Did I ever mention that I fucking hate the fucking web - <AUTHOR> http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2015/05/05-10-15-did-i-ever-mention-that-i.html <comment><USER2> I think that for some time now Google's services are mostly crap. For example when I upgraded KitKat to Lollipop they fucked up my calendar. No month view? Seriously?

Plus it always vibrates since silent mode is gone. I found this out the hard way. My phone is always in silent mode and after the upgrade one day it just vibrated off the desk and the display broke. I should sue Google for this.

Anyway back to your issue with picture downloads: I had the same problem and after 20 minues of searching I managed to find where can I download my FUCKING pictures:

\- go to Google Drive

\- Click "Apps"

\- Click "More"

\- Click "Photos"

\- Click "All photos"

And here comes the tricky part:

\- At the top left corner hold your left mouse button and drag a box around all your photos

\- Unselect the ones you dont't want to download

\- Click "More"

\- Click "Download"

That's it just 9 easy steps.......no comment

<comment><USER3> Lollipop is just a bad, bad update. Tap the square button and close two apps at the same time. If you did everything right, now your phone says that Android UI failed. This has been going on since day one. Day one. Which was sometime in November.

Their Hangouts app sucks. I don't know how people in the U.S. use it, but here people use it only for SMS, and they crammed everything in that so it's hard to do the main function. But not to worry, they made Messenger too. So, if you're a sane person, you disable Hangouts, install Messenger and all is good, right? Of course not. Because since the 5.1 update, every few minutes you get a nice message that says "Hangouts has stopped unexpectedly". You know, the app that you supposedly disabled because you have no use for. So you enable it again, and the message goes away, and the app just stands there, unused, taking up space and memory. And by the way, why do they feel the need to make two or three different apps for doing the same thing? Photos and Gallery? Why not. What about Email, Gmail and Inbox? Sure, my app drawer was a bit too empty anyway...

There's so much more that could be said about Google "products" (I hate this word) and their problems, but my blood pressure is already acting up, so I better leave it for another day.

<comment><USER4> Am I just desensetized to quality or, do I put up with a lot more issues than I should, or do I not have the same high standards as everyone else? As far as I can tell, Lollipop (aka Android 5.0) works brilliantly, and everyone thatI recall speaking to who has it is also similarly pleased. To call it a failure seems to be vastly overstating the viewpoints of a minority of customers. My Sony Z3 Compact and LG G Watch R work great, and that seems to be the general experience of other with modern devices. I get that it's fun to hate and rage, but this seems nitpicky - nothing is perfect, and Googla has great track record for pushing bugfixes and updates for Android and Chrome. #satisfied

<comment><USER5> > _Am I just desensetized to quality or, do I put up with a lot more issues > than I should, or do I not have the same high standards as everyone else?_

Hard to say. My best guess is that you put up with a lot more issues than you should. The mobile is so utterly broken that we all have to get used to it to stay sane.

But from my personal experience, and I'm not saying that it applies to you personally, I've noticed that many people just don't give a fuck about the looks. Go and look at how majority of people write letters, or even how they write on the Internet. The amount of typos and overall lack of style is so big that 60 years ago a typical reader would get a heart attack.

Looking at the world as it is today, I start to feel that it's me who has insanely high standards because I want things to look and feel nice, not just barely work.

\----

Oh, and about Lollipop - I've seen so many cases where something utterly broken on my device worked fine on everyone elses and reverse, that I learned to appreciate that things just really don't work the same even on the same brand of hardware. It's entirely possible that you and your friends have a good experience while for some reason, GPs device-software combination is broken. Hell, I personally never had any issues with Windows Vista, and almost no one believes me it's possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This reminds me of Bill Gates' email documenting his experiencing trying to install and run Windows MovieMaker (read from the bottom): [http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/files/library/2003Jangat...](http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/files/library/2003Jangatesmoviemaker.pdf)

<comment><USER7> I really appreciate how even-keeled he is despite being utterly frustrated with the experience. I think the worst he said was "crap," which I find refreshing.

That's something I hope I bring to every team I'm on.

<comment> fsck--off Bill mellowed out as he got older. He used to be infamous for cursing during meetings. Joel Spolsky has an amusing story about it:

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html)

<comment><USER8> Fantastic read. I needed that, thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The space at the end of the password entry was found in QA testing. Since we are an agile shop and run two week sprints that bug was left in and put on the backlog to be prioritized later. Gotta release every two weeks, even if it's utter crap. As long as the PBIs are completed, who cares about the users?

It's a sad day when I have to sneak bug fixes that annoy me in on my free time, but this seems to be the norm in an agile driven software world, at least my experience with it for the last ten years.

<comment><USER10> well .. that bugfix have associated a few risks..

1\. let's suppose a user have a password: (note the space)

        " 123"

2\. also you store the password using some hashing function, which prevents you from knowing the password.

3\. two weeks later the bugfix goes live, the user cannot longer access the service.

Also, you cannot easily estimate how much benefit/annoyed users your _fix_ will endup having .. which makes it a _higly risk change_.

<comment><USER11> This is going to sound a bit horrible...

Fixing the space issue will help more people than it hurts. People that have spaces at the beginning or end of their password can simply reset their password or call customer support. Users forget or mistype passwords all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "You can fucking strip the leading $ and commas you piece of shit mother fucking asshole terrible programmers."

That sounds sensible, but now you've just broken it for every country that uses comma as a decimal mark.

<comment><USER13> But they know you locale and could do the right thing. Is not at all hard.

<comment><USER14> Even without knowing the locale, it pretty easy to know which are NoOps and which mean something.

<comment><USER15> How?

<comment><USER14> Number of digits, positioning of the , and .'s - its money which gives some nice constraints.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sometimes I use the classic version of Gmail just because it loads the whole page in less than 1 second and I can read my e-mail in another 0.5 seconds. With the "modern" version I have to stare at a blank screen with a stupid progress bar for about 2-3 seconds before seeing anything.

<comment><USER17> I don't understand why this is OK. I don't understand why people listen to Google's advice on making fast websites when one of their main websites _has a fucking loading bar_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Phone -> USB Cable -> Computer. Transfer images via said cable. Select images, put in email and send to mum.

Having said that - all his points are valid, though I'm not sure I'd bother to get that angry at stuff that is out of my contorl.

<comment><USER19> Does this actually work for you with a recent Android phone?

On my Moto G, this is more like: connect USB cable, wait 2 minutes while the computer is mounting the MTP. See it fail. Unconnect cable, reconnect. Forgot to unlock screen on the phone. Unconnect cable, reconnect. Wait another 2 minutes. The drive mounts now. Select photos. Copy. Paste to hard drive. Wait 10 minutes while the computer is copying the files. See it fail with a cryptic error.

Utterly useless. From what I hear, this is a normal experience since Android switched from using USB mass storage to MTP.

<comment><USER20> I use an app called AirDroid ([https://www.airdroid.com/](https://www.airdroid.com/)) to copy files to/from my Moto G. It works reasonably well in my experience.

I have no idea what the benefit of MTP over USB mass storage was imagined to be.

<comment><USER21> I looked at that but have you seen the permissions required. Wow. Change my contact list? I'm sure they have good reasons but I'm struggling with that for something I'm going to use for copying files.

While I've gotten MTP to work ok its not a first class experience. Folders with many files (like photos) can take a long time to even start copying. I assumed that MTP was done due avoid patents over FAT32 with Microsoft or something.

<comment><USER22> The reason they need permission to change your contact list is because Airdroid can change your contact list from your phone.

<comment><USER23> But isn't Android software and the APIs designed to be extremely modular? This could be solved through a separate app that enables the functionality. Maybe if Google's app store supported this idea more extensively, we could _choose_ the options that an app has access to instead of just trusting they're not going to abuse the privilege.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yes please! I'm so tired of all the annoying bloat all over the web that makes (not only) older browsers die just thinking about visiting the sites. It looks like the "progress" nowadays is going for "more complex and resource-demanding with less features and control".

<comment><USER25> > less features and control

Oh there is more control. Just not for you, the user.

<comment><USER25> ps for the downvoter: My comment is entirely serious.

Breaking the web for fun and profit, 101:

The simplest example I can think of is the fact that in a standard google web search, "copy link address" does not give you the actual destination address, rather a google tracking link.

Another: Image attachments in gmail. Now there's this overlay that asks you whether to download, open in google drive, or view in the gmail image viewer (which conveniently has interfaces with a bunch of other google apps I don't care about). Now you might think the google image viewer is nice, but personally I liked my once-upon-a-time ability to just look at images directly in my browser with a single click.

So I gain nothing, google gains everything. They are wresting control of how I access my files, every step of the way.

<comment><USER26> Greasemonkey script to restore direct links: [https://gist.github.com/astanin/3782408](https://gist.github.com/astanin/3782408)

It was worth it to me to install Greasemonkey for this script alone.

<comment><USER5> I'm increasingly seeing Greasemonkey as a tool for unfucking the web. I've already started writing simple tweaks to the banking UI I use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Sometimes I wish that I was like an air-cooled Porsche mechanic or something very stable and non-computer related, so I could just work away in my shop and not have to ever touch this fucking demon box."

What was nice about working in scientific research back in undergrad in that whenever you got tired of coding the demon box, you could do some good physical labor in the lab.

<comment><USER28> "Sometimes I wish that I was like an air-cooled Porsche mechanic"

I read the same and interpreted it somewhat different. Although your take was correct on its parallel path.

