment><USER49> Please make sure the hamburger menu button on the right and the close X button inside the menu are centred (edit: with respect to one another) - currently, the close button shifts down and left from the position of the hamburger button. Keeping it in the one spot is one of those polish things that instantly stands out to me.

</comment><comment> saiko-chriskun I would really love to switch but it still pales in comparison to google on a lot of searches.

[http://bit.ly/1ur3zP2](http://bit.ly/1ur3zP2) vs. [https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=medium+top+collections](https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=medium+top+collections)

<comment><USER50> not sure what are you talking about. Google results for me are as follow:

1\. medium.com/collections

2\. medium.com/top100/may-2013 (what I would be looking for except it's from last year)

3\. an article with the title "Top Medium Collections everybody should follow"

4\. images (why here?) of... purses and drawer handles?(wtf? why is this here?)

5\. List of Medium collections | Niccolò Brogi

At the side some advertising for something that looks like bird cages or outdoor lamp protectors from Google Shops and "Tops at Macy's"

DDG's:

1.Medium Top 100 for March 2014 (much more recent than googles and at 1st position)

<comment><USER50> To be honest DDG's other results were pretty much garbage for this query, but in the end of the day it brought me a much more relevant page in it's number 1 spot without tracking me.

Maybe you trained google well. I have not used it much in ages

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I've always wondered. How do these guys hit google search so much without hitting limitations?

Google is pretty aggressive at banning bots, and I can't imagine Google have given a competitor API access or something like that. Proxies is out of the question for this scale too.

<comment><USER52> I'm fairly certain that they do not proxy searches to Google.

I heave heard that they do use Bing and Yahoo search APIs, but this could be incorrect.

<comment><USER53> You're correct: [https://duck.co/help/results/sources](https://duck.co/help/results/sources)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Thank you for adding image search! That's about the only thing I really rely on Google for. Giving it its own dedicated full page rather than just a section would be very welcomed as well.

Two other things. Others have mentioned having the links always blue, not just when rolling over. I would like this as well to make it a little quicker/more evident where the physical link is.

Secondly, I like the link to see more results from whichever domain, however I am wondering if we can also have a "hide results from whatever domain" so we can hide useless spammy domains that may show up in our results. This is a huge problem on Google, though I haven't noticed it as badly on DDG.

At any rate, I love DDG! Thanks for the hard work!

</comment><comment><USER55> Based in US, the line "The search engine that doesn't track you" means nothing.

<comment><USER56> Please don't keep it to yourself! What is this privacy-protecting search engine that you've been using that is immune to US or other intelligence agencies' snooping?

<comment><USER50> If they snoop your logs, but you have no information on your users then they will get nothing. If they can snoop your traffic live than pretty much yes, anything US based is vulnerable, but at least my information is not being sold and traded between private companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Looks beautiful. My only criticism is that you could make better use of all the whitespace the the right on the search screen. Maybe expand the width of search items to fill some unused space + increase the number of search items above the fold.

<comment><USER57> You can actually increase the width of the results, if you prefer. It's in the settings: [https://next.duckduckgo.com/settings](https://next.duckduckgo.com/settings)

Click on the "Look and Feel" tab, then change the "width" :)

<comment> k-mcgrady Great, that looks better, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> So understandably you don't want to be too specific about how you pick search results to beat the seo people, but could you talk briefly about how ddg returns results? Is it still some variant of PageRank?

</comment><comment><USER59> The design is nice, but I still don't find the results relevant (from the small sample size that I tested). For example, I searched for 'alternatives to minimum wage' because of a recent debate, and got Yahoo Answers as the first result, with a bunch of unknown sites after. On the other hand, Google returned the Washington Post, Bloomberg View and other credible organisations.

The design is certainly much nicer on the eyes, without the blue links and with the little 'read' tick marks, but perhaps the focus should be on better search algorithms first?

</comment><comment><USER60> I tried switching to DuckDuckGo about 8 months ago, maybe a year, but eventually went back to using Google simply because DuckDuckGo's search results were not nearly relevant enough. When I saw this redesign I was compelled to give it another try, and I'm happy to say that the results are way better than they used to be. The new UI is also very comfortable, and brings most features up to par with Google, especially the image and video search.

This is great work, and I'm very glad to now switch back to DuckDuckGo as my search engine of choice. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER61> The Related Topics algorithm needs a lot work.

