Why I Stopped Using Multiple Monitors - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@housecor/why-i-stopped-using-multiple-monitors-bfd87efa2e5b#.mee4fysjf <comment><USER2> >> to display multiple things simultaneously? If my email or social media feeds are available at a glance, then I'll check them constantly

Just had no desire to read further, I started with the impression that there will be some strong arguments against multi monitor setup. May be for the author's needs a single monitor suffices, he earlier had a multi monitor setup, so he ended up using the excess which made him unproductive. That is not a multi monitor setup being useless problem, it is a problem of you not having a use case for multi monitor setup.

Of course if one is using a multi monitor setup to do multi tasking, that is not really recommended. But there are many tasks where a multi monitor setup makes you feel how you lived without one for long? Sample: When I work on an Xcode app, I have one primary 25" monitor fully dedicated to Xcode (IB, editor, inspectors etc) and the second 22" monitor dedicated to Xcode docs, browser with relevant docs/tabs (no email etc), terminal all arranged with Moom. Trying to do this on a 13/15" real estate will make me work at a snail's pace or even negative pace for the constant switching.

>> Deep work is becoming increasingly hard in our distraction

I think Cal Newport must be having a free healthy daily dose of laughter given every Tom is referring to Deep Work when talking about Focus!

<comment><USER3> >>> to display multiple things simultaneously? If my email or social media feeds are available at a glance, then I'll check them constantly

Actually, what is this social-media-at-work thingy?

Is this accepted in US? Elsewhere in Europe? Should it be?

<comment><USER4> Now you know why people are at work for so many hours in the US.

<comment><USER5> Europe too. I'm guilty of that myself; I always keep at least Messenger tab open (for communication with my SO) and I check HN frequently.

Let's be honest here: rare is a person who can do cognitively demanding work 8+ hours a day for longer stretches of time. Especially when that's a job, and not one's true life calling.

I also personally find it hard to completely ignore distractions just because of _other people_ \- it seems rude to tell them all to stop calling / mailing me during work hours, even though I try so hard.

<comment><USER6> > Let's be honest here: rare is a person who can do cognitively demanding work > 8+ hours a day for longer stretches of time. Especially when that's a job, > and not one's true life calling.

No one is capable of doing a full 8 hours of cognitively demanding work. I think Cal Newport detailed it out, but the most dedicated and focused people can achieve 6 hours of productive work. Most people can average 4. The 8 hours/day, 40 hour work week is a relic from manufacturing work that has carried over into the office. Between cubicles, open office layouts, meetings, the belief you have to be on premise to be productive, and the execs deluding themselves into thinking they're working the hardest, the US corporate area is not set up for productivity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I disagree heavily - Having a secondary monitor with documentation / work plans on it is enormously useful as you can glance at it without having to do anything more special than turn your head.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that three monitors is optimum since you can have your code on one, the output of your code (continuous tests/hot reload/etc) on another and documentation on the last allowing you to see all aspects of your work without a single keystroke.

<comment><USER8> I don't program in Android as my main focus at work but have been doing to quite a bit lately and I have to say _thank god_ for my three monitors.

The Android ecosystem is such that you are going to want documentation up at all times, and alt-tabbing back and forth would drive me insane. My monitor layout ends up like this:

[emulator][docs][code]

and it works really well. That picture of the author's virtual desktops looks like a nightmare to me. I like using window snapping to put one thing per monitor and having it be big and static from that point on. No context switching, no keeping a mental index of which virtual desktop has that damn Gradle documentation hidden on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a raft of articles where people share their forays into minimalism. Minimalism is mostly a way to show cultural value, like wearing black turtlenecks or making your children take piano lessons. We add maxims like "less is more" to justify these things but "less is more" is such a vacuous justification you can discard it without thought.

Yngwie Malmsteen's pithy thoughts on "less is more" (very short): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZ48AE3TOI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZ48AE3TOI)

If you want data, there are a few usability studies on the use of multiple monitors. The general consensus is that bigger monitors are better and two monitors are better than one, three or more monitors _might_ be too many. These studies are easy enough to find on Google so I'm not going to link them here. Data will always beat maxims.

On a personal note, I find it easier to work with multiple monitors rather than one larger monitor, possibly due to software support. I'll want two web browsers up, side by side, on one monitor, and then the other monitor can hold editors and terminal windows. There tends to be pretty good software support for dividing a monitor in half, which supports this workflow very well on two monitors, but dividing a monitor in four is a bit rare. Stuff I don't really need like mail, music players, and the like get relegated to other virtual desktops.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hey, great that a single monitor works for you. It doesn't for me though.

I have 3 monitors and can't imagine going back to one. Different people work differently, but for me I see a significant benefit to being able to glance somewhere to check a job I'm running, e-mail, chat, reference a browser... It reduces the overhead of the context switch, so I can do it and be right back to where I was.

In the past I would change virtual desktops to check e-mail or chat, and once I was in that isolated desktop I would find it much harder to get back. It was better when I was able to set up a hotkey to "switch back to the last virtual desktop I was on".