Web designers and SaaS architects ONLY design to impress other web designers and SaaS architects yet never eat their own dog food and don't care about the users. Its widely believed by non google employees that nobody ever got a job at Google (or whatever their personal definition of "win" is) by putting something into their portfolio that is simple, maintainable, easy to use, straightforward, clear, that they'd use themselves or the end users would like. This is a MAJOR systemic cultural malfunction in the business. Sooner or later some MBA will "discover" this and write a famous book about how shortsighted the internet techies were in the second or so decade of the widespread public internet. I bet it'll be titled "the era of internet tail fins" or something. Basically we're building 70s American muscle cars... we can impress each other, but they fall apart in two years if that and the public hates them.

The car analogy would be a bunch of mechanics standing around trying to impress each other "Yeah man I had one of those cars that needed the engine to be pulled from the car just to get access to replace the rearmost spark plugs" "Oh thats nothing, I had to do over 50 labor hours to replace the heater core, practically had to disassemble the entire car to fix that coolant leak" "well I don't have as impressive of a story but I worked on a car once that could only have its oil changed on a hyd lift with the passenger front wheel removed, impossible to do it otherwise". Now the mechanics are VERY impressed with the quantity and quality of work they had to do to accomplish what are fundamentally, normally, very simple tasks, and they're very impressed with the engineers that created those systems that guarantee them such amazing labor hours of wonderment. It must have taken petacycles of CAD/CAM work to make something that messed up that none the less technically kinda somehow works. HOWEVER, and this is critical, the general public just sees a lemon of an overpriced hard to fix car, and just wants a simple reliable toyota commuter car (which the mechanics mercilessly make fun of and insist no one wants despite actual sales figures). "So what, because teenagers, a group widely renowned for good taste and excellent judgment (LOL), love our products"

<comment><USER29> > I bet it'll be titled "the era of internet tail fins"

This is my feeling as well. The norms on mobile and the web are so far out from anything I'd call common sense or proper usability that it must be cargo cultism at work here. Its just so. friggin. bad.

I also think this is why Apple is doing so well now. They're guilty of these sins, but their ultra-minimalist approach means they're able to sin less than others. Google's "anything goes" mentality allows these bad habits and this broken culture to thrive.

I'm not too pessimistic about it. We're still in some growing pains here. Mobile is a kind of a mess. Memory unsafe languages rule. Privacy is non- existant, Security is in the toilet, etc. I think there will be a shakedown of these things and we'll look back at this time as being needlessly reckless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "I don't keep any cookies or browse history"

Why not?

"I get the numeric code sent to me. I go to Google Voice on my computer"

This seems like it defeats the purpose of 2FA. Am I wrong? Isn't 2FA supposed to work by proving that you own a device for which it was set up on?

"always download all the images made by Google Charts because that service will die at some point"

Probably. If it matters to you, learn some JavaScript and build stuff in highcharts. And next time, never rely on a service that you don't pay for.

Also, it's clear by this post you hate Google, especially its suite of exceptionally shitty products, and not the Web.

<comment><USER28> "This seems like it defeats the purpose of 2FA. Am I wrong? Isn't 2FA supposed to work by proving that you own a device for which it was set up on?"

The bug is in the design of 2FA. Sooner or later Google will get rid of GV and I'll just move to another provider to front-end my SMS spam instead of sending it to my phone. The other failure mode is best displayed by my bank not realizing their site is accessible via mobile, so my two factors when customers log in on their phones are the phone people log in with and the code they're sending to the customer's phone, oh wait that's only one factor. Although in the second example the bank wins by security theater.

The bank does offer a phone app that demands access to pretty much everything on my phone presumably for marketing / spam purposes or just being weirdo creeps, so needless to say I won't leave it installed, although I did try it for a short period of time. However the bank phone app sucks so I didn't lose much by uninstalling that creep-app. Also the creep-app doesn't do 2FA and seems to be permanently logged in, so I've downgraded my account access to merely the phone lock screen level of security, which isn't very good.

<comment><USER23> Bank security theater is positively hilarious.

"Pick a security picture, now write a security phrase. Please choose three security questions. Now enter a password. Would you like to enable 2FA on your phone?"

<comment><USER31> I'm not sure on the positive hilariousness.

My bank's mobile app does not work on rooted phones, because they are concerned for my safety, afraid that some rogue app will get my banking info and steal my money. Well, that's my problem, isn't it?

Do you know how most people with custom ROMs bypass this? They go on XDA and download a patched version from some stranger on the internet, stored on some malware-ridden file hosting service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> In the same spirit and tone: [http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/](http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/)

</comment><comment><USER33> About 2 months ago, I went to my grandma's funeral, and snapped some pics of family and friends with my new DSLR.

After two weeks, I realized that I wanted to share all these photos. I discovered OneDrive has a ridiculously easy interface for photos: upload folders of jpegs. I thought the web interface for looking at them was sexy too, with the photos featured prominently (not much text, no comments). It even has a "Download All" button! I sent a public view link to everyone. Damn, Microsoft is getting things right these days.

</comment><comment><USER34> There's tons of problems with Google's services. They make radical changes that bloat them and slow them down. They cut services that people find useful because they're not as big as something like Maps or Gmail, or even for no reason at all. But no matter how much you complain, either on a blog post or to Google themselves, if you just come back to them at the end of the day you've changed nothing at all.

Not liking Google Photos? Get Dropbox on your phone and upload your pictures there! Blogger doesn't give you enough control? Use Wordpress or Medium instead, or run your own blog! Google has too many users on their services to care about you. If you want change, go out and make the change yourself.

<comment><USER35> Photo provider switching is hard these days because many people have 100's of GB of photos and video.

<comment><USER36> Dropbox offers 1TB of storage for $10/mo (or $100/yr), and their "Carousel" app isn't terrible. And you get direct access to the damn files on all your devices (regardless of platform). It's a much better service than what Apple or Google offers for these reasons alone.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but for many, moving around hundreds of gigabytes of data is something that will take a day or two on their connection, which is enough of a barrier that they'll deal with crap instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > Did I ever mention that I fucking hate the fucking Google

Fixed it.

(But I agree with regards to Maps Classic, it is superior to the new maps in almost all ways (for me, at least).)

<comment><USER38> Heh, I see your point but he does move on a little bit to other things :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> As much as I hate almost everything, I always ask myself what's the baseline for those assumptions? How easy _should_ it be to do the mentioned tasks?

Back in the days, we needed a camera and film, took pictures and get them developed, got a envelope and a stamp and finally sent the pictures to Mom. Obviously this is way more work than using the web, even if it's shitty.

I think we assume we could do things better and are used to things that work better without realizing the differences in their details which causes some tasks to be much more laborious than others.

<comment><USER5> There's this, and then there's purposeful degradation. A lot of the problem TFA describes were already solved properly years ago. There was a much better experience getting photos from your phone in pre-smartphone era, where you could just hook it up to your computer via the USB-to-some-propertiary-port cable and it would register as mass storage device. Web used to be much cleaner and better to use than it is now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Oh my god I hear this, so much! I am so SICK of the horrid usability in favor of stupid fancy shit on the web! I'm so glad I'm not the only one!

</comment><comment><USER41> One of the best blogs ever! Quote: "I have a pretty strict rule about not using computers in the evening time. (because computers inevitably make me furious and want to smash things and then I can't sleep)." Can't stop reading posts ...

<comment><USER41> [http://cbloomrants.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/02-01-15-fucking-f...](http://cbloomrants.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/02-01-15-fucking- fuck-fucking-web.html)

<comment><USER42> I think cbloom's "finishing team" idea is great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> It's funny. He seems to hate all Google products yet is fully absorbed in the Google universe.

<comment><USER44> Why is that funny, really? Some of his grievances can really only materialise _because_ he uses the products. I have never had many of these problems, because I use none of these products. The point is that he _wants_ to use "all Google products", yet they are in such a state as to make that impossible, at least for him. Somebody who would use them if they could use them is a much worse case for Google (or any other company, for that matter) than somebody who rejects them without an actual will to use them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think a lot of us have had thoughts like these, but damn man, reading that was like watching Lewis Black - you think you're witnessing someone having a stroke/heart attack.

</comment><comment><USER45> I just managed to bulk select and download 100 photos from Google Photos within 15 seconds of trying.

<comment><USER5> And just recently, I couldn't. The presence of the option to download pictures is random and seems to depend on whether this is your album or it was created by someone else and shared with you. Most of the time I need to download something it's the latter, and the option to download doesn't show up there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> To make things worse, people half ass the "mobile web" even harder! This is to the point where, when you click through a search engine result to a website and DON'T get forwarded to their garbage mobile site you are impressed!

Also, don't forget the zip code or phone number boxes that have the format as a "placeholder" type text in the textboxes on mobile that repeatedly force your keyboard to reset so that they can format you phone number for you.

</comment><comment><USER46> Google+ Photos now sync to Google Drive. Install the Drive Sync client, take a photo, it shows up on your computer as a file.

<comment><USER47> OP didn't say if he uses Linux, Google Drive is particularly awesome there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> User-facing software in general tends to hit a quality ceiling pretty early on based on the unwillingness of the developers to make further improvements. Contrary to the commenter who talked about NASA and the space shuttle software, this is actually a matter of willingness, not ability. I've filed half a dozen reports on bugs that would have been trivial to fix, and been refused every time. I've seen developers go out of their way to reduce the quality of their software and break things that used to work.

On the bright side, this means most domains of user-facing software still have open opportunities even when they should be thoroughly mature. If only there were more hours in a human lifespan, I'd love to fork Chromium or Firefox and just start fixing things at the browser end.

</comment><comment><USER49> From the comments:

> It's so much worse than that though. It's not for no reason, they actually > call this is a best practice. Everyone's browser already has jQuery cached > if you load it from jQuery's site, right? So yeah, just load all seventeen > of your random javascript things from their original sites. Now your site is > fast because all those pages are already in everyone's cache!

