You might not need JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://youmightnotneedjs.com/ <comment><USER3> When I was hired on the Watson team, the first thing they asked me to do was help improve performance of their AngularJS-based website. It was all-around slow, especially for the initial page view. I stripped out AngularJS and most of the other JavaScript, and published a website that was almost pure static HTML. It loaded very quickly. My manager thought it was hilarious - <USER2> "JavaScript expert" came in and deleted all of the JavaScript.

<comment><USER4> I've had interview candidates for frontend developer positions who only know how to build web pages using frameworks like Angular and React. They don't seem to understand how those frameworks work but essentially patch together a bunch of example online to get something going. It's truly unfortunate that many beginner web development tutorial introduce these technologies first in my view. Without giving new developers understanding basics of the web platform they get siloed into only knowing one way to do things and it results in using the wrong tools for the job as this example shows.

<comment><USER5> Here's another perspective. I started learning JS in reverse and ended up just creating my own framework because it was less verbose. But you would hire me over your patch-and-patch fellows?

Perhaps the right answer is to code know the basics but also have a handle on the popular frameworks too.

<comment><USER4> "Here's another perspective. I started learning JS in reverse and ended up just creating my own framework because it was less verbose. But you would hire me over your patch-and-patch fellows?"

Yes more likely. In fact I would find informative to see the framework that you have built as an example of understanding web development.

To expand a bit I think learning the framework is easier once you have an understanding of the web platform's basic. For non web stuff I value more problem solving ability, general CS knowledge over specific technology knowledge. I usually don't set a language requirements in interviews and look more to someone being able to explain how the code they wrote works and why it's a better solution than say some inefficient brute force method. Which in my example when applied to web stuff would translate to why is implementing something this way in angular better than an alternative, what advantages did you gain from angular. Etc...

<comment><USER6> My framework looks like this: [https://github.com/serprex/openEtG/blob/master/dom.js](https://github.com/serprex/openEtG/blob/master/dom.js)

The code that uses it looks like this: [https://github.com/serprex/openEtG/blob/master/views/MainMen...](https://github.com/serprex/openEtG/blob/master/views/MainMenu.js)

The site looks like this: [http://etg.dek.im](http://etg.dek.im)

I recently worked on a site at my job where I was able to implement it with JS + C#/OWIN, all static html, only uses toastr/jquery. Was nice they let me break away from the illusion that the choice is only between WebForms or MVC

If you ask me to compare this to Angular, I'd have to say I've never used Angular so I don't know

<comment><USER7> Seeing that code I would not hire you.

<comment><USER8> Any specific reason? Not trying to be accusatory, but your comment appears not genuine and I don't see anything instantly unhirable about his code after a short peruse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness...but I digress.

Some of these are cool examples. Others, like the modal, won't scale very well because now you can trigger modals by tabbing (breaks keyboard navigation) or most of the form examples as you'll likely hit many endpoints that require JSON (which yeah I know "you're making a web app why can't your endpoints accept a form?" but as we all know it's never that simple and you might want to provide different behaviors for, say, showing a progress bar or disabling certain features during the submissions or a THOUSAND other things).

I get axing dependencies. I really do. I wrote msngr.js entirely in ECMAScript 5 using zero dependencies so I'd have the most flexibility possible. But at the same time overcomplicating your code to the point where it's breaking standard practices or making it un-maintainable _simply_ to axe a dependency is the wrong way to go.

But by all means keep making cool stuff that shows off how versatile CSS is! Just don't expect to use all the CSS tricks you learn in a production environment.

<comment><USER10> All you need is this motherfucking website: [http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/](http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/)

<comment><USER11> Actually you need a tiny bit more: [http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com](http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com)

<comment><USER12> Getting there! [https://bestmotherfucking.website/](https://bestmotherfucking.website/)

<comment><USER13> The first two were actually making a good point. This website (yours, presumably) is just jumping on the bandwagon and sticking an affiliate link in it. I'm not against affiliate links, but this site lacks substance.

<comment><USER14> HTTPS and full contrast text are important. The 2nd attempt is a downgrade from the first. This 3rd attempt is an actual improvement.

<comment><USER10> Honestly, I can't stand websites that decide to waste 70% of screen estate. I can see the first site almost without scrolling. It is 2 to 3 pages on the other iterations.

The only things I may agree with is https and zipping.

"Fits on all your shitty screens" Does mean that it FITS ON ALL YOUR SHITTY SCREENS. Mine is a 1920x1080 (which is the minimal nowadays) and the 2nd and third iterations DO NOT FIT IT.

That thing around the web page, it is called a fucking window. It resizes. I'll do that if I want your fucking column-format.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm cautious about using CSS to do things that feel like actual behaviours.

For example, the modal that appears when you click on the button actually doesn't do things on "clicking" but _focusing_. This means if you tab over the button it'll load the modal, then tabbing away means the modal is gone. I can't tab into the content in the modal at all. How does that work with accessibility?

Though I generally dislike the idea of saying content isn't there by making it _present in the document_ but _invisible_.

Edit - Some of the default behaviours are also a bit pants. In chrome, the form validation on a pattern starts working after I hit submit, then angrily shakes at me for every keypress until it's valid. Then, it ignores invalid input as I type more! Please never use this for phone numbers or credit card numbers. Stop requiring an exact format when what people type varies, and stop telling me I'm putting in something wrong when you ask for a phone number and I give you something that'll connect to me if you type into a phone.

Maxlength is not a validation it's just ignores any more letters you type. Quietly ignoring your users input is probably not what you want.

The "Would you prefer a banana or a cherry?" just shouts "Please match the requested format" if I type "a cherry". I know chrome has nothing else to go on other than "the regex wasn't matched" but it's a bad end user experience.

The tabs example is something I need to tab onto then use left and right, I assume because it's a radio box underneath, not a series of links. Are tabs really radio buttons?

The same for the accordion. Which I've found if I add any tabbable content inside them then I'm focused on a _hidden item_. Great. Tab onto "tab 1", hit tab, focus has disappeared and I'm now potentially going to click on random items I can't see. This is because although you want to pretend the content isn't there just because it's not visible, it's still there! It's in your document.

Sure, you might not _need_ javascript. But maybe you should still use it.

<comment><USER16> > The "Would you prefer a banana or a cherry?" just shouts "Please match the > requested format" if I type "a cherry". I know chrome has nothing else to go > on other than "the regex wasn't matched" but it's a bad end user experience.

Localized custom validation messages for the provided pattern should be added as part of HTML spec. Someone should follow up on that, because it'll probably be too much of a waste of time for me.

In the meantime, this works and gets around a bug in FF: [http://stackoverflow.com/a/20189012](http://stackoverflow.com/a/20189012)

      <input type="text" id="username" required placeholder="Enter Name"
          oninvalid="this.setCustomValidity('Enter User Name Here')"
          oninput="setCustomValidity('')"  />

where setCustomValidity could provide any text, even localized text from some other source like a DB, potentially, since it's JS. Requires a modern browser, though.

> Sure, you might not need javascript. But maybe you should still use it.

Yes, but if you are writing for a general audience, make sure it's accessible: [http://webaim.org/techniques/javascript/](http://webaim.org/techniques/javascript/)

Someone should put together a site that, given a set of browser restrictions the user provides, gives examples of each of these to show the most accessible and standards-compliant version of the code to use, minimizing external libraries required, with and without localization, because not everyone has the resources to provide localized content, unless localization could be provided by a built-in library in the browser or OS, which would be another great project.

Yes, there are sites that provide a matrix of supported browsers, but I don't think that would be as simple to use; developers like copy-and-paste examples, for better or worse, e.g. StackOverflow.

<comment><USER17> Yeah honestly banana or cherry is just screaming for a much simpler plain old radio input.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It made me learn about [http://caniuse.com/#feat=input- pattern](http://caniuse.com/#feat=input-pattern) ; thanks for that!

<comment><USER19> Same. Didn't even knew that exists. Awesome.

<comment><USER20> Same here and it seems fucking amazing. I'm beginning to wonder how many more html-things like this I don't know about?

<comment><USER21> If this is your first time hearing about caniuse, then you likely also want to know about html5please.com as well; if you haven't already.

<comment><USER20> I use caniuse excessivly, I just hadn't heard about the pattern attribute. But thanks for the tip, html5please seems very nice!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does anyone else feel that a site called "You Might Not Need Javascript", probably shouldn't use Javascript?

<comment><USER23> Do any of the examples use Javascript? Or are you saying the site shouldn't use JS for syntax highlighting or whatever, even though that's not the sort of thing it claims JS isn't needed for?

<comment><USER24> If you look at the source, there are plany of JS files being loaded. Mostly from codepen, but also from the site itself.

I don't see any features of this site which should require javascript, so they should probably "practise what they preach".