At the moment I have two 32" displays and a 24" in portrait. I have my terminal sessions on the center 32", 2 browsers on the right 32", and slack and e-mail on the left 24" portrait. I came to this from using a 15" laptop all the time for 15 years.

Caveats: I use i3wm and use keyboard navigation a lot. I'm also a sysadmin, I could easily see programming being different.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is very much dependant upon use case. If you're in the business of managing loads of systems, being able to have console sessions open to all the various places you need to touch as part of your current task is invaluable. If you're a programmer working on a single thing at a time, that's great. If you're in operations, a "single task" may involve dozens of separate interactions with separate systems, and being able to have everything presented to you at once is a huge benefit.

<comment><USER12> I'll second this.

I mostly work with operations, and I use a two-monitor setup for most of my work. It's setup so that my second monitor is left for my main focus or large applications, like the web browser or editor sessions, and my other screen is for "miscellaneous stuff" or multiple terminals when I need to follow multiple things at once.

I also use a tiling window manager (Awesome) because honestly I couldn't keep track of all my windows otherwise. I also very much like having separate virtual desktops for each screen, so that I can control each individually. With a tiling window manager it's also very easy to "banish" everything else when you need to focus on a single thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, my productivity has risen dramatically. The choice argument fails for me, because I use 2 monitors for the applications I use most frequently, and the 3rd monitor is a catch all for everything else.

So, for example, when doing front end programming, 1 monitor contains my terminal windows where I am programming in VIM, running commands, etc (I usually have 4 open in each corner) while the other window contains the live reloading browser window.

The 3rd monitor has everything else. No paradox of choice, and seeing the results of my actions is a glance.

The physical spatial arrangement of my work tools is of tremendous value.

Personally, I've seen a much greater productivity improvement by getting rid of laptops, and only working with desktops in a specific work area with multiple monitors and a desk laid out in a way that helps with my productivity.

I am working less hours, and doing a lot more in those fewer hours.

</comment><comment><USER14> > _Virtual Desktops For the Win_

There's a few things about virtual desktops on OS X (the OS I use at work) that just absolutely kill them for me:

1\. OS X will re-order keyboard inputs when the inputs contain virtual desktop commands. That is, if you have two terminals open, one in one desktop, and one in another, and you type ^→¹ "hi", where "hi" ends up _depends on how quickly you type the command_. If you know the desktop on the right has a terminal, and you know what you want to run in that terminal, you have to switch, wait for the animation to complete, and then type the command; it's an artificial limitation on your speed.

2\. OS X will re-order desktops. Which means I never know _where_ , in this virtual space, the desktop I'm seeking is. The latest version of OS X made this even more annoying, because now if you do an exposé, you don't get thumbnails by default, so you can't even _see_ where the desktop might have gotten moved to. (You have to grab the mouse and hover over the darn things.)

Compare this to the rather simplistic multidesktop functionality in MATE: desktops don't move. The switch is instant and keyboard input order is maintained. The space is 3D, not 2D. There are small thumbnails in your tray. (I could wish for some things from MATE, in particular, I don't know how/if it's possible to reorder whole desktops.)

[1]: (change to desktop to the right)

(Also, OS X will occasionally just get stuck in the middle of a desktop switch. As in, I'll have no hands on the mouse/keyboard, and I'll be looking at the left half of one desktop and the right half of another.)

Edit: I forgot 3. OS X will combine desktops if the set of attached displays changes. I really wish I could have it just move the desktops to the laptop, not combine them. (Also, I really wish that when the external display was reattached, that the windows would restore the size and layout they had; as it is, today they all get resized to the size of the smaller laptop screen — which makes sense while they're there, but once the external is back, I want the sizes back too.) I have no idea how MATE compares here.

<comment><USER15> FWIW, you can disable the "Automatically rearrange Spaces based on most recent use" option in the Mission Control Preferences panel.

<comment><USER16> Frustratingly, when you disable this option, new fullscreen windows will always be appended to the END of the list. If you have 3 spaces and click the green pill on a Safari window on space #1, it will become space #4, after all the others, instead of space #2.

Reported to Apple, "works as intended". One more reason to never use macOS' built-in fullscreen mode.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _On my Mac, I can 3 finger swipe to quickly switch between multiple virtual desktops. This takes less than a second and it doesn't require me to turn my head and refocus my eyes on content in a different spot._

This reveals something odd about me, or about the author. Not sure which. It seems obvious to me that it's less context-switch overhead to glance at something that's already physically in my peripheral vision than it is to swap out what's physically in front of me for some different content. The latter means I have to take a moment to understand what I'm looking at, then find what I need. The former doesn't seem to have this "wait, what is this" part before looking where I need, which I suspect is because it was already in my field of vision and some part of my brain that would otherwise be keeping track of the patterns on the wall is keeping track of placement of things on that second monitor.