Uh, what "best practice" site did that come from? W3Schools? I'm not a web dev anymore, but the best practice recommendation as far as I know has always been to combine and minify assets into as few requests as possible. Unfortunately most of the web still sucks and doesn't do this.

</comment><comment><USER50> I think it's important for every company that the CEO answer support mail from regular customers at least a few hours every day. Then he/she will get a better understanding about the product(s).

About sharing images, I find setting up a FTP-server is the simplest solution. Most file-browsers have FTP built in and allows features like drag 'n drop.

The problem with usability in free services like Google, is that they earn more money the more time you spend on the site. So if it takes ten minutes to do something that should take five seconds. Their metrics will show one hundred times more earning from the slow and tedious version. Guess what version they want you to use!?

<comment><USER5> > _I think it 's important for every company that the CEO answer support mail > from regular customers at least a few hours every day. Then he/she will get > a better understanding about the product(s)._

I have my pet theory - the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to be separated from it by enough layers of abstraction. Your CEO has a marketing team that probably outsources some of its work to marketing companies, which come up with asinine ideas of promoting your product. The CEO gets reports with (probably a little fudged) numbers saying the sales are going up, and he has little idea that your company is now shitting on its users in order to get more money from them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I have to save this for my wife, and my coworkers, so they know I'm not the only one.

</comment><comment><USER52> Guys.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E)

"You are sitting in a chair, IN THE SKY."

<comment><USER53> It's still frustrating ,because google did the hard part(storing 8 gb plus data) and mess up the easy part it's angering.

<comment><USER54> It's because Google was and is still an engineering organisation. For the most part they still don't understand UX or design, and when they do it's in some incredibly maligned product that no one wants.

<comment><USER5> I'm willing to bet on the opposite. I think it's engineers who understand how the product should work to be useful, but it's the sales and design people which screw this up because "hey, it's cooler / more shiny / will attract new people".

<comment><USER54> Ah, yes — because engineers left to their own devices make products that are highly functional and polished.

Much like game studios left to their own devices by publishers make super popular game classics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The requested magic with payment inputs is tricky. Commas and periods are both used for thousands and decimals sometimes interchangeably within the same country.

</comment><comment><USER56> I was really happy with my nexus 4, but after the last update the phone started acting up. I was really happy with my Toshiba CB2, but after the last update the laptop started acting up. The only reason I haven't lost my mind is that my Macbook Pro, after the last three updates, has been acting up. :(

</comment><comment><USER57> Try sharing photos you have in your iPhone while travelling to someone with a PC (I wasn't able to do it).

<comment><USER58> I'd really like a kind of local dropbox, to make the sending and syncing of files directly from one computer/smartphone to another incredibly easy. I suppose that's what bluetooth is supposed to do, but 90% of the time I try to use it for that purpose it fails, either because of glitches or lack of speed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I have similar frustrations with most of Google's products. I hate the maps the most. Between the iOS and the web version, it can be so difficult to find the same data.

</comment><comment><USER60> Is the new time picker widget in Android 5 more efficient for anybody? It makes me angry every time I have to use it, _please_ just give me a numeric keypad instead!

</comment><comment><USER61> 10 years ago, you would have to pay a photographer to develop the photos and go to a fucking post office, then your mom would wait a week to receive them.

<comment><USER62> And he should be able to just plug his phone into his computer and pull the images right off with MTP. Don't know why that's so hard.

<comment><USER63> MTP? The digital camera I got in 2005 was USB mass storage.

<comment><USER62> Android uses MTP

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I Still love the Web but we need at the very least something like a distributed open search engine / cache engine...

</comment><comment><USER65> Brilliant. Oh the irony... I had to receive a code via SMS just to be able to sign in and leave a comment on that blog.

</comment><comment><USER66> Can Marissa Mayer fix Yahoo maps? Google maps have become unusable on most of my devices, I thought I was alone...

<comment><USER67> bing is decent on mobile.

<comment><USER68> Bing maps is decent on non-mobile, too, somewhat to my surprise. I've stopped using Google maps entirely. (I have never made much use of google maps on my phone, actually, since it constantly nags me to log in to a google account, which I refuse to do.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> > login bullshit that DTA can't handle

Pardon my ignorance, but what's a _DTA_?

<comment><USER70> The DownThemAll extension, pretty great.

<comment><USER54> It's honestly quite sad that it's been — what 10 years now? — and we still can't properly pause and resume a download from a browser.

I remember using DTA for the first time back in the day and going "Oh wow, nice!". It just such a basic facility to provide. Resumable downloads should be available in all browsers.

But no, doing some user profile shit that no one wants: that's what they spend time on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Dude, can we be friends? Because I feel like we'd get along - asshole.

</comment><comment><USER72> Note to self. Make app that easily downloads, zips, and sends photos.

</comment><comment><USER73> Calm the fuck down and get her fucking telegram :D

</comment><comment><USER74> And these people want to be driving our cars?

<comment><USER64> They would take detours to drive by stores that you might like... even if your pregnant wife is having a baby on the back seat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I couldn't even get past the first few paragraphs. This writing is just awful.

</comment><comment><USER76> Be glad that google is not the perfect company, all other would have no chance ;)

</comment><comment><USER77> You should hate your vocab too @sagargv. Seriously.

</comment><comment><USER78> You, sir, have made my Monday morning.

</comment><comment><USER79> Amen!!

</comment><comment><USER80> He's right. What surprises me is the readiness of people to put up with that shit. I'm not sure if their patience with horrible design is just a result of their ignorance.

<comment><USER81> You say "people" as though you don't put up with it too...

It's the same everywhere. Shit flows from the walls, up through the streets, through and within everything we interact with, because we've managed to build a civilisation on "that'll do" and "well, forever!" so far, and through some unlikely sequence of sheer fluke we're here to talk about it.

The internet is a bodge job. The web is a bodge job. This finely made bit of machinery I type this on is a bodge job - and so are my shoes, this chair, the postman outside, the tarmac on the street and the governance of our societies.

We put up with it because we go through a phase of learning "the way things are", and then go one of several ways:

\- Accept and/or support the status quo

\- Realise things could be better but realise that your task is so huge you cannot begin to do anything about it, and revert to the above.

\- Try to work with others to change things for the better.

The third camp are the ones who make the bodge jobs, because they ultimately realise that time is the one true constraint, and you don't know what perfection is until you've seen it. We're solving a big old NP problem called "humanity" one excruciating step at a time.

Anyway, it's up to us to go make some better bodge jobs, which'll do for now, and not forever.

<comment><USER82> If you are philosophically inclined, you realize that art is one of the few exceptions to that. Artists are people that try to achieve perfection in a way that ordinary society doesn't allow.

<comment><USER5> Because art is done for it's own sake, not to sell it. As a painter you don't get offers from third parties that are willing to pay you for including their logo on your work.

<comment><USER83> That's because painting isn't popular enough. If your art happens to be blockbuster movies, you'll get offers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Whoa, I'm reading through the entire blog. I'm in love with that guy. 😍

<comment><USER85> cbloom is too legit to quit. He has a pretty impressive resume.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> The one thing I hate most is setting up my Google or Apple account on a new iOS/Android device.

I use a very long generated password with all kinds of special characters so what does Google do after you successfully entered the username/password on the device during the native setup flow? It opens a WebView where you have to enter it AGAIN!

And why do I have to enter my Apple ID password after every single OS update again? I can't imagine what security concern prompted them to do this to us.

</comment><comment><USER77> You should improve your vocabulary sagargv. Seriously.

</comment><comment><USER38> He's just saying what we're all thinking, people!

</comment><comment><USER87> The new Apple Photos app + iPhone 6 = works, flawlessly

<comment><USER88> Could you elaborate on this? Before you reply, let us pretend you have uploaded--from your computer--128 GB of photos and videos to iCloud. Let me know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> And the web is completely "open" and unlike "walled" proprietary platforms you have no choice of a programming language whatsoever (PS: fuck your transpilation).

</comment><comment><USER90> The fact that this post is currently #3 on HN homepage and has ~100 comments in support is a strong indication to limit investment of time and effort in HN as a source of knowledge and HN community as a source of rational discussion.

EDIT: 50 -> 100 comments. That rule about avoiding gratuitous negativity is obviously not working.

<comment><USER91> Lighten up, everyone likes a good rant once in a while (especially as good as this one). Not every link on HN can be to a white paper or similar.

<comment><USER90> Banalities, myopia, lack of perspective, bad boring writing, pandering to misconceptions does not make a good rant.</comment></comment></comment>


The legacy of NeXT lives on in OS X - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/12/the-legacy-of-next-lives-on-in-os-x/?fb_action_ids=4017015587920&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%224017015587920%22%3A403518526395777%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224017015587920%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D <comment><USER2> WRT InterfaceBuilder/ProjectBuilder: _It was like a pricy IDE which they made free for folks_

Certainly was not free at least initially, NeXT workstations cost thousands of dollars (in 1980-1990 dollars) and NEXTSTEP software updates were not free either (I think I paid ~$600 to upgrade from NEXTSTEP 2.1 to 3.something).

I guess in the sense that all these tools were included with the system it was still a good deal compared to other alternatives at the time, when dev tools were typically purchased separately from the OS.

<comment><USER3> Well, it was free to anyone who bought the system, right? It's the same way it's done today: Macs aren't free, but anyone with a Mac gets the full version of Xcode at no extra cost. Contrast that with Windows, that requires you to pay hundreds or thousands for the "professional" versions of Visual Studio.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Relevant - this 20 year old video with Steve Jobs giving a demo of NeXTSTEP 3. I first saw this after having bought a Mac running OS X 10.2 and was surprised by how the user-facing stuff was still very similar to its roots (maybe not nearly as much now).