<comment><USER25> Technically, they're preaching that you _might_ not need JavaScript rather than advocating against it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> You _might_ not, but you probably do.

The validation examples and input types are a case in point. Even on browsers where they work, the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled.

<comment><USER27> > the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled

It's not clear to me whether that's a problem. Isn't consistent UI a good thing? Isn't it faster to fill the forms correctly if alerts always appear in the same way?

<comment><USER24> Not really. The errors on Firefox at least, just say "Please match the requested format", which doesn't tell the user where they went wrong for potentially complex requirements.

<comment><USER28> You can use the title attribute to customise the error message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The you don't need jQuery website had a concrete use case - you need not include an entire library into your website for some simple tasks which makes your website faster.

Though, this site is cool in showing the power of CSS, I am not sure if there is any specific advantage of using CSS over JS to design tabs, sliders, etc. Just use the best tool for the job!

<comment><USER30> The Tor web browser disables most (if not all?) Javascript by default as a security measure.

Avoiding Javascript is an advantage if you want your website to be accessible to Tor users.

If your website only handles basic things like form inputs and it breaks when Javascript is disabled, then you have not made it accessible.

<comment><USER31> I think by now it's pretty safe to say most websites don't care about the tiny % of people using Tor or disabling JavaScript.

<comment><USER32> That doesn't make it laudable, or even defensible.

<comment><USER33> From a commercial point of view it kind of does. If the development costs exceeds the increased revenue it's not really worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's sad that this site uses SCSS for displaying the rules, I'm using it in production and fully understand it, but it's needlessly abstracting the rules for the sake of a few extra words in each declaration.

That aside, these are some pretty cool examples. Are there ways of doing this with CSS which doesn't screw with my browser back button?

<comment><USER35> I half agree with you, but one of the real benefits that SASS gives you here is making dependencies more obvious. A named variable like `$slider-height` is much clearer than a random number like `50px`. Yeah, you could put a comment next to every constant in the CSS, but I don't think that's clearer than the SASS alternative.

<comment><USER36> I'd hope CSS variables [1] will make that argument obsolete soon, but then again I've been hoping that for a while...

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/Using_CSS_v...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/Using_CSS_variables)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some of these are ok, but others are just misusing features for their intended purpose. An input gaining focus is not the same as a click event. Using the :checked peudoselector to keep client-side state is not an alternative to using JS.

Using HTML/CSS hackery where you should be using JS instead creates an anti- SEO, non-semantic mess that causes headaches for others to work on and nightmares for anybody needing to extend or modify functionality.

Don't get me wrong, I love pure CSS solutions and try to use them as much as possible where it makes sense. But sometimes, it definitely doesn't make sense. JS isn't something users or developers should be scared of anymore, it's much better supported and much less intrusive than it used to be.

</comment><comment><USER37> There is some useful stuff to learn from here, undeniably, but many of these are a bit useless when you compare them with what you would actually typically need on a real site. Yes, the "image slider" is vaguely functional, but really most of the time you will want a lot more control than just the CSS animations allow; similarly, yes, the form validation is a starting point, but normally you would want to customise the error messages and generally fiddle around with it a lot more; I'm not really sure the modal is fit for purpose beyond the most basic use case... etc.

It's fun to see what you can partially achieve without JavaScript, but there is no shame in using JavaScript sensibly to enhance the usefulness of a web site.

<comment><USER38> What bothers me is that I saw many of these things implemented in CSS only in ~2004. Of course, it required much more code then, including shims for IE 6 and careful slicing of GIFs, but things like tabs, accordion or lightbox were being implemented. Makes me wonder where the last decade went. At least there was a good reason to avoid JS back then: it was slow and often looked worse than CSS hacks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> So, we're all familiar with the fact that imgur requires JavaScript in order to display more than the first few images in a gallery (the 'view more' link executes JavaScript; there's no way to page forward). That's highly annoying, since HTML supports exactly this use case.

It's understandable, though, because we are not imgur's customers: its customers are advertisers, and if we have JavaScript disabled then imgur's customers have less ability to violate our privacy. Thus, it's in imgur's best interest to encourage us to reduce our privacy & security, so that its customers may have their way with our browsers. I can't see that the imgur programmers would care about the fact that they can do amazing things with CSS.

But recently I've discovered that Target's website simply refuses to display products without JavaScript. This is insane: Target are, presumably, in the business of selling things. They ought to want to display a picture of their item and provide me a link to buy it; that's in their best interest. Building that sort of website is _easier_ than building the sort of ecommerce site which cannot even display an image and a link without JavaScript. It should be in Target's best interest to do the right thing.

But it _doesn 't_. Its programmers _ought_ to be interested in a site like youmightnotneedjs.com, but _are_ they? If they didn't bother to build their website properly before, is this likely to encourage them now?

</comment><comment><USER40> The issue with CSS sliders is that they mess with the browser history.

I expect my back button to open the previous page, not to move an image slider.

<comment><USER41> aren't you talking about the view switcher ( [http://youmightnotneedjs.com/#view_switcher](http://youmightnotneedjs.com/#view_switcher) ) ?

<comment><USER40> In this demo yes, however I have seen CSS image sliders with buttons which happily sit on the back button.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Am surprised no one has pointed out how bad these examples are for accessibility, no pause/play on the slider, hidden content that won't be read by screen readers etc.

I like the idea of using CSS over Javascript where it makes sense but in a lot of these examples it feels hacky.

<comment><USER26> The rationale of the site site is simple purism, not mere technical considerations like code complexity, accessibility, history pollution, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Since half the examples do not work on Safari, I believe the title is a bit misleading.

<comment><USER44> Safari is the new IE6, stop supporting it and let it die. It will not get any better anyway. If most of your users are on iOS, then make an app for them, it's what Apple also want you to do...

<comment><USER45> I have no idea why people use Chrome.

Chrome/Google has terrible/no support of many browser layout & interaction features, such as CSS Regions & scroll snap points.

Also, Safari is just a much better browser than Chrome. We need to make sure people stop using Chrome and move to the default browser in their environment - Safari & Edge.

If you support the default browser, then you're going to be fine.

<comment><USER46> > default browser

Hi, I'm Linux.

<comment><USER47> Yay for Midori, Konqueror, Epiphany, Dillo, lynx, and all the things a regular dev never have to encounter with :)

( By the way lynx is perfect to pierce through a lot of paywalls. )

<comment><USER46> Chrome is still the best choice for development on Linux.

The alternatives are Opera and Firefox. Everything else is like coding while wearing mittens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> If you use React and inline styles, you might not need HTML and CSS: [https://vimeo.com/116209150](https://vimeo.com/116209150)

Also, if you want the benefits of inline styles, but need media queries and the like, check out Radium: npm.im/radium

<comment><USER49> Pretty much what I do. I am also enjoying using Aphrodite [1] these days.

[1] [https://github.com/Khan/aphrodite](https://github.com/Khan/aphrodite)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The biggest pain point with using :target is that location.hash, which powers it, is a single global state variable - which means you can't nest tabs inside tabs, for example.

The slider has the problem that it cannot dynamically size with the container width, and the amount of slider elements has to be known at compiletime (width: n * 100%).

File upload has the nastiness that you can not really independently style the inputbox with the filename and the button. Chrome has input[type="file"]::-webkit-file-upload-button, but I am not aware of a Firefox/IE solution. Also, you cannot combine the input[type="file"]::-webkit- file-upload-button with a general button selector in the same CSS rule, because Firefox doesn't know the ::-webkit-file-upload-button and discards the whole rule as invalid - you have to double declarate your button styles if you want uniform button look in Chrome. And, even on Chrome, you cannot visually separate the inputbox from the button (e.g. I have a 2-col layout, 320px/col and 16px margin, and I only can mess around with width, padding and margin instead of a clean separation).

To the people who whine about SASS: you can ALWAYS write the resulting CSS by hand, it just takes a boatload of manual typing.

</comment><comment><USER51> Wow at the color picker. Funny that chrome seems to use my windows system color picker.

<comment><USER52> <input type="color"/>, standard HTML5. It's not got brilliant support though: [http://caniuse.com/#feat=input-color](http://caniuse.com/#feat=input-color)

<comment><USER53> Wow even the Android browser implements it. IE and Safari are lagging again...

I was surprised to see some Linux-style color picker pop up. It looks a lot like the one GIMP uses. Wonder if Firefox implemented that or they depend on something that does, and in the latter case, what's that dependency?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> You might also not need CSS.

Doesn't mean you should bruteforce everything with just one tech. CSS is hard to maintain.

</comment><comment><USER55> Yuck. I'd take a simple well crafted and maintainable JS solution over an opinionated CSS preprocessor any day of the week.