I search for "Denver" and the top related topic is "Gang Activity in Denver." Really?

I search for "Chicago" and the entire related topics list is places on the historic register in Chicago. Really? The whole list?

I'd turn this off until you make it work better. It grabs a lot of attention and degrades the rest of the experience. My first impression is that if DDG gets that part so wrong, what else are they getting wrong with the search results? Cruel, perhaps, but that's my impression.

The new interface is nice and fast otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER62> I started using DDG a long time ago when it first came out. I asked for a few stickers to add at my IT department, but I got a good bunch instead.

There are now random DDG stickers in various cities around southern Ontario.

<comment><USER63> Any way to get some more in Europe?

<comment><USER62> You can buy some from: [http://www.stickermule.com/duckduckgo](http://www.stickermule.com/duckduckgo)

I still have a few with me. I can send you some if you want (contact details in profile).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Just wanted to say, had heard a lot about ddg, but I never really gave it a fair shot until now, and it's awesome, before you even get to the privacy stuff!. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER65> The one thing that kills be about DDG is that when I search for "who is the prime minister of australia" it get's nearly everything wrong.

Google gives me a result of a name ("Tony Abbott"), while DDG starts giving me an article from Wikipedia describing the role (this one is forgivable...)

DDG Images shows the first six images as being previous prime ministers.

[http://imgur.com/a/wWgXD](http://imgur.com/a/wWgXD)

</comment><comment><USER66> The one box can be nice but takes up too much room so I have it set to off. It would be better if you gave me a simple click to view one box (I can often guess the small number of cases where viewing it would be useful - such as thinking a map will show up or in the case I wanted the wiki summary).

Off the top of my head just having a link after the products link that said 0-click box (or something) if it was settings had it off would be useful.

</comment><comment><USER67> I just recently switched to duckduckgo and I wasn't a fan of the search results UI (spent a lot of time in settings) but this looks beautiful!

</comment><comment><USER68> There doesn't really seem to be any improvement over the old page and the only thing that annoys me with the old page (used with kj=b2&kl=wt- wt&ko=f&kp=-1&kx=b) is the fact that instant answers are loaded not immediately. That is, if I click on the first link before WolframAlpha pops up with something more-or-less helpful, I sometimes accidentally click on that area.

</comment><comment><USER69> One of the problem I see is that it appears that this version is that there is too much emphasis on keyword rich domain names. On one search query that I did just now, 14 of the top 20 search results for that had the keyword in the domain name.

A similar search (different city + keyword search), different city but same keywords as above, reveals 15 with the keyword out of 20 search results.

</comment><comment><USER70> Anyone know how DDG is detecting this:

> Your browser indicates if you've visited this link.

I was under the impression that browsers try to block sites from being able to detect this. Traditionally, the hack has been with the :visited pseudo-class, but not sure if there's more at play here.

Kind of a weird feature for a search engine whose tagline is "The search engine that doesn't track you."

<comment><USER71> It appears to use the :visited pseudo-class. You'll notice if you click that area it'll link to the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> One thing that would be nice to fix in the new interface:

If I use the DDG TOR hidden service, 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion, do a search and click on a search result the link goes via a DDG redirect from r.duckduckgo.com. This should be using the hidden service domain, not the duckduckgo.com domain. As it is the redirect goes over a tor exit node rather than directly via the hidden service.

</comment><comment><USER73> I really like the simplicity of this version of DuckDuckGo. The only thing I'd change, is the color used for domains. I personally look at the domain (among other things) when I decide to click on a result, and having a more noticeable domain name would be extremely helpful allowing me to quickly make a decision about which results are worthy.

Just my personal thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER74> Shoot! I'll be able to retire [http://ddgg.nfriedly.com](http://ddgg.nfriedly.com) soon!

<comment><USER74> Doh! That was supposed to say "Whoot!" but my phone autocorrected it and I didn't notice until after the edit timer was up.

But to clarify, I'm happy DDG is incorporation this feature :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Nice redesign, as a designer, developer and user: I like

I don't like the way that video search is actually Youtube search (to use 'video' is misleading, sad face). And I imagine when it comes to images is the same.

DuckDuckGo, if you would please add other media sources... Google used to do this, now it's all about keeping the user inside Google's ecosystem.