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A>

</comment><comment><USER5> Why does the article link have facebook parameters? Is this an attack?

        fb_action_ids:4017015587920
        fb_action_types:og.likes
        fb_source:timeline_og
        action_object_map:{"4017015587920":403518526395777}
        action_type_map:{"4017015587920":"og.likes"}
        action_ref_map:[]

<comment><USER6> It would appear at first glance that thealphanerd found the article through a link on Facebook, so the URL contains their tracking code.

<comment><AUTHOR> oops

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _"Objective-C directly inspired Java and C# and has changed how almost everyone programs, even if they're not writing for Apple's machines," said developer Wil Shipley, who got his start writing software for NeXT computers._

I don't remember much talk of Obective-C when either Java or C# came out... I remember people comparing Java to C and C++, and C# to Java, C, and C++, but not really any mention of Objective-C. I actually remember researching Objective-C when I saw references to it in the Linux Kernel's "make config" and thought it was pretty awesome! but, still, I don't think the author's statement is really that accurate.

<comment><USER8> Java was influenced by Objective-C. First-hand evidence: <http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/java-objc.html>

_As it turns out, Sean and Tom are both absolutely correct. Usually, this kind of urban legend stuff turns out to be completely inaccurate, but in this case, they are right on. When I left Sun to go to NeXT, I thought Objective-C was the coolest thing since sliced bread, and I hated C++. So, naturally when I stayed to start the (eventually) Java project, Obj-C had a big influence. James Gosling, being much older than I was, he had lots of experience with SmallTalk and Simula68, which we also borrowed from liberally._

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the link! This is why I love HN... I learn something within 10 minutes of querying.

(By the way, I'll accept that if Java was inspired by Obj-C, then C# was, by proxy)

As I said, I love Obj-C, I just heard nothing of it's inspirational nature in the Java (or C#) release days, despite learning about it somewhere between those two dates.

I type corrected!

<comment><USER6> Well, nobody's going to tout "Our language was inspired by this weird, unpopular little thing that lost _hard_ to C++" in their marketing materials, which was pretty much the perception of Objective-C among the few who knew about it at the time. Remember, in those days, C++ was king — it was basically "the programming language for grown-ups" in a lot of people's minds — so Sun wanted to encourage _that_ association above all others, even if it wasn't really where the designers' heart lay.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Anyone knows what this is? - <AUTHOR> http://www.superbad.com/1/register/index.html

<comment><USER2> I think this is just old net.art</comment>


Google was in the running to acquire GitHub, according to head of its cloud arm - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-28/google-exec-says-microsoft-beat-search-giant-to-buy-github <comment><USER2> Sensationalist title

> "I wouldn't have minded buying them, but it's OK," Greene said at a Fortune > Magazine event in San Francisco on Wednesday.

<comment><USER3> The whole article is really weird. It has the quote about it being "OK" that MS bought Github, followed by a non-sequitur article about Google employees protesting military contracts.

I don't see a connection between the two but I suppose the author is implying that Google didn't buy Github because it was distracted with its own internal turmoil around the protests?

<comment><USER4> I agree, this is a very weird article with very little information, and the headline oversells it.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps the only story here is that Google would have (or may have) bid on Github as well as Microsoft. But that isn't more than a headline so the the editor said "It needs to be 500 words or it isn't a story" and the reporter just added in bits until they hit the word threshold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Google buying them would have been amazing, for about 2 years until Google closed them for not having enough users or they added ads to everything.

<comment><USER7> I am personally grateful to Microsoft for 1) saving github, because I love github 2) reducing the amount of private information that will go into Google database, because I fear Google.

Years ago, Google was about do no evil and Microsoft was the evil empire. It's funny how we've gone full 180.

<comment><USER8> And you think trusting MS is a better idea?

<comment><USER9> One's an advertising company and the other is a software company. One is not seen as being reliable and ruthless in shutting down companies to harvest talent, whereas the other has a record of long-term support for its own products and appears to be putting forth a good faith effort in supporting FOSS.

I choose the latter of two evils, which is Microsoft. MS isn't stupid, and they know that futzing with Github would mean generations of developers never trusting them with anything again. That's not to say that Microsoft won't do the wrong thing, but a lot of people see them as less likely to do the wrong thing than Google, and I happen to agree with them.

EDIT: My first statement is oversimplistic. What I meant by that is Google is mostly interested in advertising and selling data, but Microsoft's business isn't build around advertising(i.e. Bing Ads doesn't appear to be critical to Microsoft's success). Granted, Microsoft is known for selling "data", but I don't see how much of that they would gain from GitHub.

<comment><USER10> > MS isn't stupid, and they know that futzing with Github would mean > generations of developers never trusting them with anything again.

Have you forgotten about how Microsoft destroyed Nokia? MS bought Nokia in 2014, and then sold it in 2016 for pennies on the dollar for what it paid in 2014 [1] [2]. Meanwhile MS completely wiped out Nokia's brand and technology to push Windows Mobile down everyone's throat.

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/18/nokia-phones-are-back- after-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/18/nokia-phones-are-back-after- microsoft-sells-mobile-assets-for-350-million-to-foxconn-hmd.html)

[2] 5 pennies on the dollar to be exact.

<comment><USER9> I'm not saying it never happens. Although Nokia doesn't surprise me because nobody has cared about Nokia for some time now. Microsoft was basically beating a dead horse. Yeah, they could have resurrected it, but Microsoft had less to lose by destroying Nokia than it does by destroying Github. (although this is really my gut talking without solid figures)

<comment><USER10> > Yeah, they could have resurrected it, but Microsoft had less to lose by > destroying Nokia than it does by destroying Github.

I'm not sure that's true, since MS has already lost the developer space. Nokia was a play for revenue because MS's investment in Windows phone was in the billions already when MS bought Nokia, and that was back when people still actually liked Windows Phone.

It's possible that MS could have built a github clone, and that wouldn't have cost them $7.5B to build, but what MS really bought here is the brand, and the good will that comes with it. If github goes down the tubes, it will be like hotmail / nokia... etc.

<comment><USER11> > MS has already lost the developer space

What? There are many companies of 10 thousand employees and more that are built from the ground up on Microsoft developer products and services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This gives some perspective. Google buying GitHub would've been a tragedy. In fact, I can't think of a single megacorporation I'd rather have running GitHub than Microsoft in 2018.

Still a shame they couldn't stay independent though.

</comment><comment><USER13> Google would have stepped on Octocat's neck and blown its pretty little head off.

Microsoft will either low-key torture it to death or leave it alone. Who's to say?

<comment><USER14> The new model at Microsoft is to run these big acquisitions as separate companies with a lot of autonomy. I suspect Github will do very well from here.

<comment><USER15> Oh, you mean like

1) Skype: [https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/17/12951996/skype-london- off...](https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/17/12951996/skype-london-office- closing-layoffs)

2) Nokia: cruelly killed-off for no particular reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow, who writes that crap? Grammatical errors left and right. Let me guess, it's either a bot our a product of foreign outsourcing.

<comment><USER17> > Wow, who writes that crap?

Have you read your own comment?</comment></comment>


Outed for Buying Links for SEO – Travelsupermarket.com (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/NPi_4xY6FaY/jQf-wW-6EgwJ

<comment><USER2> How is this outed? They blatantly confessed to violating Google's Webmaster Guidelines?

<comment><USER2> Not only that, the majority of their links are dead or have no PageRank as if Google already hit them (the inbound links).</comment></comment>


JQuery 2.0 Drops Support for IE6/7/8; API-Compatible with jQuery 1.9. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jquery.com/2012/06/28/jquery-core-version-1-9-and-beyond/ <comment><USER4> I don't know if I can get behind this or not. I understand their desire but I don't see this as a viable option just yet. I'm not so concerned with 2.0 and 1.9 as you can load the right one, but what about when 2.1 comes out? Are they going to back-port all the new features to 1.9.1? If not then I now have a big fragmentation issue if I rely on anything specific to 2.1.

Don't forget that IE 8 is the last version XP will get and XP is going to be out there for a long time yet (sadly), especially in corporate environments. Effectively (as far as IE only environments are concerned) JQuery has just set a time limit on proper web access for an entire OS.

<comment><USER5> People will switch from IE when they have to. Firefox, Chrome, and Opera all run well on XP. As for corporate America, they'll wait it out as long as they can too.

However, if forced, technology departments are quite capable of installing Chrome or Firefox. I don't feel sorry for corporations who have IE[6-8] only apps. I was there 10 years ago when people said that it only had to run in IE, when I said we should test in Firefox too.

<comment><USER6> agreed. They'll only replace those systems when the expense of maintaining them is greater than re-writing. I'm 100% in favor of making it increasingly more painful for companies to hold back progress.

I do have to say that my impression from comments that some devs don't actually comprehend the scope of the trouble for some of these companies. On the surface you might think it's just a lazy IT department who won't upgrade the browsers. But really the situation is that companies built their internal infrastructure using things like ActiveX components for IE and these systems are probably more like desktop apps than web-based apps. They use all of the old IE components to interact with the desktop and do things that may still not even be possible with a regular web-based app. So it is not necessarily that they're surfing the web with IE6 because they're too lazy to upgrade the browsers or their javascript code - rather they are stuck with it because they have huge infrastructure that depends on those old components to run. It's hard to actually understand that now, but at the time 15 years ago it was really cutting edge stuff and MS managed to get some serious vendor lock-in.

<comment><USER7> Add in that they may be using these custom apps to handle medical data, or financial data, or something similar that can cost lives or staggering sums of money if a browser upgrade causes even subtle errors... so there's a time- consuming and very costly certification process that must happen even for rewritten software, on top of the cost of development.

And certification would need to happen again before any subsequent browser upgrades.

So I hate supporting IE6, but I'm working in health care, so I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be supporting IE6 for a while yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sorry, but this is a disaster. Dropping support for IE6 may be OK, IE7 is a bit too soon, but IE8?