Preprocessors do nothing but splinter the CSS scene by layering odd syntax over an already creaking/complex CSS spec. Got nothing against compiling CSS in general - postprocessing features related to current and future CSS specs with PostCSS is a great idea. But dividing the community's attention between multiple competing preprocessors while it should have been concentrating on the spec is the worst thing to have ever happened to CSS.

Great things happened to JS when people got behind tools that pushed the language forward while keeping the current and future spec in mind (ES6/Babel). Shame CSS took an alternative approach imo.

</comment><comment><USER56> Funny that I had to activate javascript in order to see the previews, so, although you don't need JS in real life, you need it to convince people to stop using it.

Kinda like when Dante wrote in Latin about the utility of the Italian language.

</comment><comment><USER57> A few days ago a saw a talk about CSS animations with RxJS [0] and the gist about CSS only stuff was something like: "Yes, you can do much with CSS only, but it gets ugly fast."

Often you're better of to do a mix of both, because some things that are very complicated in CSS are two-liners in JavaScript.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTCukb6Zn3g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTCukb6Zn3g)

<comment><USER58> > _...because some things that are very complicated in CSS are two-liners in > JavaScript_

And vice-versa, in modern browsers! Best to have both in your toolbox, definitely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> The site would benefit from displaying browser versions where each of those features is supported à la caniuse.com

</comment><comment><USER60> CSS is great, and by all means use it, while also being aware that you can build so many functional UI components without the additional dependancy.

Maybe you can include a few lines of utility code, or a mixin, and forgo the requirement. If you're only targeting more modern browsers, you might not need anything more than what the browser ships with.

This site is fully copied from youmightnotneedcss.com, an excellent resource for vanilla CSS created by @somebody and @somebodyelse. But this time, we take a look at the power of modern native HTML and g as well as some of the syntactic sugar of DuJour. Because, you might not need scripts for that task at all! (Note: these methods can all be accessible, but the demos may not be. Please take a moment to test these before using in production)

</comment><comment><USER61> You might not need (to write any) Javascript, but you might _still_ want modern UX with some AJAX.

I have some good news: [http://intercoolerjs.org](http://intercoolerjs.org)

You can add AJAX to your application without writing any javascript code, and you'll get to use REST (with real, honest to God HATEOAS) without even thinking about it:

[http://intercoolerjs.org/2016/01/18/rescuing- rest.html](http://intercoolerjs.org/2016/01/18/rescuing-rest.html)

[http://intercoolerjs.org/2016/05/08/hatoeas-is-for- humans.ht...](http://intercoolerjs.org/2016/05/08/hatoeas-is-for-humans.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> What are the performance implications of using CSS animations versus Javascript? Say, if you were trying to make an application where page animations need to be extremely fast, like under 2ms for an experiment or test.

<comment><USER62> I had always assumed that CSS is faster, till I read your question. A quick search gave me this interesting link - [https://css-tricks.com/myth-busting- css-animations-vs-javasc...](https://css-tricks.com/myth-busting-css- animations-vs-javascript/) \- check it out!

<comment><USER30> Thanks for the link, a very informative read... and I've been looking for an answer on this topic for quite a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> CSS for behaviour = un-scalable non-x-platform big ball of crap

I understand why people try so hard to do without JS, but if you want to implement certain UI features, you're SOL. Either give up on them, or embrace the pain.

</comment><comment><USER64> Or, you could use JavaScript and do something in 30 seconds rather than fiddling with CSS.

Why do people try so hard not to use tools that make their life easier?

You might not need a car - you can walk. But it makes life easier and it just works!

<comment><USER65> > Or, you could use JavaScript and do something in 30 seconds rather than > fiddling with CSS.

Assuming you're more proficient in JS than CSS ;) With CSS3 I find some animation is easier w/ transitions and keyframes than JS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Another point of view: an exceptional article by Jenn Schiffer "A Call For Web Developers To Deprecate Their CSS" [https://medium.com/cool-code-pal/a-call- for-web-developers-t...](https://medium.com/cool-code-pal/a-call-for-web- developers-to-deprecate-their-css-1f6430781393) \- HN Submit here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691081](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691081)

<comment><USER67> Surely that's a parody. If it's not...

<comment><USER46> As a rule of thumb: if it's written by Jenn Schiffer, it's probably satire.

Also, she called CSS "California Style Sheets" and called JS DOM manipulation "Node code".

Also, the header was obviously done in MS Paint.

Also, it's Jenn Schiffer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> One thing I have taken issue with a lot of these different CSS "component" implementations, is the lack of examples on how one would write a good testing suite for these. My first reaction looking at these is not "wow", but more "how can I test this?"

I would honestly be interested in hearing from some people here about how you would go about writing a proper test for these examples. And if the answer is "webdriver screenshotting", I might just shake my head a bit.

</comment><comment><USER69> > JavaScript is great

I've never heard somebody say that. Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER70> It's powerful, flexible, supports classical and functional paradigms and can handle input validation and transformation better than most languages with less code.

It's the only reasonable cross platform client/server language which is well supported.

<comment><USER69> I can say this for (nearly) any dynamic language like python or ruby. Your second statement is plain wrong however. Take clojure for example which compiles to java bytecode and javascript (cljs) seamlessly. You seem to be a victim of the Blub paradox.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> The problem with using CSS for animations is that if the UX designers make a minor change to the spec, you might be forced to rip out the whole thing and redo it in JavaScript.

</comment><comment><USER72> I thew this together a while back if anyone's interested: [https://github.com/johnhenry/funwithoutjavascript](https://github.com/johnhenry/funwithoutjavascript)

</comment><comment><USER73> If you learn JavaScript, you would be learning an imperative language that shares many features with other languages, and you would be, as a resource, more flexible than if you just use CSS for everything.

</comment><comment><USER74> JavaScript is overused today, even for stupidest things. If needs to be done in JS, you'll see God knows how many frameworks included. This idea reminded me of: youmightnotneedjquery.com

<comment><USER75> The keyword in all of these sites is the "YOU MIGHT NOT NEED" not "YOU DON'T NEED".. One could theoretically create youmightnotneeda.website and convey that maybe for what you're doing, a website isn't actually needed at all... Doesn't mean it's gospel and everyone should follow it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I would like to see more sites that use an uppercase title making it so via CSS so I can copy/paste that without having to copy from the source <title> or be lazy and rewrite.

</comment><comment><USER77> Many of these make sense, but a few (for eg. 'View Switcher') end up obscuring the logic of what's happening, and are probably better off done in JS.

<comment><USER46> Also, some of them have major accessibility and usability issues.

The image slider for example can't be paused. There's the CSS property "animation-play-state" which could have been used to do this, but that literally freezes the animation, whereas you typically don't care about the animation but don't want the slider to move on to the next image (i.e. finish the transition, then pause).

And of course depending on which browsers you're targetting, many of these are horrendously broken for most of your users.

<comment><USER70> Yeah, the slider could have an overlay label that toggles a checkbox, where the slider animated is depending upon a checked property, but then the issue is which image is active... that would get fairly complicated with css only.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> These examples are all good but I doubt whether you can really avoid javascript. In reality it's more like you can't avoid javascript if you wanted too.

</comment><comment><USER79> Neat stuff. One small issue: the lightbox re-opens when I'm using the back button on my mouse (using Chrome), not sure if that's fixable or not?

</comment><comment><USER80> IMHO unless your site is just showing static content, like a flier or something like that, not using JS will plunge your UX and overall productivity.

</comment><comment><USER81> It's funny that all the examples previews use CodePen and,

>Codepen requires JavaScript to render the code and preview areas in this view.

</comment><comment><USER82> These don't work in Safari 10:

\- The modal dialog example

\- Color picker

\- Form validation

<comment> angry-hacker And also with IE9. So what's the problem? :))

<comment><USER70> The problem is public facing websites, and will depend on your userbase.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Well done :)! Saved for future reference.

</comment><comment><USER84> The form validation is really cool!

But why oh why does it not validate before I press submit? Is that a Chrome specific thing?

<comment><USER85> Either does not work for me in Safari, or I'm missing the result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Does anyone else find it hilarious that this site doesn't work without Javascript?

</comment><comment><USER87> I might not, but I need for this page. Otherwise it would work with NoScript.

</comment><comment><USER88> Uninstall all JavaScript engines from you browser to prove that!

</comment><comment><USER89> Best of luck making this work across browsers. And even more luck to anybody who uses this, and then has to come back 6 months later to change something.

</comment><comment><USER90> But I need my site to work in IE9 too.

</comment><comment><USER91> My very wide-cast idea is this: The last 5 years we've rid ourselves of flash (for the most part) and replaced it with javascript.

</comment><comment><USER92> Coming up next: You might not need SCSS.

</comment><comment><USER93> You might not need JavaScript*

* If you hate your users

</comment><comment><USER94> You might nod near internet, heck, you many not need staying alive, but here we are.