<comment><USER76> We originally prototyped videos with several providers including Vimeo, YouTube, and DailyMotion. Sadly there was an immediate (and difficult) safe search problem and we decided to table re-enabling the others until after we got some feedback about how it worked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> This is not very important but yet there are a few typos on [https://next.duckduckgo.com/about](https://next.duckduckgo.com/about)

"Less Clutter block" Our only focus is search. That means that our results are free of promotoions <\--

"Discuss block" Our forums are a place -->for to<\-- chat

</comment><comment><USER78> I also use DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine and have had very positive experience using it.

But the single worst thing about ddg is that it's still not possible to deactivate the "did you mean?" functionality. I rarely make typing errors so I spend most keystrokes on ddg putting quotes around things that I did mean.

</comment><comment><USER79> I might switch back to this. Google is becoming more useless to me at it attempts to be everything to everybody else.

</comment><comment><USER80> I really like the new visual design, slick work!

One issue I have is with the infinite scrolling of the results. When at the bottom of the page I would like to know how many more results there are so I am not flying blind until I randomly get to the end of the results. Not aware of any formal studies to support this just opinion :)

</comment><comment><USER81> I think it looks great! Tried it in my kind of night mode: dimmed display, very orange f.lux setting and inverted colours, and it works good. I like the design a lot! Why not widening the results column in larger windows and thus fit more results vertically? Maybe really large site logos/icons would be cool.

</comment><comment><USER82> Scrolling is broken on Safari iOS7. The default behavior in Safari is when you scroll up, the controls appear (url bar, back/forward button, other tabs button etc.)

It seems DDG implements its own scrolling, so scrolling up does not make the controls appear, which is quite unexpected and makes a bad user experience.

</comment><comment><USER83> Just because it lets me use "j" "k" to navigate the search results and "/" to highlight the search text is enough a temptation for me to contemplate dumping Google. I hate how Google forces me to press "Tab" and the up/down arrow keys to navigate.

</comment><comment><USER84> Where is "Try this search on:" box that used to be on the right hand side? I found it extremely useful.

Also the dropdown in search button that allowed to, say, sort the results by date. (I often forget query parameters)

Overall I like the esthetic direction ddg is taking, unfortunately I found two good features missing.

</comment><comment><USER85> I used to use DDG as my primary search provider for half a year, was unhappy with the user experience/search results but after a couple preliminary searches, everything is looking up! Well done DDG, really, really stoked for you guys to get better. (And it looks like you definatly are!)

</comment><comment><USER86> I would love to use DDG as my default search engine but anything other than Google is extremely poor when it comes to the non-English side of the WWW. Google was way better at sorting Greek web-pages last time I checked. I'll give DDG another try though, might turned better...

</comment><comment><USER87> One thing that is bothering me is the filling in of search queries when you mouse over them. One wrong move with the mouse if you have a query partially typed in, and you have to backspace all of the automatically filled in stuff. Other than that, I think it's pretty nice.

</comment><comment><USER88> I can't turn off the infinite scroll. I've set "Auto-load" in the settings to Off. But when I scroll to the end of the page new links still get appended automatically. This also happens on the current version DDG as well. Am I misunderstanding this option?

<comment><USER3> What browser/OS?

<comment><USER88> Firefox 28 on Windows XP. My usual browser, loaded up with all kinds of extensions and stuff, so I also tried:

Chrome 35.0.1912.2 (from portableapps.com) on Windows XP.

So as to make sure it's not my fault for using XP, I went and updated my Arch Linux box and tried:

Firefox 29.0 on Arch Linux

Chromium 34.0.1847.132 on Arch Linux

Both of those browsers are untouched by extensions.

In every one of these cases, I go to duckduckgo.com or next.duckduckgo.com, go to the settings, change "Auto-load" to 'Off', type the test search "Rob Hubbard" into the search box at the top, press enter, scroll to the bottom of the page by dragging the scrollbar with the mouse, and see the text "More Links..." automatically change to some animated dots and then the further results appear a moment later.

Hope all this detail is helpful!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> I've been using DDG intermittently for the past two years, and solidly (with fallbacks to other search engines) since June, 2013.

Overall the design looks decent. Remember: less is more.