I haven't tested my stuff on IE6 and IE7 for a long time, but I still do it on IE8 everyday. It was released in 2009! And it's decent enough, PNG transparencies, etc.

jQuery's main raison d'être might have gone out the window.

<comment><AUTHOR> The premise is that jQuery 1.9 and 2.0 are API-compatible, so you can do something like:

        <!--[if lt IE 9]>
            <script src="jquery-1.9.0.js"></script>
        <![endif]-->
        <!--[if gte IE 9]><!-->
            <script src="jquery-2.0.0.js"><</script>
        <!--<![endif]-->

New browsers will get a lighter download and a faster runtime. oldIE will still work with all the hacks required to make it work.

<comment><USER8> We deal with enough conditionals already. Besides, sharing the same API won't stop you from bumping into some bug that's present in one version and not the other.

We'll have to deal with two codebases.

Download and runtime speed are not a problem on the Desktop.

They should have had the guts to admit that this is all about mobile. Their denial at the end of the post is symptomatic.

<comment><USER9> _> Download and runtime speed are not a problem on the Desktop._

When I'm stuck in the wilderness with nothing but an atom based netbook tethered to a patchy and expensive GPRS connection, I beg to differ.

Anyway, it isn't just about _your_ bandwidth to _your_ desktop - if each user is transferring less it can be significant for the server-side.

If they make proper efforts to maintain 1.9.x for a goodly amount of time the "hitting a bug in one version but not the other" issue shouldn't be more significant than the current "hitting a bug in a third party library (jQuery) which I don't have the expertise to locate+fix" issue that we already have to consider. Of course the "if" at the start of that sentence could be cause for concern but I think the jQuery project has done well enough at QA in the past for me to give them the benefit of the doubt (or at least to reserve judgment) at this point.

<comment><USER10> >When I'm stuck in the wilderness with nothing but an atom based netbook tethered to a patchy and expensive GPRS connection, I beg to differ.

Who cares about outliers like that? How many people using your webpage are connecting like that? 1%? 0.1%? Less? Are you really going to make major decisions based on 0.1% of your users?

And what's more, if you're building a website for that kind of usage, you probably shouldn't be using a big javascript library in the first place. And the people on those connections should experiment with scriptblocking and selective script whitelisting so they're in control of their poor connection.

Know your audience, I think, is the most important factor when deciding how to go forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think there's a key point that hasn't been mentioned yet, that there may just be no need to deliver JavaScript to IE 6-8 _at all_. A lot of smart devs are already taking a similar approach with CSS, serving up a minimal 'print' stylesheet for oldIE [1] [2].

\- If you're using JS for progressive enhancement on an otherwise static site, e.g. form validation, pjax, image carousels, tabs, animations... simply drop that JS for 6-8. Form validation should just round-trip to the server as it has to do anyway, pages should just link normally, other visual enhancements can be dropped. That's the progressive enhancement way after all.

\- If you're trying to build a single-page web app for IE 6-8 and this is your reason for wanting jQuery to work, then you're going to find those browsers have JS engines that are _incredibly slow_ and a JS-heavy web app for oldIE is _not_ going to deliver a good user experience even if you get it to 'work'. I think frankly this is an unrealistic goal from the get-go. The pitiful speed of JS on these browsers is something that does seem to be often overlooked.

If you absolutely have to push a single-page web app to a corporate customer stuck on oldIE, Chrome Frame is a very sensible option. This has served us well and we've yet to encounter a customer who complains, as long as you give them plenty of forewarning and explanation. It can be tied down to only trigger on your site, so sysadmins really have nothing to gripe about with respect to FUD about attack vectors etc.

Anyway I'm not saying 'you definitely shouldn't be serving JS to oldIE' I'm just putting it out there as something to consider, as usual in this business there's no single answer.

[1] <http://css-tricks.com/> (serves a print stylesheet for oldIE - <USER2> just IE6 I forget)

[2] [http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/blog/about/universal_inter...](http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/blog/about/universal_internet_explorer_6_css)

</comment><comment><USER12> Isn't one of the reasons for jquery to "abstract away" the differences between browsers so I don't have to worry about it?

Dropping support for popular browsers doesn't seem to help me much.

<comment><USER13> Here is the magic: IE 6 - 8 are not popular browsers. They are only used if the person using them doesn't know what a browser is. And all it would take for them to switch is one webpage they use popping up "You are using an outdated unsupported vulnerable awful browser, here are Firefox or Chrome, take your pick and don't ruin your web experience any more".

And the corporate clients could finally get through their heads it is not ok to expect employees to be accessing the internet through IE. Businesses don't have the rights to stick their fingers in their ears singing 'lalala' while the internet attempts to grow around the tumour of conditional comments and other crap.

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately it's not a matter of sticking fingers in your ears, I can tell you. If you've got 50-100,000 workstations to worry about, and a couple of intranet apps that only run in older versions (there are more of these than you might think,) upgrading IE could be a fabulously large and expensive project.

Still you gotta catch up at some point. The product I work on is dropping IE8 in January, which will cause some of our larger and less nimble customers to get stuck on an older version until they can fix their browser situation.

<comment><USER15> "If you've got 50-100,000 workstations to worry about, and a couple of intranet apps that only run in older versions (there are more of these than you might think,) upgrading IE could be a fabulously large and expensive project."

So... don't upgrade IE, but give people the option of - you know - <USER3> another browser. The IT folks can even lock it down so no one can do anything useful with it, but they could give people firefox, chrome, safari or opera as another tool on their desktop.

Holding back an entire company's ability to do any modern browsing because you're still tied to one HR intranet app from 2003 is just silly. There's no sane argument to be made _for_ it, in light of the short- and long-term opportunity costs it imposes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm seeing a lot of hate here, but I think this is a good decision. I know what a pain it is to support older versions of IE because I was doing it before jQuery came onto the scene. They took a lot of that pain from us and hoisted it onto themselves, but we can't expect them to carry that burden forever.

My company dropped IE 7 support months ago, I look forward to the day we can drop IE 8. We'll probably be suck with jQuery 1.9 for a while, but my side projects will start using 2.0 right away.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think this makes a lot of sense.

One of our products is a B2B analytics tool that leverages a custom Chrome extension for one piece of functionality. As a result, all of our users are on Chrome.

We already use chai for testing, which doesn't really work in older IE versions, and it'll be great to get the performance improvement from this change as well.

</comment><comment><USER18> To all the people upset about IE8 being the last browser supported on XP ... Isn't that Microsoft's problem rather than JQuery's? Apparently, Microsoft is not interested in providing a modern Web experience to their users.

I don't really see the problem anyway. JQuery can move forward, and those that want to support IE8 have JQuery 1.9 and I'm sure there will be a cottage industry of people maintaining updates to support IE8 for the next 20 or 30 years. In the meantime, the rest of the world will be able to move on. Perhaps people could even use UserAgents to provide legacy experiences for the IE8 crowd ... multiple views ... what a concept.

<comment><USER19> But it's not the last. Chrome, FF and Opera works. I can't understand all the whining here. Corporate world can run IE for it's shitty apps and a modern browser for whatever else. Also, that's their problem, not mine, jQuery's or the majority of people that have to download a bloated codebase to support a 3 year old, no standards browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> So if the market share report links below are in the ballpark, that is about 60% of IE's current 49% market share, or about 29% of all current browsers. This makes jquery 2 a non-starter. Even using 1.9 is suspect because the questionable decision making process here makes me think I will have more headaches in the future if I stick with jQuery.

IE Market Share: <http://bit.ly/LUhxlA>

IE Version Market Share: <http://bit.ly/LUh9n2>

<comment><USER21> Interesting way of looking at it. Except that is about 70% of browsers that will work with jquery 2.0. Puts it into perspective!

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So does this mean that there will be ongoing development in the 1.9 line which will add new features available in the 2.0 line, or is this just the end of the line for IE <= 8? The blog seems to imply the latter, and that 1.9.x is only going to be used for bug/security updates, without new functionality.

If that's true, this seems like an odd line in the sand for them to draw. IE9 isn't available before Win7, so it can't die until users upgrade their OS.

According to StatCounter[1], IE8 still represents 13.78% of Worldwide visits (plus 1.4% for IE7; IE6 is just part of 'other' now), and 14.92% of North America (IE7; 1.79%).

[1] [http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww- monthly-201206...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww- monthly-201206-201206-bar)

<comment><USER23> You don't have to go from IE8 to IE9. You can go from IE8 to _any other browser_, and things will look up.

<comment><USER24> Tell that to corporate IT.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I love this product roadmap write up!

Explanations littered with reasoning and also a code-level solution for something that won't be an issue until one year down the road. Hopefully that 93KB (un-Gzipped) beast can be knocked down a bit with 2.X.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think this is a good move from jQuery. Other popular software/services should do it too, and it'll be THE END of awful IE versions.

I still do support IE8 but it is a pain in the ass to have to work around stupid bugs...pseudo elements are not well supported, font rendering is subpar, no css3 support, sloooow JavaScript engine...and I could go on for ever.

</comment><comment><USER27> For all the "just upgrade" comments:

Internal IT departments have no, no, no incentive to upgrade browsers. "Surfing the internet" is not a reason for IT departments to upgrade.

<comment><USER28> Yup, a lot of web apps are using ancient versions of JS libraries, aren't compatible cross browser, and updates are few and far between. The issue is with enterprise apps, you really need to have a solid release schedule/plan. If you update an app and say "You are now forced to use a new browser to get the functionality of this." you will piss off a lot of people.

It's much easier for the app developer to create poorly written hacks for the older js libraries, because they are less likely to force a browser requirement change.

For enterprise apps, 1.9 is going to be around for an extremely long time.