Seriously, after some minimum complexity the ability to create functions and loops its extremely important. As in you don't need a spoon and a knife to feed yourself, but it sure fucking helps.

<comment><USER47> I remember a time when the coolest thing you could do with JS was mouse trailing bouncy balls. Since then, a lot changed; one of these is that people see JS as salvation from a special hell that doesn't even exist.

That giant ball JS that is included in most sites is absolute nonsense and is not needed in 99% of the cases. We include complete libraries where is should only be a portion.

I'm aware that this is changing, by "compiled" JS - putting together only the required elements - but usually those still have massive overheads.

In my opinion, you should use the tools for what they are the best for. Provide a static, readable HTML first from a backend code - that will run on anything, anywhere; it's accessible, and you've served the main purpose: serving content^1. If you need, add the styling and the animation with CSS. Only after that add the JS layer, which, in my opinion, should mostly be used for data exchange and change triggering.

^1 There are exceptions, there always are; application within the browser, where the main purpose differs from the content delivery. In certain numbers, such as domains, these are the minority; in actual use, it's a different story.

( Imagine a world where the data exchange is not tied together with JS and that we could but other UIs in front of the backends of webapps.. )

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> A lot of "you don't need Javascript" articles show a bunch of CSS tricks that look flashy and cool but in reality are brittle, limited, and hard to maintain. There's a fair bit of that here, but props for also pointing out some of the new HTML5 features that may have slipped under people's radars. I was aware of the form validation and I think it's a godsend, but I had no idea there's a native color picker now too.

</comment><comment><USER96> The site makes no claims as such, but it undermines its own credibility if it uses .js files.

Surely they could have figured a way to do without them.

<comment><USER97> At the start of the article they do state that you might need javascript. The point was to show off things you can do without javascript, not say that you never need it.</comment></comment>


Cube 3D Printers - <AUTHOR> http://www.staples.com/3D-Printing/cat_CL205651?icid=SearchResults3D

<comment><USER2> I believe my submission on this is hidden because of my recent registration here. I've lurked for a long time.

The press release[1] from Staples confirms ordering online is live now, and printers will be on shelves in select stores next month.

I would have thought FedEx/Kinko's would be the first to make a move on 3D technology, first as in in-store service, then stocking product.

There was also previous discussion[2] on 3D systems and their aggression toward other upstarts. Smart of them to be first into a major national retailer if they cannot compete in the 'enthusiast' space.

[1][http://investor.staples.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=96244&p=RssL...](http://investor.staples.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=96244&p=RssLanding&cat=news&id=1814995) [2]<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4812587></comment>


Ask HN: What makes for a top-tier web designer? - <AUTHOR> I am eager to know what is the process + knowledge + toolset employed by the web design teams at the Airbnb's, Google's, Twitch's, Invision's of the world...
I am a CSS/web design beginner, but want to become world-class over-time - the problem is: I don't know what I should study, so I don't really know where to start.
Any courses, talks, books, etc. that you all consider to be absolute musts or definitive guides?
Or recommendations on the best process for learning? <comment><USER2> In my opinion, design is a practice not a curriculum. Great design comes out of a willingness to produce many poor designs and a few good ones; learn from them; and move on.

There's no such thing as a "design in my head". If it's not "on paper", it isn't a design.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the reply. there's definitely a 10,000 hours component to this but i suppose my desire is to learn an organized system and process, versus piece- meal trial&error youtube videos and tutorials.

This is how I've been learning so far (I have the basics of CSS down) but I can't help but feel I have a huge gaping hole in my knowledge somewhere. The best analogy I can think of is: knowing how to shoot a basketball into a hoop, but lack a playbook for winning games.

It would be amazing to watch someone design a site like Twitch or Airbnb over the course of a week. To see their systems, processes, methodologies, frameworks...</comment></comment>


Orbital's Antares rocket makes test flight - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22193330

<comment><USER2> The phonesats got deployed! I'm happy because I worked on them.

This would be a routine flight if it wasn't for the fact that everything was done with a very low budget.

<comment><USER3> can you tell use more about that ? I heard this rocket has put cubesats for radio amateurs communication I think, but I'm not sure about that.

Can 'I', if I were a HAM operator, connect to these cubesats ?

<comment><USER4> Maybe. If you have digital packet radio equipment then you can indeed receive packets from these phonesats.

<http://www.phonesat.org/packets.php>

<comment><USER5> There's not even a high cost to the equipment. A $10 rtl-sdr with a $30 home built antenna will be enough to capture the audio data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why does Orbital Sciences get $1.9 billion for 8 missions but SpaceX $1.6 billion for 12 missions?

They both had previous experience building rockets (Orbital had Taurus/Minotaur families with launches over two decades while SpaceX had little experience with only the Falcon 1) so it seems strange for there to be such a large discrepancy. That's $133 million per mission including Dragon/Falcon 9 development vs $237.5 million per mission including Cygnus/Antares development, more than $100 million extra PER MISSION!!

<comment><USER7> Both contracts are for 20 tons to orbit, so the difference is not as large. Also, there was no competition - both 1st place and 2nd place were assured contracts. So the competition would have been only for the second place, to not miss out. But since there were only two entrants...

Now Congress want to down-select commercial crew to force NASA to depend on a single contractor that can then start jacking up the price like Boeing and Lockheed Martin regularly do, to kill the commercial benefits of commercial space and protect the government monopoly way of doing business.

<comment><USER7> Correction: There was a third entrant which lost. So there was a competition, at the proposal phase. Apparently, they asked for even more money.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My big question about this, what does Orbital do once its supply of pre-built and never used Russian rockets runs out?

<comment><USER9> Aerojet, the company that reworks the old engines before sending them to Orbital, purchased 36 engines. That's enough for 18 Antares rockets. That will cover the current CRS contract and maybe a follow-up or some commercial satellite launches. Beyond that Aerojet has a license to manufacture US-made copies of the engines. That isn't as easy as following a recipe, but it is something they are working on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Launch video (terrible camera work at launch. Also intermittent video feed in final minutes): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3L7crGudVU>

<comment><USER10> We watched on NASA TV (I think that's where this footage comes from) and whoever directed made the baffling choice to show the liftoff as the top half of the rocket. No flame, no smoke, no apparent movement. Pretty lame for my 3.5 year old son...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is it using a solid second stage? What are the advantages beyond weight? It isn´t more risky if you have to compensate for some kind of 1st stage under or over burn?

<comment><USER7> It's a solid upper stage because of time-to-market considerations, not because it's a good idea. For the first stage, thrust is more important than fuel efficiency, so a solid first stage (or boosters) make sense (at least for unmanned flights where there is no escape system), but for upper stages the fuel efficiency is more important than thrust so the upper stages should be liquid and if possible LH2/LOX, though that is the most expensive to develop (up front cost) and handle (recurring cost).

Castor 30 has vacuum isp of 300sec, while Merlin 1Dvac is around 340sec. There are rumors of SpaceX working on a closed cycle methane engine, which should have even better fuel efficiency.

<http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/taurus2.html>

<http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html>

<comment><USER4> It's not a rumor, SpaceX has stated publicly that they're working on LOX/Methane engines. There are two big reasons for this. On the one hand, it's just a good idea, liquid methane is a pretty decent compromise between LH2 and kerosene in terms of Isp vs. density (both of which affect overall stage performance) and since LCH4 exists at a similar temperature to LOX it doesn't add any exceptional problems into vehicle design or operations the way LH2 does. But perhaps more profoundly, methane is actually shockingly easy to manufacture on Mars with a very small amount of industrial equipment (we're talking about mere kilograms, provided there's sufficient power available). So the development of methane fueled rockets is also very much a way to build the systems and technology necessary for facilitating exploration and colonization of Mars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My god, look at the execution here. The CEO, David Thompson, is a visionary. Is there nothing he cannot do? Truly, I worship the ground he walks on.</comment>


Bill Gates et. al. launch massive clean-energy fund to fight climate change - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/859860/bill-gates-is-leading-a-new-1-billion-fund-focused-on-combatting-climate-change-through-innovation/?linkId=32225791 <comment><USER2> Us at the DOE are freaking out about the questionnaire Trump sent out, hinting at 10% off-the-bat cuts (to all accounts other than 050, aka Defense), ARPA-E dissolution, political retribution to anyone related to climate science, Rick Perry rumors, etc... We've been running in continuing resolutions so long we've effectively been losing funding at the rate of 2%/year (to be fair, this isn't exclusive to us)

Even with all this money from billionaires, most climate research makes extremely heavy use of DOE facilities, namely light sources, and works best with the close development loop.

So far, these circumstances seem specific to the DOE, so that's at least a little bit comforting. NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. No clue about the NIH. NASA is similarly not in as dire of a situation from the looks of it.