I don't know if features were modified since fskc--off posted, but I'd agree strongly with both his primary concerns: ditch _ALL_ fixed headers and footers, on _ALL_ devices, and keep maximal contrast throughout the site. My eyes are no longer quite so young as they once were, and low contrast designs are bullshit. The "off-black on off-white" argument applies _only_ to print materials, not online, where contrasts are inherently lower, and are _worsened_ by increased ambient light.

I find the grey background on the focused search entry distracting. I've removed it. The outline is sufficient (if not excessive itself).

I find the font sizes in general too small. I prefer specifying fonts in _points_ not _pixels_ , and very, very strongly recommend that _all_ text- oriented dimensions be either in ems or percentage of screen width. In general, _don 't size text elements_ if you can help it. I set an overall content width of between 45-50em for most sites, with a minimum 2em margin (and that's as a fallback). I apply my own CSS to many sites I visit, some 1000+ at present (yes, including HN, increasing contrast and font sizes being principle changes).

I notice the browser URL no longer reflects the present search. I dislike that change as I'll copy and paste search URLs fairly frequently. Please retain the previous behavior.

The search syntax icons on the RH side of the page underneath the "Spread DDG" link looked at first to me like social share link crap (another feature I strip from most sites). I'd suggest putting the "spread" link elsewhere and more clearly differentiating it from the actual search tools.

Of features missing on DDG which force me back to other sites, the lack of time-bounded search is probably the biggest (other than simply lacking expected search results). I've been impressed by the integration of OpenStreetMap results and would like to see similar type development, as well as your use of Wikipedia and similar informational sources in results.

Overall: fairly subtle changes, and gripes notwithstanding, not bad. That's actually high praise ;-)

Also: I'd _very much_ like to thank you for actually previewing the design in advance of releasing it. While online services make drastic changes possible, they're not always welcome, and I feel far too many sites make the egregious error of dropping a new design on users with no warning.

For the "next.duckduckgo.com" site, I've got the following CSS tweaks presently applied. All but the last are legacy, some may no longer be strictly necessary:

        #header_wrapper {
            position: static;
        }

        #header_wrapper #header #header_content_wrapper #header_content #header_button_wrapper #header_button #header_button_menu_wrapper #header_button_menu {
            z-index: 2;
        }

        #search_form {
            font-size: 15pt;
        }

        .bang_suggestion:hover {
            background-color: rgb(228,246, 255);
        }

        .bangwrap {
            z-index: 2;
        }

        .snippet {
            font-size: 14pt;
        }

        p, body p, li, body li, dt, body dt, dd, body dl {
            font-size: 15pt;
        }

        .web-result:hover {
            background: none;
            background-color: inherit;
        }

<comment><USER90> I think you'll probably want to remove those font-size adjustments and re- assess afterwards. You'll find that the majority of the redesign is indeed sized with ems, including all text sizes. You'll also want to adjust #header_wrapper to position:absolute if you deice that you're not going to use the settings to disable the fixed header behaviour - setting static without adjusting the settings will be unpleasant. To be safe, in case you want to play with the header settings later, you probably want to actually make that selector `.set-header--fixed .header-wrap { position: absolute' }`

<comment><USER89> I'll re-review. The font sizes I suspect I'll keep. They're pretty standard across most sites I use, though for text-heavy ones that are actually document-based, I'll even bump them up further -- 17-18pt for true long-form reads.

Static for header hasn't been an issue for me. Headers that are sufficiently annoying just get iced ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> Maybe it's just me but I find the hamburger menu in the top right , now that firefox has one of those themeselves in a similar place, kind of unpleasing.

I also miss all the colours and I prefer when search buttons are actual buttons instead of an icon inside the text field.

</comment><comment><USER92> It is really beautiful. The minimalistic user interface is much more usable now. And the results for some test queries I ran were pretty good. Great work! I'm going to switch my default search engine for a few days and see how that goes.

</comment><comment><USER93> About the top row showing About/Images/Videos etc. I would like to use my vertical scroll wheel to move to the left and right instead of having to travel with my mouse all the way to the corner to hit the red arrow-button.

</comment><comment><USER94> Proxima Nova at 600 weight displays really weird on my work machine: [http://i.imgur.com/O9GU0TG.png](http://i.imgur.com/O9GU0TG.png).

Is there a chance you might reconsider the font choice?

Looks great, if I force Helvetica.