<comment><USER27> It's not for enterprise apps.

If your startup is C2C, everything is fine, if your B2C or B2B your in trouble. If your B2X then you even do not have the leverage of a contract etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wonder if the code would be a bit cleaner if they dropped IE9 and year-old Firefox / Chrome / Safari support too. That would allow them to use new stuff like XMLHttpRequest 2, ECMAScript 5 Strict Mode, Typed Arrays, requestAnimationFrame and CSS transitions / animations.

</comment><comment><USER30> There are so many reasons for using jQuery. Myself, I'm using it for a ton of reasons: speed up development, create more compact and readable code for myself and coworkers, enjoy the huge range of plugins, theming... you name it. Support for IE-ancient is not on my list. Actually I would love to see it gone, die, disappear, vanish.

Even though jQuery handles most of my cross-browser issues I still have to test and worry, create workarounds and lots of additional code, consider it in my architecture, take care in the design and handle it in the application lifecycle.

I have been looking for and at able framework that DON'T support old browsers. Thank you for not supporting IE-ancient in your 2.+ releases, I will continue using you jQuery!

</comment><comment><USER31> This is a retarded decision which I do not support.

IE6 fine, IE7 fine but not IE8. IE8 is required for most corporate environments where they haven't killed of Windows XP yet. That is a surprisingly large amount of people.

If this happens, we'll fork jQuery 1.9 and support it separately.

<comment><USER32> 2 will come out in 2013 just a bit before Microsoft officially removes all support for XP. If your IT department hasn't made moves to upgrade everyone from XP by this point you have bigger issues to deal with than jQuery availability.

<comment><USER31> Forced obsolescence doesn't mean people aren't still using it and it doesn't mean that because Microsoft stop patching that it's still vulnerable. Using it after April 2014 is not a problem.

The NHS in the UK has over 1 million Windows XP deployments out there still on NHSnet which is a nationwide secure private WAN. A lot of software vendors have to support that.

Your view is popular but naive.

<comment><USER32> Ok how about this then. If you're still supporting an unsupported OS why do you care about using the cutting edge version of a JS library?

<comment><USER31> Because historically jQuery has been a buggy pos that we've had to work around a lot.

<comment><USER32> That argument doesn't really hold though. You're not upgrading your base(the OS) to fix the problems with it yet you're complaining about a minor(in the grand scheme of things) library removing support in a modern version. If your network is closed off like the NHS one you mention, why not just stick with the old versions you've already fixed?

It's like complaining your 56' Chevy doesn't work with the new battery technology coming out in the Chevy Volt.

<comment><USER31> The problem comes is that the older versions that we've fixed have the fixes integrated in later versions.

We really don't want to have to maintain the versions that we've fixed as that kills the entire value proposition of using it in the first place.

It's nothing like the 56' Chevy / Volt analogy. The technology is the same - they just can't be bothered with supporting one vendor's product any more.

<comment><USER32> Why do those fixes matter? Again if you're in a closed environment then you can surely control the versions of a JS library. So fix it until it works in your space then move on. Them dropping support for your outdated choice of platform isn't a problem. Your desire to use cutting edge software with your outdated platform is the problem.

Picking a platform and sticking with it is a nobel and occasionally needed position to have. Expecting everyone else to hold themselves back because you chose to do so is impossibly greedy however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Did anyone read the post? 1.9 will still support ie6/7/8, so just use that for compatibility. Let's move the web forward. I still use XP at home and don't care because I use Firefox. So if grandma/grandpa and corporate america don't get all the new bells and whistles, they are probably used to it, because they don't have rounded corners, text-shadow and box-shadow on everything anyway. They probably won't even know what they are missing on that HP/Dell POS. :p

</comment><comment><USER34> All this talk about IE usage numbers led me to a website Microsoft made to say goodbye to IE6: <http://www.ie6countdown.com/>

The site reports that in the US, IE6 has 0.6% market share — relatively nothing. But look over at China: 22.4% of its 500 million Internet users still browse with IE6. Moving forward benefits the Internet as a whole, but the Chinese market is one instance where backward compatibility is important.

<comment><USER35> I grew up in China and this is def true. IE6 is still popular in China is because a lot of banks and governments website only works in IE(6). Since banks are state owned, they don't have incentive to compete to make their site better. I think the only hope is to wait till their computers die and when they install new windows IE6 will be gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Kudos to the jQuery team for taking a risk.

<comment><USER37> it's not their risk, it's ours.

<comment><USER38> It isn't your risk. You can continue to use jQuery 1.x.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is worst of both worlds. Compared to naming branches, they both encourage sites to unnecessarily break compatibility, and are held back from developing new features.

They should give 1.9, 2.0, and 2.1 names, and make 2.0 mainline, and call 1.9 "compat" or something and encourage the conditional comments. Then, soon, they should start working on 2.1, which isn't API compatible with a version that's compatible with IE 6/7/8. The current plans for 2.1 are an awfully long time to wait for features that aren't available with IE 6/7/8, for apps and sites that need such things (and have a target audience that is ready for it).

</comment><comment><USER27> You will not only be stuck with 1.9, but every other library you use that is based on jQuery - and most in my stack are - can't be upgraded as I assume those libraries will not play conservative but switch to 2.0 (and 2.1 next)

<comment><USER40> 1.9 and 2.0 have the same api

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Zepto is already a popular option for those who want jQuery features in a lightweight library. The API is essentially identical to jQuery, making it a drop-in replacement at a fraction of the size.

zeptojs.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Zepto is not drop in. Not even close.

<comment><USER42> Could you expand on that at all? I realise that Zepto covers a (very) small subset of jQuery functions, but I thought that in a lot of use cases it would be an appropriate substitute?

<comment><USER43> Last I checked zepto doesn't have support for any of the simulated selectors like `:checked`, `:input` and friends. If you use any of them, its not drop in.

<comment><USER44> If you build zepto with experimental CSS selectors you can. [https://github.com/madrobby/zepto/blob/master/src/selector.j...](https://github.com/madrobby/zepto/blob/master/src/selector.js)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Good stuff IMO; those who continue to insist on using IE<9 deserve a degraded experience. Those who are forced by their employers should lobby them to upgrade/move to FF/Chrome (and when they inevitably don't listen, then it's really too bad - but if said employer wants to use a service w/o old IE support it might force the upgrade).

In a world where technology is developing at such a pace, it really is time we stopped worrying about old, poorly built bits of software.

</comment><comment><USER46> So i have to stick with jquery 1.9. People that ask me to create web page are IE user. Here, those who use firefox, opera, or safari can create their own web by themself.

</comment><comment><USER47> I was just thinking that it Netflix can be sued under ADA for not close- captioning material that didn't provide closed captioning, then someone is eventually going to sue someone for not providing access to a public website via the only browser they can use.

The real losers will probably be the public libraries that provide Internet access, but don't have the resources to afford equipment or manpower to upgrade machines and browsers.

</comment><comment><USER48> I'll play the cynic here and try to diagnose why this is even being considered.

jQuery is a very invasive API. Its goal is to steal all the work from the developer, and to "guarantee" what it deems to be "correct" input for a certain subset of browsers. This approach may ostensibly work, but inevitably falls apart, which leads to thousands of "bugs" being reported.

Because the API has grown to be so massive, goalposts "must" be moved in order to create a lighter API. Once again, this is because of a design flaw. Goalposts will continue to be moved in cyclical fashion unless an alternative design is used. Fellow developers may denigrate me for it, but I will explain how this problem can be avoided.

An API that tries to cater to everyone cannot and will not succeed. This is evidenced by the upcoming "fork". Conversely, an API that provides a set of tools to developers without catering can work in many environments. The burden is then placed upon the developer to choose which environments matter. As has been outlined by mobile developers, object inferences for IE 6 really are unnecessary for mobile Webkit environments. I have written here on this concept before, mostly on the topic of "graceful degradation". Browser specificity can and will kill a client-side API.

<comment><USER49> I don't know what your definition of software success is if jquery doesn't fall in that category.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Jquery does what most open source projects do not. That is providing a clear roadmap with 99% questions answered.

</comment><comment><USER51> Hard to tell whether this will be good or bad; it does bring to mind some of the gyrations commercial software vendors have forced, from time to time.

</comment><comment><USER52> I won't be using for a few a years but I am glad it is leading pushing people to CSS3 compliance.

<comment><USER53> huh?

<comment><USER54> IE 7 and 8 are still a huge chunk of the market, and they dont support CSS3.

<comment><USER55> The important metric is how much of a chunk they are to _your_ business. You shouldn't care if some other site (or all other sites!) have significant traffic from such old browsers. Measure _your_ traffic.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why we built a fertility "Fitbit": The purpose behind it all - <AUTHOR> http://ovatemp.com/blogs/fertility/15613588-the-purpose-behind-it-all Ovatemp was born around the idea that we need to take better care of our women. Science and technology need to offer women a better way to take care of themselves. To understand their bodies and to be able to make life choices that won't damage their health in the long run. There are two scenarios that need to be approached in a more holistic way. The first is women who aren't ready to have children or simply don't want to. The second are women who are ready to have children and are encountering difficulties with their ability to get pregnant.

  Lately, the long term side effects of hormonal contraception have made women turn away from it, not to mention the very annoying short term side effects. On the other hand, the financial burden that assisted reproductive technologies can bring is a cause of concern for many. This is why we believe that the fertility awareness method is a perfect fit for everyone. No matter what your choices are. This is why we want to make it easy for women to practice it. This is why we believe women should give their bodies a chance. Nature is wiser than we believe. Let's work with it and not against it.