<comment><USER3> Remember what DOE was like when we had a Nobel prize winner running it? He did a lot of good, but he still didn't change the culture much. I expect the same inertia will work in our favor with Trump. Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at the top.

<comment><USER4> > Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at > the top.

This is why the federal bureaucracies are essentially unconstitutional: people within the rule-making structure are unaccountable to voters, but their decisions have lasting influence on the economy and on people's lives. For instance, many federal agencies define new felony-level crimes (that wreck lives) without a new law being passed by the legislature.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of people within government have a good heart and genuine motives. Also don't think I'm supporting Trump here. Just take a step back and look at the sentiment of your comment holistically: you're hopeful that institutional inertia will allow you to continue toward your goals within government in spite of the people's choice of the "idiot at the top."

<comment><USER3> I've railed about bureaucratic inertia my whole career. I'm completely aware of the irony of it possibly being a good thing in these weird times.

<comment><USER2> One good thing that could potentially come out of it is a divorce of the Office of Science from the DOE, and closer ties with the NSF and Universities (Department of Research+Office of User Facilities?), but I'm sure UC/Bechtel would oppose this.

I'm personally not likely going to be affected much, outside of wage freeze, unless the government decides it doesn't care about finding earth-ending solar system objects, but it's hard enough trying to do science in the USA and the wage gap between the non-clearance employees in the DOE and industry is increasing. If it gets much harder, brain drain from the Office of Science to europe is probable - more so than a migration to industry I'd imagine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've seen several opportunities/companies that could do the half a gigaton and meet the other criterion really fast, but raising money is a grind:

* Advanotech.com - makes fully functionalized silicon nanoparticles at a fraction of the current cost. This automatically gives a performance enhancement to batteries that hits double digit percentiles.

* [http://www.powertechwater.com/](http://www.powertechwater.com/) also does something pretty awesome by removing solids from brackish water.

I hope that whoever leads up this fund has deep chemistry competency to be able to fund things that will move the needle on gigatons of carbon emissions.

Bill Gates's statements on energy have been far more in line with the realities of minerals, carbon emissions, and lithospheric realities the statements of many other billionaires.

</comment><comment><USER6> The 20-year life of this fund is very significant.

Every VC fund I know of is a ten year fund, which means they expect to invest the full fund and collect their return within 10 years. Which in practice means they actually want to get an exit in 5-7 years, ruling out much energy technology investment.

A 20 year fund adds 10 years to their time horizon, which will put many more energy technology investments within their "strike zone"

> The BEV fund, which has a 20-year duration, aims to invest in the > commercialization of new technologies that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions

</comment><comment><USER7> Very interesting. I always thought that climate change is a tough problem because it requires cooperation, but that some uber-billionaire might say, "I'll write the 100 billion dollar check to make this happen" (Assuming an expensive technical solution exists without a good short term P&L) It would be the ultimate legacy for them. "I was the one that saved the planet" I worried that it may be too big for one fortune. It looks like several may be required.

<comment><USER8> It would have some interesting implications, politically. The democratic sense of "The People" rejected the issue and failed to take care of it through democratic and mundane day-to-day decisions. But the uber-wealthy who are often considered absolute enemies of "The People" had to step up and save the entire planet.

<comment><USER7> Is it possible that solving the great challenges of humanity today (global poverty, climate change, nuclear non-proliferation) stretch the ability of democracies to solve?

I'm an anti-elitist libertarian at heart, but the "let everyone do as they will" mindset may cause problems. (And I understand that elites get it wrong much of the time)

<comment><USER9> I think democracy would be in much better shape if there weren't such massive campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry to a wide range of politicians.

<comment><USER8> But that's a reflection of "The People" and their will. People want their existing jobs and status quo. They care about next week's pay check. Not a theoretical tidal wave that people they don't know say will happen if they don't stop working on fossil fuels and switch to being a cashier at Wendy's. To separate that reality of will from democracy would make it no longer democratic.

<comment><USER10> Campaign Contributions are imo clearly not a reflection of the will of the people. They are a reflection of business interests, protecting the status quo and working against balanced arguments on public policy.

A reflection of The People would be simply their democratic vote, informed by balanced and unsubsidized arguments from both sides.

<comment><USER11> > What if The People's democratic vote is to commit collective long term > suicide for short term gains?

I mean, obviously, individually, it's up to each person to choose. But when the majority chooses for everyone (including the minority), is the minority bound to respect that decision?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wish they'd set up an ETF of some sort. I'd happily put in a share of my retirement savings in order to assist in that. I'm sure a sizeable portion of the coasts would too. Sure $1B from Gates will have an impact, but I could imagine a climate change fund growing pretty large.

<comment><USER13> I think it's a almost impossible to launch an ETF for this kind of effort. An ETF has to track publicly trackable entities such as commodities, currencies or public stocks. Even the Private Equity ETFs track publicly listed Private Equity companies, not their holdings. From what I understand this fund will primarily invest in very early stage private entities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's a pity that charity is the best way (currently) to find solutions to these issues. Market mechanisms could create an incentive if only we put an appropriate price on carbon. Then industries would be falling over themselves to develop clean energy.

<comment><USER15> Putting a price on carbon isn't much of a market mechanism. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the idea but it seems like you're putting lipstick on what many see as a pig.

<comment><USER16> Why not? Ensuring that the true cost of a product is factored in its price will make people reconsider their purchasing options, and it may potentially show that alternatives are competitively priced.

<comment><USER17> And who exactly determines the 'true' cost?

<comment><USER18> That does not matter unfortunately as realistically a carbon tax would be below the lower bound estimate of the 'true' cost due to political considerations.

But, even ignoring politics, people have estimated the effects of climate change so it's possible; but there's going to a spectrum of answers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This very thorough analysis of the potential for wind energy in the US concludes that the great plains have massive potential for fantastically cheap wind power generation, with some sites having potential capacity factors well over 65%.

[http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/30/how-steady-can-the-wind- blow...](http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/30/how-steady-can-the-wind-blow/)

The point at which energy storage becomes an issue is a long way off if you connect the country with HVDC lines. Building such lines would be a great achievement for this fund. However, I guess the political question will get hit at that point: will the government be as keen to let private investors build new power infrastructure as it is for them to build new oil pipelines?

</comment><comment><USER20> Just FYI, a carbon tax can combat climate change while _raising revenue._

<comment> T-A Thus making you dependent on said revenue, so you end up not wanting to get off carbon.

<comment><USER18> No, there are different parties involved.

Government wants companies not to get off carbon for the $$$; but companies want to get off carbon (to some extent) as they would not have to pay carbon taxes.

It's just like any other tax. Companies are good at tax avoidance (note: this is legal unlike evasion).

<comment> T-A > No, there are different parties involved

Yes, and the party doing the taxing is also the party controlling things like import duties on solar panels.

> It's just like any other tax

Exactly. And once you introduce it, others like it will be sure to follow. Except they will be levied on the alternative energy sources which are cannibalizing carbon, because the state coffers demand it.

<comment><USER18> Well, the government can issue bonds (hope I'm using the right word) against that carbon tax to get a steady stream irrespective of the carbon emitted (other people would bear that risk of how much carbon tax would be collected).

Actually, companies producing more carbon due to government is not really a severe problem because the carbon tax compensates for the carbon produced (at least in theory).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The full list of partners can be found here: [http://www.b-t.energy/coalition/who-we- are/](http://www.b-t.energy/coalition/who-we-are/)

Most of these individuals have already been outspoken on environmental reform so it's welcome though not especially surprising to see them here.

</comment><comment><USER21> They have Mukesh Ambani on board. He has a special interest in not letting renewable resources flourish as he is the chairman of Reliance Petroleum. A little good PR doesn't hurt though, so why not.

<comment><USER22> if you were a petroleum producer, wouldn't you want to get in on the ground floor of the thing that makes you obsolete?

<comment><USER23> If I were a petroleum producer, I want to get in the ground floor. If it does make me obsolete, I can adapt and become the big shark in the new ocean.

Did you know BP solar is one of the largest producers of solar?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's nice to see that private individuals are stepping in to make a difference. The Obama administration was terrible at picking winners to back; I think tech types will do a much better job, especially considering it's their money.

</comment><comment><USER25> These types of things have, historically, been terrible investments.

<comment><USER26> Couldn't you have said the same thing about investing in internet businesses in 2002? And you'd have been correct - but oh so wrong.

<comment><USER25> I'm suspicious of vague "feel good" investments. Investing in particular approaches or technologies that look profitable, yes, putting a billion dollars into a vague "feel good" pot isn't a recipe for success.