<comment><USER90> Do you have Proxima Nova installed locally? The font stack does look for a locally installed version of the font first - it looks like it's applying the 900 font weight instead of 600.

<comment><USER94> I did. Seems that I had the regular weight and black version only. Disabled the "black" and it is rendering better now.

Looks amazing, once I fixed that issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> Would be great if the settings menu expanded with hovering instead of a click (similar to the 3 buttons on the bottom). It's far enough to the side that accidental hovers could be avoided, while saving a click.

</comment><comment><USER50> Wow!

Loved it, very clean yet all the info is there

Plus image and video search! Really nice to have a clean image search interface with a clear download button. Do you proxy my search to youtube? What other sites are there?

EDIT: also, great response to browser zoom

</comment><comment><USER96> If I may make a feature request: I would like some way to search that preserves symbols in the query. For instance I would like to be able to search for L _a_ b* and not get results for L-A-B, L.A.B etc.

</comment><comment><USER97> I just want to say that I love DuckDuckGo. I feel like the majority of search results I get from Google and Bing these days are just advertising one thing or another. DuckDuckGo is a much better experience.

</comment><comment><USER98> Minor Nitpick!! You got the spelling wrong for promotions at [https://next.duckduckgo.com/about?t=i&kd=-1](https://next.duckduckgo.com/about?t=i&kd=-1)

</comment><comment><USER99> Chrome 34 on Windows 7. Can't read this bubble when it's on the first result: [https://i.imgur.com/SrplpW4.png](https://i.imgur.com/SrplpW4.png)

</comment><comment><USER100> The "What is this?" link below Cloud Save buttons doesn't respond (Firefox 30.0a2 on Ubuntu 12.04). Right-click and Open Link in a New Tab results in a "403 Forbidden".

</comment><comment><USER101> The frontpage is a lot more pleasing to the eye, however, the search results are much more readable on the current layout. The text is not very crisp under Chrome on my Windows 8.1 machine.

</comment><comment><USER102> If you're into alternative search engines that don't track you, You should try psykoo: [http://www.psykoo.com](http://www.psykoo.com)

<comment><USER103> \- So they are not tracking me, but everyone else is reading my search queries because there's no https support.

\- It's really slow

\- It's ugly

No thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> I like it. my one nitpick:

On Mobile, if you do "show more meaning" there is no undo of that action. I thought the X might collapse down to the preview but it removed it altogether.

</comment><comment><USER105> Congrats on the launch!

At what point will your business development team be ready to discuss integrating new spices?

We have one coming that I think your team and users would like more than the existing one.

<comment><USER3> Right now! email@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> Please continue working on the non-aesthetic fundamentals.

I reported this query previously to you guys, and it appears nothing has happened. It concerns me because it's so nonsensical it erodes my trust in your results, and it has persisted like this for over a year at this point....

If you search "IGF-1" on DDG you get _maybe_ 100 results. Now lets try the same search on Google, but with a handicap. Let's be even more strict and only show results that contain this keyword specifically in the title using "intitle:igf-1". You'll find 69,500 results (at the time of this posting).

<comment><USER107> I cannot edit my other post, but paging through Google gives 363 pages...

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IGF-1#hl=en&q=IG...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IGF-1#hl=en&q=IGF-1&start=370)

Far less then the 5 million it claims to know about on the first page,

[https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IGF-1#hl=en&q=IG...](https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IGF-1#hl=en&q=IGF-1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> Please don't apply any of these changes to the html version. It's my favorite websearch interface.

I would also like an option to disable r.duckduckgo.com redirects.

<comment><USER68> Passing kd=-1 in the URL disables redirects for me.

<comment><USER108> thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> what a clean look. love the fact that you have incorporated search features such as the carousel and video previews. I really like duck duck go as a search engine. I think one of the main reasons I have not fully adopted it is email/gmail and other Google offerings.

all in all the fact that privacy is on the side of the user is so key for me. I hate having a copy of everything I Google get stored somewhere, even in private mode.

</comment><comment><USER110> This is fantastic. I already had DDG as my search engine, this just takes it to the next level. I'll be looking forward to the full release. Kudos!

</comment><comment><USER111> I think they did something good with the way (it seems) they standardized typing math equations. When you're searching some complicated integral with fractions and polynomials, you can pretty much put the spaces somewhere different every time in Google and get a different result. When I started typing an equation on DuckDuckGo I noticed that it automatically suggests a search with the spaces taken out of it.