 Recording your temperatures every morning into your mobile device is such a hassle. My wife had this 80's looking apparatus that took her temperature and saved them so that she could later input them to whatever app she was using at the time. One morning, in a fit of frustration she just screamed at the thing and asked if there was a way to connect a thermometer into her smartphone and forget about manually inputting temperatures. My enthusiastic entrepreneur spirit just said, "Let's do it!"

  This later evolved from being one tiny thermometer into developing our own app to sync it with and offering women personalized fertility coaching through it. We figured, if we are going to do something, let's do the best we can do.

  We have encountered bumps along the way, but we have never stopped for a second. That's why today, after two years, I am happy to present to you the thing that started it all: Ondo. An oral basal thermometer that will sync with your smartphone and facilitate the practice of natural birth control and/or pregnancy achievement. We know this works because it worked for us. We did not start out wanting to make money, we started out trying to solve a very real problem we had. We used it both ways, to prevent pregnancy and later to achieve a very desired pregnancy after two years of trying to conceive. We want to share our solution with women all around the world.

 It's been a long journey. One with ups and downs, and lefts and rights, and any other direction you can think of. It's been exciting and stressful. It's not over yet and hopefully it will continue to bring as much satisfaction to you as it has to me. There is always room for improvement and rest assured we are constantly looking to improve. In the meantime, let us help you listen to your body.

 Daniel Graf
Cofounder @Ovatemp <comment><USER2> This site is very difficult to read on a mobile phone. The header sticks to the top of screen and never goes away, even after scrolling. It takes up at least half my screen.</comment>


No, sugar doesn't make kids hyperactive (American Medical Assoc. 1995) - <AUTHOR> http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/274/20/1617.abstract

<comment><USER2> I've seen similar reports about caffeine - which makes our observation about parties interesting.

A business I'm director of hosts parties, we used to have coke as a drink option at parties. The kids who had coke went crazy hyper compared to those who didn't. Same observation across multiple ages at multiple parties. We stopped serving coke (water, lemonade or fanta orange instead) and behaviour improved markedly.

If I'm feeling low in energy and want a pick up I'll reach for something sugary. It seems to work. Could be a placebo.

I'm going to guess that this hinges around what one terms hyperactive. Also if sweetener has the similar effect then any effect of sugar will be masked in these studies. Perhaps it's sweet things that make you hyper?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "The strong belief of parents may be due to expectancy and common association."</comment>


Screw Up, Say You're Sorry, Be Funny, Win Over Your Customers [YC08] - <AUTHOR> http://www.thinkjose.com/screw-up-say-your-sorry-be-funny-win-over-your-customers/

<comment><USER2> That human touch is always really nice for any customer service. It sucks when it feels like you're talking to a robot.

<comment><USER3> It sucks even more if you _are_ talking to a robot... I've been trying to contact Xbox Live support lately and I cannot seem to get any "person" to respond to me that isn't clearly a classifier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have to say Jeff and the polleverywhere guys are some of the funniest guys I've ever met.

</comment><comment><USER5> After observing a similar pattern at my last startup, I thought it might be a good idea to _intentionally_ screw up something minor. Then we could apologize for it like this and maybe offer some small reward to make up for it.

My theory was that it would endear our customers to us that much more.

I still haven't tested that theory, but I'd really like to some day.

<comment><USER6> Customers are endeared by this sort of thing because it's genuine. Simulating this effect with a fake trick may work, but it is not cool.

And don't excuse it with "companies everywhere do this all the time" either. Everywhere and every time that kind of stunt is pulled, it is not cool.

<comment><USER5> And that's why I've never done it! I've never heard of anyone actually trying this, but I bet you're right that it's been done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My question is this: If you run a company and you caused this (I am in no way calling them out or anything). If you realized you just did this, how do you react? 1) Email the entire list again saying you apologize for that or 2) handle the email on a one-to-one?

EDITED: tsondermann points out they used option 1. I am not a member, so I did not know. I edited this to be more general.

<comment><USER8> 3) wait until the next mass mail and intentionally poke fun at your previous mistake. address mails to "Dear [FNAME] -- Err, Jose,"

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "This email TOTALLY makes up for any _|ERROR_SYNONYM|_ and I must say that you guys are the # _|NUMBER|_ online voting tool in all of _|LOCATION|_!"

I think OP has stumbled onto a great start-up idea: "recipient modifiable email" Just mail merge parameter data from your own client to get the message you want. Never get bad news again.

Use the API to extend to forum comments:

One of the best _|NOUN|_ I've read in # _|NUMBER|_ days. Jose is a _|ADJECTIVE|_ guy!

</comment><comment><USER10> Thanks all, _|LINK_SITE|_ is my favorite place to get my _|CONTENT_NICHE|_ news.

I'm with edw519, I think email MadLibs would be a blast.

</comment><comment><USER11> Must say that many companies outsource email campaigns and it may not be the company's fault (directly). Just sayin' :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, we screwed it up. We renamed the FNAME field in our mail app to FIRST_NAME and forgot to change that field when we sent out that email to all of our customers. Oops!

BTW, we use Mailchimp for our emailings. Too bad they don't have an idiot checker before a message is sent out :)

<comment><USER12> That kind of integration error is very easy to make, and the attention spent on it by in taking the extra care to avoid it probably really adds up, when aggregated over everyone who uses this kind of tool. e.g. I noticed today that ant does the same thing: it will output a literal "${filename}" if filename isn't defined.

In this specific case, Mailchimp could check for non-existent fields.

It would be even better to have a way for the fieldname to be automatically modified when you changed its name elsewhere... but because the naming is itself used to define the binding, there's no way to do this automatically (unless all the components were in a giant all-seeing IDE that automatically refactored all related components, wherever they be).

BTW: What I got from this story was that it's OK to screw up - I think productivity can soar if we don't spend endless attention checking things because we live in terror of making a mistake.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think its OK to screw up, but in the event that you do screw up, step up and take accountability for it. This all boils down to being honest with your customers.

<comment><USER12> Of course, to screw up is to err (by definition), but I meant it's OK in the sense of it not being the end of the world. Your humour is an illustration of this. It's possible to get hung up on avoiding mistakes at all costs - indeed, at greater expense than the mistakes themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> * you're

</comment><comment><USER14> I love companies that actually send a thought out response! +1 for their great sense of _[emotion]_</comment>


Steve Yegge quits Google during his presentation at OSCON - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKmQW_Nkfk8&feature=youtu.be

<comment><AUTHOR> ...not to mention, a solid talk.

</comment><comment><USER2> Dupe: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2811818></comment>


Concerned Users Worry as Twitter Suspenders Several "OSINT" Accounts - <AUTHOR> https://jpost.com/International/Concerned-users-worry-as-Twitter-suspends-several-OSINT-news-accounts-592663 <comment><USER2> If you're relying on Twitter, you've already lost.</comment>


How Elon Musk Learns Faster and Better - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@michaeldsimmons/how-elon-musk-learns-faster-and-better-than-everyone-else-a010a4f586ef <comment><USER2> One thing I discovered from lifting weights is that learning generalizes, typically referred to as "carry-over". In weightlifting, this means that squats and bent over rows will both improve your deadlift. In general learning, this means that for instance learning about nonlinear dynamic systems, nuclear physics or crystal chemistry will make you a better molecular biologist. I've also found essay writing will improve your programming (as well as the reverse), and logic/mathematical proofs carry over a bit to both.

This carry over effect is important in particular because when you study one thing for a while your learning rate starts to suffer from diminishing returns. As a result, even though the carryover from another field might not be that high, you can actually improve faster in your main field by studying something else. Thus you can optimize your learning by rotating areas of study fairly often, only coming back to a previously visited topic when it's "fresh" again.</comment>


Curve.app – All Your Cards in One – Raises $55m in Series B - <AUTHOR> https://discover.curve.app/a/curve-raises-55m-series-b-funding <comment><USER2> Does anyone know how this works in the backend ?</comment>


True Facts About Cosmology (Or, Misconceptions Skewered) - <AUTHOR> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/01/12/true-facts-about-cosmology-or-misconceptions-skewered/ <comment><USER2> Adam Frank's _About Time_ is an excellent and non-technical intro to the subject which weaves together the cultural and economic changes in history which led us to the current standard model of physics.

Suffice it to say that, if we live in an 11-dimensional universe (as string theory requires), "all bets are off" as far as observing very much about the real nature of "reality."

If we don't live in a multidimensional universe, then physics has "a lot of 'splaining to do," as Ricky Ricardo put it, on the reasons behind the magic number constants (Are there 22 of them? This is not my field.) which make the standard model work out. I emphasize that this refers to the _standard model_ of quantum physics and not some wild speculation.

TL;DR: We don't know where we live or how we got here and our current conceptions are almost guaranteed to change again.</comment>


Why AngularJS Changes Everything - <AUTHOR> http://ionicframework.com/blog/angularjs-will-be-huge/?utm_content=buffer05796&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

<comment><USER2> A bit OT, but somewhat relevant:

I like Angular, but I also find that in many cases it's pretty heavy weight for me. I've been working on a library that lets you add AJAX to your app w/o any javascript, using HTML attributes, REST-ful bindings and the Basecamp2 content-swapping approach:

[http://intercoolerjs.org/](http://intercoolerjs.org/)

It's not designed to be a be-all-end-all javascript library, but it lets you tactically AJAX-ify your app in high value places without a lot of complexity.

Here's a (crappy) demo I threw up:

[https://vimeo.com/85881209](https://vimeo.com/85881209)

It's in early alpha, but if anyone is interested, please fork and ping me. Lots of interesting stuff to implement still.

</comment><comment><USER3> I imagine the discussion at these big companies goes thusly:

Programmer: "I'd like to use Ember.js to build our new tablet app."

Manager: "Who built Ember.js? Who supports it? Where did it come from?"

Programmer: "Tilde, Inc."

Manager: "No dice."

... one month later ...