<comment><USER26> I'm not convinced that statement applies to this particular fund's goals. The first greentech "boom" you mentioned in another reply, to me was very much like the dot-com boom. Everybody wanted in on the gold rush, and very few of them actually knew their (engineering) stuff. Even those that did, many got taken out with the fall. Classic hype cycle: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle) My point is, given that most of the tech is now economically competitive (or about to be), these guys are betting that we're entering the "slope of enlightenment." And given some of the names on that board, I'm inclined to believe they know what they're doing.

<comment><USER27> Good point I think, the timing does look about right. This would be a bit similar to smart phones, as well as VR where we're now on try #2 and I think the technology is good enough this time to get a large number of early adopters on board.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> New head of the EPA doesn't believe in climate change. Maybe gates can convince him that climate change is real? A billion dollars or even 10 isn't going to be able to change much if the government doesn't get some what involved.

</comment><comment><USER29> Would BEV actually create an impact on this?: [http://www.metaculus.com/questions/223/will-we-keep-the- glob...](http://www.metaculus.com/questions/223/will-we-keep-the-global- temperature-rise-to--1-c-in-2020/)

</comment><comment><USER30> What would happen if they started buying up coal to lock it away? My naive view is that it would form a sort of a carbon price.

</comment><comment><USER31> Makes total sense.

Just recently I had discussion with my wife about climate change, why billionaires won't just solve the problem and what we can do to help? What is the best nonprofit to donate?

The conclusion of our discussion was that the problem is much bigger than what billionaires can solve with direct money, governments could do something, but politics is in the way, so the only hope is that technology will help. Hence the best way is not to donate to nonprofits, but invest in tech companies that might help with climate change. And get rich while doing that.

<comment><USER10> Politics can amplify or inhibit success in the market by setting policy, and I think it will be very hard to innovate around this problem.

I'd expect these investors to pick places to invest where government policies will not work against their objectives, which probably is China and EU, not US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> As long as Bill Gates understands atomic energy as "clean energy", and even wants to build small micro-size atomic reactors for home owners he should just retired, and does what he understands best - as this is clearly way over his head. They should start to use his properties as long term dump site for his micro-sized atomic reactors. Maybe he should visit the ground atomic disaster ground zero zones in Ukraine and Japan for a week.

</comment><comment><USER33> Just thinking out-loud and wanting opinions: contrast this with the public funding model, how sustainable or effective is this model of private funding of research?

<comment><USER34> They're not mutually exclusive. For example, I've done consulting work for a private geothermal energy LLC (AltaRock) that does a fair amount of R&D funded by the DOE (and maybe NSF?) and other public sources, though I believe that the company is also venture-backed.

A lot of the hard part of the development in geothermal is fighting with problems that aren't very solved scientifically, particularly understanding the dynamics of stress and temperature in the upper several km of the earth's crust near active volcanoes. I was working with AltaRock on these issues, which are chewy enough that NSF doesn't consider the baseline levels of knowledge good enough to fund research in, as NSF wants science to be at a point where some sort of obvious scientific outcome is highly probable before they will fund it.

I assume that this is pretty widespread in cutting-edge R&D: Those involved find themselves working at the ragged edge of the known universe, even if both academic scientists and the general public think of the topic as pretty mundane.

So I view a fund like this one as quite complimentary to public funding: At some level, venture-type funding that has a high risk tolerance can help get projects off the ground to the point where they can get funding from both more conservative government funds and more typical institutional investors.

(Full disclosure: I also own a private geoscience research company that solicits a lot of public funding as well as doing consulting and non-fundable research, but it's really just a shell for me to try to get paid to do cool science, rather than a nascent company focused on growth.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I hope they consider funding mits sparc/arc reactor.

<comment><USER36> That really looks like the lowest-risk option for near-term practical fusion.

Tri Alpha has gotten over $500 million for a more-ambitious but riskier approach, so hopefully ARC has a shot at getting funded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's nice to see a group of people with the resources to potentially make something happen take an approach to this issue that doesn't involve politics, fines, incessant regulations, or taxpayer money. This initial $1 billion will likely burn up fast, so I'd also like to see them open the fund up to everyone and see how many of the people that made climate change such an enormous political issue during the Presidential election actually put their money where their mouth is and try to get something done instead of just complaining. As an added bonus, if the fund eventually produces a clean energy company that can achieve price parity with conventional sources, they'll get an enormous return on their money.

<comment><USER38> > _the people that made climate change such an enormous political issue during > the Presidential election_

Climate change was discussed during the presidential debates for precisely 82 seconds. If climate change can be considered an issue of this election, then the "people that made climate change such an enormous political issue" are the people who made the following ridiculous, attention-getting statements about climate change:

[https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/54o7o1/donald_trum...](https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/54o7o1/donald_trump_absolutely_did_say_global_warming_is/d83lqqb/)

<comment><USER37> Trump's position on climate change was discussed at length in the liberal news media and was cited by liberals as a reason to vote for their candidate. It was also reported that in the wake of their loss, a Hillary Clinton campaign staffer yelled at his co-workers during a post-election meeting that he was going to "die of climate change" [1] because of Trump's election, and this sentiment seems to be a widely held belief among liberals. So yes, it was made into a major campaign issue by the media despite an apparent lack of discussion about it during the debates.

Anyway my point was that opening a fund like this up for public participation would give those that so loudly claim to care deeply about this issue an opprtunity to actually do something other than protest or complain online about it.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile- democratic...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic- national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I was just having a conversation with my wife yesterday. I was positing that global warming could probably be fixed by technology if Gates, Zuckerberg and others clubbed together and made it happen.

It's so strange to see that exact news on the front page of HN the day after.

</comment><comment><USER40> The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

<comment><USER19> And yet the Chinese are installing new wind capacity far faster than the US. How does that work?

<comment><USER41> [It's a Donald Trump quote.]

<comment><USER40> :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> They offer now knowing they won't get government cooperation at least in the U.S. had Hillary won they would have been looking to the tax payer. I am all for them doing this the timing seems suspicious.

<comment><USER43> Did you read the article? They've been working towards this for a while, and likely would have started regardless:

"Gates had last year announced his intention to personally invest an additional $1 billion in clean energy technology. He was also among the 28 wealthy individuals and families signed on to the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a group broadly committed to investing in this area. The new fund, which includes many of them, is a next, concrete step toward actually deploying their capital."

<comment><USER44> To further your point, here's a WSJ article from Nov of 2015 where he discussed setting up this exact project:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-gates-launches-energy- innov...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-gates-launches-energy-innovation- fund-at-paris-climate-conference-1448877338)</comment></comment></comment>


Bitly's command line utilities for data analysis - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/bitly/data_hacks <comment><USER2> This is right up my alley; I wrote a command line gantt chart generator like two weeks ago :)

I'll definatly use asterisks instead of equal signs for the bars though.

</comment><comment><USER3> FreeBSD's ministat (<http://www.unix.com/man-page/FreeBSD/1/MINISTAT/>) is a good one, too.</comment>


Ask HN: May I sit in on an interview for an ansible-focused role? - <AUTHOR> Chris and I are working on our second technical book;   rather than the second edition of "The Book of Xen,"   we are attempting to write something shorter about Ansible.
Thoughts on how I can sit in on a few interviews when I don't intend to take the job without being rude and/or unethical?
I'd also be super interested in hearing from anyone who has recently interviewed for an ansible-based position. <comment><USER2> For Ansible questions I mainly asked them to go over existing Ansible task files and explain (to the best of their ability) what they did or might do. This was mostly targeted towards people who might not know Ansible already but have worked with configuration management tools in the past, though.

[https://bitbucket.org/_lae/interview/src/master/roles/interv...](https://bitbucket.org/_lae/interview/src/master/roles/interview/tasks/ps_ansible.yml#ps_ansible.yml-4) [https://bitbucket.org/_lae/interview/src/master/roles/interv...](https://bitbucket.org/_lae/interview/src/master/roles/interview/files/ansible/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Curious to what this book would even be about? Most of the books out there are pretty straight forward and teaches you how to use Ansible (which itself is a pretty simple tool imo)

<comment><AUTHOR> I have been looking at how McDowell wrote an interview-cram book that became a respected tome on algorithms.

I've been looking at doing the same with sysadmin tools. I mean, I don't know I can live up to her standards, but what I want to teach is easier, too, really. I want to relate the new sysadmin tool-of-the-week to old UNIX concepts in ways that would enable someone who has deep UNIX experience to quickly jump in and at least pass an interview dealing with the tool-of-the- week.

I mean, the latter part of that is going to be a lot of work, but it's not what I'm looking for help with. What I'm looking for help with is the "interview" part; I need to construct real-sounding ansible brain-teasers. And having several different sets of "production workflow" would help, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would your needs not be met by finding Ansible users and interviewing them directly (similar to UX or requirements research)?

<comment><AUTHOR> That would also work. But interviewing is in some ways fundamentally different from doing the job; Most software engineers aren't going to use most of the algorithms in "cracking the coding interview" except when interviewing.