Also, I searched "Juicy J Acapellas" and was impressed because I found some sites that I enjoyed that I hadn't ever found before.

</comment><comment><USER112> I use spacebar and shift+spacebar to scroll up and down pages. The floating header covers up part of the text so I never get a chance to read it.

</comment><comment><USER95> I really like the transition from normal search -> images & videos.

Wish there was a way to have news embedded in search results similar to google, though.

<comment><USER113> Try adding 'news' to the query: [https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=amazon+news](https://next.duckduckgo.com/?q=amazon+news)

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> Neither button in the "Learn More" dialog works for me. Left click, Chrome Version 34.0.1847.131 m, Win 7 64 bit

</comment><comment><USER115> pls dont open new tabs if a search result is clicked with right mouse button. I use right mouse button for mouse-gestures. My browser dont permit to disable right-mouse-button-context-menu. If I click with the right mouse-button on a search result then a new tab is opened AND a context-menu is shown.

</comment><comment><USER116> The DDG team still cannot get the simple concept of seraching correct. We have had a website online for 3 years, every other major search engine finds and ranks it accordingly yet DDG doesn't even include it in their results.

If they're missing our own website from results how many other websites are missing from results which ends up not giving the user the BEST choice of options when performing a search.

</comment><comment><USER117> If I disable meanings in the settings I see video and picture results. Is that the intended behaviour?

</comment><comment><USER118> Is there any chance in functionality with the new version or is it just the prettier search page?

</comment><comment> pi-squared Don't center and add the fixed horizontal limit for images when there is an instant answer.

</comment><comment><USER119> I like to see full links, that helps me to Validate the source and sort out webpages

</comment><comment><USER120> I think the new look is awesome but I'd still use DDG either way.

</comment><comment><USER121> A search engine that doesn't track me shouldn't use Flash.

<comment><USER3> We don't -- where are you seeing flash?

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> I'd use it, if only I could get them to index my site...

</comment><comment><USER123> Very pretty. And thank you for not using infinite scroll.

</comment><comment><USER124> The button icons are a few px off - very unsettling.

<comment><USER3> Which ones? Perhaps this is a browser issue.

<comment><USER124> Here [https://www.evernote.com/shard/s259/sh/83a4a781-7511-4815-b6...](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s259/sh/83a4a781-7511-4815-b630-24ae641bc61a/ece030f2680b3a95d9073437704568fa)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER125> Is it WIP? Default one still looks the way it was.

</comment><comment><USER126> Off topic, but I still think the domain name is a few strokes too long for people.

edited: Oh hell no, duck.com redirects to google. That sucks.

duckie.com is parked, buy it?

<comment><USER127> It would be a classy move if Google gave duck.com to duckduckgo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER128> Search: åäö "Showing 35 åäö Images"

Great.

<comment><USER76> Confirm fixed?

<comment><USER128> yes, nice!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER129> Introducing: awfulness.js

[http://tommorris.org/posts/2547](http://tommorris.org/posts/2547)

</comment><comment><USER130> I hope they destroy Google.

</comment><comment><USER131> Guide: This room is the most popular part of our tour. Milhouse: It's just like the other rooms. Guide: Yes, but with one important difference: [looks over] Oh, they took that out. Yes, it is just like the other rooms.

<comment><USER132> My personal view:

I am a technican. I want to see the number of results. I don't like AutoSroll. I remember the page where i find a result, so i jump to the page, with endless scroll, i did not find things again.

The sign of clicked links is a good idea.

Mark a personal favorite site in combination with my search term would be a great feature. E.g. i remember i search something about nodejs but i forgot the sitename, my browser bookmark did not help me. But when i see my old search about "nodejs" and the favorite or clicked pages, that would be a great thing.

Forget google, if somebody want to use google, he can use google. So please implement usefull functions that help people with their daily work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER133> I don't really like the "doesn't track you part." How is it going to give as good results if it doesn't track people? Clicks is the best way to tell which results are good, and my clicks especially.

<comment><USER134> You can still count clicks without associating it with the user who clicked. Anyway, the "doesn't track you" part is the whole point of DDG. If you don't like/need that, you can simply use Google.</comment></comment>