Programmer: "Okay, I've been playing with AngularJS and--"

Manager: "Who built it?"

Programmer" "Google is leading development."

Manager: "Perfect, I'd like to see 500 LOC fully tested by next week and a shippable app in two months, though I expect we'll let that slip one or 14 months if we have to."

</comment><comment><USER4> I hope Angular never become the "futur" of front-end. I pride myself making reusable, simple, opmised, clean code for entreprisey apps. Some frameworks fit well in this mentality.

Angular does not. It's an awkward black box.

I can open the source code of backbone & understand everything it's doing. Using a simpler stack makes the code more timeless, any competent js dev is able to continue my work. Pretty sure you can't say the same with your angular app.

</comment><comment><USER5> I too have noticed some conservative institutions looking into or already switching to using AngularJS, such as banks, and some areas of the federal government.

I, for one, am glad to embrace my new frontend overlord.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have a theory about that google trends graph: the more confusing and fragmented your documentation, the more google searches you generate.

</comment><comment><USER7> > They all told the same story: their bosses were directing entire dev teams > to switch to Angular. [...] It was actually being mandated from the _top > down_ , changing job requirements almost overnight.

It makes me wonder who is convincing the managers, then, if not the developers that actually have to build the software?

And are developers embracing AngularJS because it is now becoming a marketable skill that hiring managers are looking to fill, or because of its own merits?

</comment><comment><USER8> I've been building an angular app for a few months now I must admit that angular is great, but the learning curve is too steep.

<comment><USER9> > the learning curve is too steep

Compared to what?

<comment><USER10> I will say, as having acquired a taste for angular and trying to extend an ember app, that the angular learning curve is pretty linear.

My experience was:

* My first module

* My first controller

* Attaching controller to div

* My first interaction with ng-click and $scope

* My first route

* Refactor controller from div to router

* Using a route with an anchor tag

* My first form with ng-submit

* My first service

* My first value to wrap jquery

* Using $.ajax to call a service

* Discovering $http and refactoring out $.ajax

* Refactoring the service into a factory

* My first directive to wrap jquery-ui

and so on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> TL;DR: Anecdotes from an angular conference, garden variety hyperbole, contrived google trends chart.

<comment><USER12>
      > contrived google trends chart

I know, right?

[http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en- US#q=angularjs%2C...](http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en- US#q=angularjs%2C%20emberjs%2C%20knockoutjs%2C%20backbonejs%2C%20jquery&cmpt=q)

<comment><USER13> Notice the similarity between jQuery and Angular? Similar trajectory over the same amount of time. I find that pretty compelling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> can confirm ! am architect at at a major Canadian bank and AngularJS is our preferred UI framework , even over JSF and that is a big deal for all java shops.

<comment><USER15> Are you able to identify the bank? Are any of the public-facing apps using AngularJS?

We'd like to showcase successful and interesting Angular apps on the website(s) (by which I mean angularjs.org/angulardart.org and builtwith.angularjs.org, etc)

<comment><USER14> I can't . However, I have discussed with my management that we should talk about our work with AngularJS to be able to recruit programmers, who are otherwise choose to go to 'exciting' start-ups. When we are ready, we will reach out to AngularJS to showcase our apps. We are doing mobile and tablet focused web apps as well as traditional web apps with AngularJS.

<comment><USER15> When you have time (and are allowed to), it would be really cool if you could submit a patch against [http://github.com/angular/builtwith.angularjs.org](http://github.com/angular/builtwith.angularjs.org). It's not necessarily the simplest process, but there's a simple server in the repository so you can preview the change.

Just ping me on the PR and I'll be happy to merge that for you

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> how did that post even address its title? let alone warrant a single HN upvote?

<comment><USER7> > It has to _become_ a platform.

> It was a few weeks ago at the first ever AngularJS conference, ng-conf, that > all of my assumptions about Angular were proved true.

According to the OP, it changes everything because it has 'become a platform'. Whether that is true or not is up for discussion, a discussion that is definitely HN-worthy.</comment></comment>


Christmas Traditions That Originated from the Vikings - <AUTHOR> https://swedesinthestates.com/scandinavian-christmas-traditions-originates-vikings/ <comment><USER2> I don't think I can trust this piece at all.

For example, the 12 days of Christmas was established in 567 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmastide#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmastide#History) , which is well before both the Vikings and the Christianization of Scandinavia.</comment>


Ask HN: Can I use http2 - <AUTHOR> Is http2 ready to go all in?
If you run a website what percentage of visitors browsers support it? <comment><USER2> Yes, for example in nginx config it is just one word in server definition. And if client doest support it, fallback automatically to standard https website. Really there is no reason not to enable it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Use it? yes, major browsers speak it. Use _only_ http2? Not a good idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> My little knowledge tells me if the browser doesn't support http2 it will still work.

So what do you mean to not only use http2 ?

<comment><USER3> Wasn't quite clear what question was, so wanted to make sure you aren't asking if you can _require_ support for HTTP2. Any normal setup will fall back to HTTP when the upgrade to HTTP2 doesn't work, yes.</comment></comment></comment>


3 free ways to advertise your startup - <AUTHOR> https://avetty.com/free-advertising-tricks <comment><USER2> I suspect it would be very tricky for a company like mine (internet startup with few competitors, the ones we have are large incubants in the market) to work together as this article suggests, especially because with free apps/websites the main goal is to retain a user/get them to sign up which wouldn't work if they were sent off site.

I can see this working well for small brick and mortar businesses.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not quite. Unless you are competing with Google, they can't be possibly covering all possible customer cases and/or requests. For example, if a big company does XYZ and charges $100/month for that, it simply doesn't make sense for them to spend time on a customer, who needs just X and is willing to pay $5/month. That's where you step in.</comment></comment>


New Macs Leak - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/06/new-macs-spec-sheet-leaks-out-into-the-internet-pricing-and-names-included/

<comment><USER2> If the retina MacBook Pros are real, Apple really is throwing down the gauntlet here.

And not just because of their advantage in hardware; Windows is notoriously hard to program for in a resolution independent way, and the first double resolution laptop displays are going to cause early adopters no end of pain. Even if Windows 8 brings APIs to fix it, the long tail of apps are not going to be updated any time soon.

I expect this to be an unusually large and concrete reason for everyday people to choose a Mac laptop for the next few years. Side by side, Macs will look amazing. Looked at a 3GS recently? Eww.

Of course, this is assuming OS X has resolution independence nailed; though I'd be amazed if they shipped this if that wasn't the case.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been hanging on for a Macbook Air 11" in the hope they reduce the size of the bezel and possibly increase resolution.

That will be a seriously nice piece of kit if they do!

</comment><comment><USER4> Not an apple fanboi, but really happy about super resolution displays...sick of 24" HD displays. HD is for TVs.

</comment><comment><USER5> Way to go somewhere in Australia for leaking the details.</comment>


How Linux killed SGI (and is poised to kill Sun)  - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10210431-62.html?part=rss <comment><USER2> Catch headline, but the actual content of the article is that Sun killed SGI and Linux is killing Sun.</comment>


Ask HN: What do I need to learn to manage a VPS? - <AUTHOR> I'm on a shared hosting with 20 websites and respective emails.
I'd like to be able to go the VPS route and manage it without a control panel.
I know you need to access it through Putty, but I don't know what commands I need to move all my websites and do things like the pros. <comment><USER2> [https://www.udacity.com/course/configuring-linux-web- servers...](https://www.udacity.com/course/configuring-linux-web-servers-- ud299)</comment>


Ask HN: Should I work for a few years before grad school? - <AUTHOR>

A bit about me: I'm a third-year at UC Berkeley, and I'll be graduating next academic year. I'm a learning entrepreneur, and I founded a profitable software company last year. However, I'm much, much more interested in the technical aspect of building new products than the business side (although I know I'll have to get my hands dirty anyway).
I eventually want to run my own company full-time, or work at a company that would give me a certain level of responsibility and ownership over a product.
My question is: I have a bunch of ideas for startups that I would love to start work on, but I also want to attend grad school to higher my education (and ensure a higher starting salary ;)) I would love to take a break for a few years after graduating and gain some experience and work on my ideas on the side before going to grad school. Is this recommended, and what are the advantages / drawbacks to this approach? How would it affect my admission chances?
I really appreciate your advice! <comment><USER2> Grad school will wait. Grad school will always wait.

It is a great time for working in the software business -- lots of stuff happening, lots of demand for talent.

My impression, back in my school days, was that the people who had done something else between undergrad and grad school had a certain purposeful air. They tended to know why they were there, and know what they wanted to learn or to do, and they navigated more directly to their goal and graduated faster.

Do not fret about admissions. You want to go to engineering or science grad school, right? Then having some work experience will not hurt you. You might consider lining up some recommendation letters now, while you're still fresh in your professors' minds, but three years from now you'll still have the GRE scores, you'll still have the GPA, and you'll presumably still be willing to sign up for _N_ years of being worked like a slave for low wages. You'll be as qualified as ever. ;)

(As for "higher starting salary"... one reason to try a job or two first before going back to school is to figure out exactly how much of a premium that advanced degree is going to be in your favorite field. You may find that it doesn't pay off -- you'll spend several years earning grad-student wages, and then discover that at a young startup nobody really cares if you've got a Ph.D.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I found the primary benefit of graduate school is mentorship; this helps in dealing with the unwritten aspects of mathematics and computing.

Beyond that, I would say doing start-ups is more valuable. However, you are trading personal development for product development. You are trading hard intellectual problems for difficult business problem. To differentiate:

A hard intellectual problem is proving that a simple curve divides a plane into two sides.

A difficult business problem is figuring out in real-time why the machine isn't working with angry clients everywhere calling "our shit isn't working".

Either direction, it will be fun.</comment>