But... as I said in another comment, a handful of real-world production workflows would also be really useful, and user interviews would likely be the best way to go about getting that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What are you hoping to learn, Luke?</comment>


Offending Experts and Pleasing Everybody - <AUTHOR> http://www.subtraction.com/archives/2007/0309_offending_ex.php <comment><USER2> Nice looking page, but surely the peak of users is not at intermediate. In my experience most users are beginners.

</comment><comment><USER3> See, this is why wordpad generates more revenue than Word.</comment>


How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand? – Richard Stallman - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html <comment><USER2> It is hard to disagree with Mr. Stallman on this. But while it seems to make sense to protect privacy, whistleblowers, etc. ([http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854639582.html](http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854639582.html)), doing what we can, it is not clear to me that there is a critical mass of those who believe in the Golden Rule, for this to be an adequate solution.

So, it seems that we need to make sure the lights shine as brightly in both (all?) directions: on all those with power, as much as on those about whom they gather data. Other suggestions welcome.

And, I believe in prophecies about these last days that say things will be in commotion, etc. But we can be OK. ([http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854588519.html](http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854588519.html) for example).</comment>


Ask HN: I need a full featured open-source HTML5 media player that runs on JS. - <AUTHOR>

I need a full featured open-source HTML5 media player that runs on JavaScript. I will be serving the content from a Node.js server. <comment><USER2> It is not very hard to write you own HTML5 media player. I got this book and found it very useful [http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Guide-HTML5-Experts- Develop...](http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Guide-HTML5-Experts- Development/dp/1430230908) In addition, MSDN also has a bunch of very informative tutorials on HTMl5 Video player.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why can't you just use the basic video tag?

<http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_video.asp>

</comment><comment><USER4> mediaelement: (<http://mediaelementjs.com/>) works well for audio - haven't tried it with video but i'm sure it's good.

</comment><comment><USER5> do you mean something like <http://flowplayer.org/> ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly like that, but it cannot be used on commercial products. At least for free. Any other suggestions?

<comment><USER5> I've only ever used flowplayer, so I can't really speak for how anything else works, but I found <http://jplayer.org/> which looks like it might work, and is MIT licensed. Otherwise maybe look through this list: [http://blog.insicdesigns.com/2010/06/best-html5-media- player...](http://blog.insicdesigns.com/2010/06/best-html5-media-player- implementations/) and there might be something suitable.</comment></comment></comment>


Scientists are abusing mental performance enhancing drugs. - <AUTHOR> http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20080409/poll-scientists-use-brain-boosting-drugs

<comment><USER2> Where did you get "abusing"? That word appears nowhere in the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> What else you call it when a healthy individual takes pills, sometimes a combination of, that are manufactured for ADD patients?

<comment><USER3> Mental enhancement?

Scientists aren't athletes. Discovery isn't a zero sum game. If we want to go by med labels, I think we should remember that rationality isn't the great driving force of American drug law.

<comment><USER4> Then let scientists take whatever drugs they want. Pot, heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, peyote, mushrooms, Vicodin, whatever. Taking prescribed medication for a use other than for which it was prescribed is illegal. So, by your logic, what's the difference?

The untold story is why do scientists feel the need to take medication to (temporarily) enhance their cognitive capabilities. I conjecture it is oversupply of them competing for fewer dollars and fame-producing discoveries, and/or most of them really aren't that smart to begin with (despite passing tests to get advanced degrees).

<comment><USER5> I agree. We should allow scientists to take whatever drugs they want. Let's add everyone else, for that matter. (I think the steroid question is idiotic, especially as supplementation has become safer.)

Here's another secret. many professional musicians use beta blockers to steady their hands. They're beating out someone who has superior genetics! Pasta- forbid!

It's wetware hacking, and it works. (I'll admit to trying modafinil and realizing it wasn't for me -- never tried ritalin/adderall though.)

<comment><USER4> So, anyone can take any drug they want, but steroids are idiotic? Why? Are you discriminating between scientists and non-scientist bodybuilders? Or are you singling out steroids as unacceptable and anything else as acceptable?

It's not "wetware hacking" (whatever that means, but it sounds cool). It's biochemistry, and it doesn't always work.

<comment><USER5> I was just looking through the archive and saw this. What I meant was that the idea of steroids as an illegal substance was idiotic. The dangers of steroids are overstated with the newer generation of steroids in moderate doses (IE - below ronnie coleman levels.) Controlling insulin levels personally scares me, but I don't consider that as something to make illegal either.

My perspective is that people should have the right to use these chemicals on their bodies as they see fit. Now, if a private company wants to limit those working for their companies from ingesting such chemicals, I agree that it should be their option. (The NFL should be allow to test for steroids, for example.) I also agree that these chemicals should be limited to those whose bodies have matured.

However, I think it's idiotic to control what an adult does with his or her body if it doesn't affect another individual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is nothing new. <http://amphetamines.com/paul-erdos.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> I am sure that the vast majority of us use/abuse drugs. To what extent is the only question.

For example, after years of avoiding it, I have quickly settled in to the caffeine routine. Coffee in the morning, occasionally a soft drink in the evening. While this is hardly risky behaviour, it is drug use.

I personally would consider using different drugs more regularly. Jet lag really can be a killer, so I would take something when travelling if there was a good option I was aware of.

Personally I am strongly against certain drugs being prescription and unavailable to informed individuals. It makes it seem like these drugs are entirely safe when prescribed by a doctor and unsafe if people get them through other means. I have some heavy painkillers that were legally acquired but not prescribed by a doctor, and I use them in a very safe way for my occasional intense back pain. I know many people on the same pain killers who take them in an irresponsible way as prescribed by their doctor.

It is a topic that I think we need to try and avoid looking at it with such a narrow vision. I also think a lot of illegal drugs are no more dangerous than legal drugs, but that is another topic.

<comment><USER4> "For example, after years of avoiding it, I have quickly settled in to the caffeine routine. Coffee in the morning, occasionally a soft drink in the evening. While this is hardly risky behaviour, it is drug use."

But it's not _illegal_ drug use. You are lumping together taking an aspirin for a headache in with taking ADD drugs illegally to enhance mental focus. Having a coffee is not drug use, despite it having caffeine.

It doesn't matter if you think a lot of illegal drugs are no more dangerous than legal drugs. If you compare the effective and lethal doses of pot and booze, you'll find booze is much deadlier. What matters is the rule of law.

<comment><USER7> Using illegal as a matter of consideration is ridiculous. Illegal in what country? Why is the drug illegal? Taking aspirin for a headache IS the same as taking ADD drugs.

Having coffee specifically for the caffeine boost IS drug use.

What I am saying is that the rule of law doesn't matter, and as you suggest with the pot/booze example it is often backwards. Booze is much deadlier and more dangerous for personal use than pot, no question when you consider lethal dose.

Legality of drugs would be a small afterthought if I considered taking something like ADD for concentration. 99% of the consideration would be my personal health and safety including long term side effects.

<comment><USER4> Illegal in the U.S. Your country may have different rules.

Taking aspirin is the same as taking Ritalin for ADD. It is not the same as taking it for a use for which it is not prescribed.

Logic notwithstanding, the law sure as hell does matter. Try breaking it, getting caught, and doing time.

<comment><USER7> I strongly doubt taking Ritalin without a prescription is grounds for jail time in many countries.

Why does it matter if a drug is prescribed or not? Who has the right to establish which drugs require prescriptions?

I believe in freedom. Freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of living your life how you choose. I believe anyone should be allowed to consume any substance they desire. If Ritalin improves your research as many of these people think, who has the right to stop them? They aren't harming anyone else, and are possibly helping.

<comment><USER4> I, too, believe in freedom. But freedom doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility for your actions. If anyone could consume any substance they desire, it would have a detrimental effect on some basic level of social order (and I'm not talking about government or top-down control) and it would have a negative impact on other's freedoms and rights. That's why many drugs are banned and why people aren't allowed to drive while intoxicated (despite it being an act of freedom to live your life as a drunk). And I won't need a lecture on libertarianism, thank you, which many people seem to confuse with lawlessness.

I'm not sure what else there is to debate about Ritalin. If you want to be a dopehead scientist, have at it. When the long-term effects start to manifest themselves in physical or mental conditions we aren't aware of, don't start whining for the FDA or an attorney to sue the drug maker.

<comment><USER8> >That's why many drugs are banned

I bet you also bought the government's line about the war on drugs.

>If you want to be a dopehead scientist You're using ad hominem instead of logic. And I expect you still haven't said the real reason you are so strongly in favor of drugs, because none of the reasons you have given have made any sense.

<comment><USER4> "You're using ad hominem instead of logic. And I expect you still haven't said the real reason you are so strongly in favor of drugs, because none of the reasons you have given have made any sense."

Ok, let me rephrase it: "if 'someone' wants to be a dopehead scientist, then go for it." The rest of the quote still applies and is not ad hominem.

No sense to you, perhaps. Something about not using illegal drugs and not using legal drugs illegally makes sense to me. "Off the label" prescriptions are not always legal, btw.

Does the reasoning that it's ok to use Ritalin to give smart people a mental edge imply it's ok for athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs? Why not, if steroids and growth hormones are legal for other uses? Others in this thread have implied that steroids are idiotic.

Because you are all smart people, you realize that once a few people start doping up on Ritalin and getting better results on grant applications, journal papers, and other tasks, that everyone will pretty much have to join the dope show and take the same drugs. Taking these drugs will become a barrier to entry in order to do science. Eventually, those who want a new mental edge will have to find a new drug, then everyone will take that. That will only go a few rounds before people start destroying their brains and their bodies. Scientists will become junkies and that will do no good for anyone in the long term.

Ultimately, if someone wants to take Ritalin or whatever to give them a mental edge, nothing I say here will convince them otherwise. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would need mental enhancement pharma given the assumption that they are already brilliant to begin with. Maybe that's a bad assumption for me to make (oh damn, that was ad hominem :)

<comment><USER8> The argument advanced elsewhere in the thread is that it is fine for scientists to take Ritalin because cancer may be cured faster. It's not a competition.

You still seem to be stuck on the legal versus illegal thing. I sell kratom on a website. Kratom is a drug-like herb that is a stimulant and an opiate. It could be used as a drug to enhance mental performance.

Is kratom acceptable because it is legal? Or is it unacceptable because it is fundamentally more powerful than caffeine?

<comment><USER4> To the contrary, scientific research is very, very competitive. There is a lot of competition to be first to discovery, first to publish, first to patent, and to win grants. This is especially true for cancer research.

I don't know anything about kratom. If you can legally sell it to enhance mental performance, be my guest. We aren't discussing herbs, though. We are discussing use of medicines prescribed for ADD by people without that condition in order to increase mental focus.

Regardless of your, my, or any other opinions on the matter, the fact is that use of prescription drugs for purposes other than which they are prescribed is illegal. That is my whole point. Doctors get into trouble all the time for writing scripts for pain killers to abusers in exchange for money (or sex). Don't blame me if you don't like the law; I didn't enact it.

BTW, in the same thread, I provide links to research on the long-term effects of Ritalin, a Schedule II drug. Most of the results indicate long-term abusers suffer effects similar to cocaine abuse and depression.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "But a third of respondents said they would feel pressure to give such drugs to their children if other children at school were taking them."

Apparently a third of the respondents are big dorks.

<comment><USER10> This is an interesting argument. From a libertarian standpoint, I have the freedom to take whatever actions I want, so long as those actions don't interfere with the freedom of others.

Now, science is not a zero-sum game, but school is. There are a limited number of spots in top universities, and the pressure to get one of those spots is enormous.

So if my peers are all using study drugs, then I would be compelled to use those drugs to remain competitive. So their use of the drugs would interfere with my freedom of choice.

<comment><USER4> "So if my peers are all using study drugs, then I would be compelled to use those drugs to remain competitive. So their use of the drugs would interfere with my freedom of choice."

Not only that, but the playing field among you and your peers returns to parity except the cost is that everyone needs to take study drugs to keep up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> <http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/>

<comment><USER11> <http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/makingchoices/index.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> also read that scientists that drink beer are dumber and produce worse research...

<comment><USER13> That widely-reported study was well-skewered here:

<http://life.lithoguru.com/index.php?itemid=119>

May still be true, I don't know, but the study fodder that created the headlines a while back was flimsy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Let's be honest.

Our culture has a completely hypocritical attitude towards drug use. The people who make the drug laws are either idiotic or spineless politicians, the people who enforce them are sadistic bullies, and the people who support the system are uninformed morons, latent Fascists or nosy busybodies.

In fact the entire drug war is actually a proxy for a cultural conflict between conformist and nonconformist elements in society. It's common for conforming bullies to be enabled to abuse nonconforming weird kids by school authorities. The drug war is that at a huge scale.

A few commonly seen fallacies include that use does not mean abuse. Use can be beneficial (see Carl Sagan, Steve Jobs). Abuse is not always a net negative (see, Paul Erdos, the rock and roll hall of fame). Addicts can function fine in society (cofounder of hopkins).

If some scientist looking for a cancer cure wants to take speed or provigil to help them work, more power to them. Do you want to tell families suffering from Alzhihmers that their cure was delayed because the best researcher was arrested for taking ADD medication to hold the complexities of the disease in her memory as she worked on a cure? How much time should a cancer researcher, using a mental performance booster and trying to find a cure be put in jail?

In fact, I would argue that, for brilliant scientists working on saving lives, the obligation to dedicate themselves fully to their work in much more pressing then the obligation to follow idiotic, racist, superstitious laws. In fact, much scientific progress came from scientific people breaking dumb superstitious laws and societal conventions. See, for example, early researches in anatomy, which the church treated as unholy, or early research in astronomy. So if researchers (particularly researchers who save lives) want to do this, it's part of a long, illustrious tradition of ignoring irrational rules to get science done.

But then I care more about progress and a cure for these things then the particulars of what metabolites are in the urine of the researchers that found it. Maybe I'm deviant confused and unethical that way.

<comment><USER15> It's a much less noble cause, but I've made a similar argument in regards to professional athletes using steroids.

Sure steroids can seriously screw up your body, but some of these guys are making millions of dollars a year for their physical performance. There's nothing immoral about letting these guys trade long term health for shorter term physical performance and loads of money.

<comment><USER16> The difference with athletes is that they're playing already circumscribed games. Since everyone has to obey artificial rules, there's no harm in making the rules prevent damage to the players. In fact it's hard to think of a sport that doesn't already have rules of this type.

Winning in games is by definition relative. But winning at ideas is absolute. The faster you find a cure for cancer the better.

I'm not advocating using drugs to help you think better, btw, but there's more of a case there than in sports.

<comment><USER14> "I'm not advocating using drugs to help you think better, btw, but there's more of a case there than in sports."

This could mean several things. i'm curious what you think about a few cases that make explicit some of the ambiguities.

1 A person has debilitating OCD and is prescribed ritalin by a psychiatrist, which they take daily, so they can function.

2 A healthy person at the top of their field takes ritalin and other stimulaties daily over his career to enhance performance, prescribed by a physician. Cannot perform at the top of his field without it.

3 A person has debilitating OCD, is uninsured, and self medicates by taking illicitly obtained psilocybin mushrooms 6 times a year. (studies show that psilocybin reduces symptoms of OCD for longer then a month).

4 A person has treatment resistant cluster headaches that stops them from thinking. Their treatment provider informs them that their best bet is probably psychedelic mushrooms, which must be obtained illicitly.

5 A person has a psycho-spiritual crisis after finding out their religious leader is a fraud, and takes illicit LSD in the aftermath with confused and possibly self destructive intentions. Partly as a result of this experience, their psychology is permanently altered in a way that makes their thinking better.

6 An alcoholic uses illicitly obtained LSD to induce the kind of spiritual experience his psychologist said correlated with a relapse of alcoholism.

7 A musician takes illicit drugs as part of the creative process.

8 A musician takes prescribed drugs not according to directions as part of the creative process.

<comment><USER14> (ritalin isn't prescribed for OCD. My bad, should of said ADHD, but too late to edit)

<comment><USER17> Ritalin is prescribed for OCD occasionally. It's just not an advertised use.

<comment><USER14> I thought so. Then I couldn't find nothing to back it up. Cause it's off label and I didn't look hard.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Avant garde text input - <AUTHOR> http://eruditenow.com/ <comment><USER2> The copy is _very_ unclear. If you can, get a native english speaker to edit it for you. (It's early here, but after skimming it twice I still have no idea what your program does.)

<comment><AUTHOR> What about this: [https://github.com/richard- jansson/veta](https://github.com/richard-jansson/veta)

Consider the text on the website a lorem ipsum.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Do not take the website to seriously. Write to me if you need help compiling the program or whatever.

<comment><USER3> I have no idea what program there is to be compiled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks really neat is this your invention or are is there a source of inspiration for this?</comment>


Does your web service need a desktop app? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hipchat.com/2010/08/31/does-your-web-service-need-a-desktop-app/

<comment><USER2> Fluid (<http://fluidapp.com>, Mac only) is a tool that lets you run web apps in their own desktop app wrapper. This can help with notifications but can't overcome the drag+drop or performance issues. Plus, it takes a much more advanced user to actually set this sort of thing up.

Google Chrome can also make application shortcuts (Windows and Linux only): [http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...](http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=95710)</comment>