<comment><USER18> The truly monstrous users like myself use both systems: 3 monitors, with multiple virtual spaces on each. I can't have it any other way. The primary spaces on each monitor are a) IDE, b) Chrome, c) Terminal. The secondary space on monitor 1 is database tool, monitor 2 is Postman for API testing, monitor 3 is a split-screen of email and Slack.

A benefit of this system are that email and Slack are on a dedicated screen, but on a _secondary_ space of a _secondary_ monitor. The distraction of those communication tools is completely out of the way; I specifically switch to that screen when I am willing to switch out of "real work". Yet it's not complicated at all - a single 3-finger swipe to the left on monitor 3.

<comment><USER19> In our office we have six screens on most desks. Are first we thought it was a little over the top but it's hard to imagine cutting back now; you can lay out everything at once and it's just there - no switching. The only odd thing is we need water cooling in the desks to keep the heat down, but it works nicely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Don't know what the guy is doing, but at my previous workplace one of the most frustrating things was that due to hot desking and a policy of everyone works with laptops, they didn't believe that analysts required multiple monitors.

At home, if I've got the repl, a terminal, only one code file open, and some documentation/stack overflow, I'm already at 4 windows.

At work, have rstudio, a database, a word and excel file with some documentation and suddenly one monitor feels minuscule.

You took away my office walls on which I printed out and hung up cheat sheets and reference materials, then you took away my cubicle walls on which I did the same, please don't put out articles that will make them take away my monitors!

</comment><comment><USER21> Next, he should cut down his desk so that he can only fit one piece of paper on it. After all, it's better to focus on one thing at a time.

<comment><USER22> Also there's too many drawers. How can you find anything when there are so many storage bins to choose from? One giant laundry basket, or a bathtub, if you have lots of stuff, should do just fine...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I prefer a single monitor not just because it's more convenient, but because it really does improve focus. My screen represents my train of thought. I don't have 3 applications and 4+ files splattered in front of me. I have a single application, with no more than 2 files, that represents exactly where I am at that moment in my thinking. And I move from screen to screen fluidly with Spaces. I also use a large font size so I don't see more than 40 LOC on the screen at a time.

This is not some sort of self-imposed hipster handicap like a fixed gear bicycle- it really does feel more comfortable. I get so frustrated looking at coworkers' screens with 4+ files open, all in tiny text. I think, how can they work like that? No wonder that when someone interrupts them they lose all context.

<comment><USER24> > _And I move from screen to screen fluidly with Spaces._

> _I get so frustrated looking at coworkers ' screens with 4+ files open, all > in tiny text. I think, how can they work like that?_

That's what I think when I see someone working like you, flipping through multiple spaces, scrolling up and down files. To me, spaces add more overhead - I have to remember in which space various running applications or their windows are open.

And as far as 40 lines per screen, I often have to track through multiple files to figure out how things fit together - there are times when I've got IntelliJ split into three columns as I'm trying to follow some logic. Maybe this indicates that we've just abstracted things poorly, but it's hard to see how things could be significantly simplified.

<comment><USER23> I just have three Spaces at a given time: browsing is #1, chat is #2, code is #3. VMs are optional #4.

But yeah, having to trace through abstraction layers is one area where my system does break down. My own code has gotten lighter and lighter on abstractions as the years have gone by, while others' code seems to grow heavier and heavier. Maybe it's my workflow influencing my coding style.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I won't even use a single external monitor, for the simple reason that acclimating myself to a bigger monitor would, I'm pretty certain, make me feel less productive in the common case where I only have a laptop screen to work on. I'd rather invest effort into making myself more productive on the laptop screen than on things that make me more productive in the specific case where I'm at my desk.

</comment><comment><USER26> > Many developers believe multiple monitors improve productivity.

That's simply because it does. You cannot tell me, or others for that matter, that a tiling window manager arranged across multiple monitors keeping everything relevant just a glance away is a useless feature and offers no real improvement in productivity.

> Humans can only focus on one thing at a time. So why are we spending money > to display multiple things simultaneously?

Because utilizing even keyboard shortcuts to switch virtual desktops is slower than glancing left or right. Also, if you wish to compare the contents of two applications having them both displayed at once is a huge advantage.

> I ran a 34" LG ultra-widescreen monitor for a month. At first, I loved it. > But after a few days, I was surprised to find my opinion soured. It was far > too wide to maximize my windows, so I found myself spending too much time > fiddling with windows.

If this was really a concern for most people, how have tiling window managers managed to flourished in recent years?

> Both Mac and Windows support virtual desktops now.

Which is why in my case I can still be very productive on my Windows laptop, but even more so on my multi-monitor desktop running i3.

> But I don't waste cycles on this arrangement either. The far left virtual > desktop is always my browser, the one to the right is my editor. So I treat > virtual desktops like physical screens that reliably present the same > content.

Wait. So why did you have so much trouble arranging applications before on a single wide screen? Why couldn't you just arrange the applications contained within these virtual desktops across a wide screen in the same manner?

You know what? New title: "Why I Stopped Reading About Someone Who Stopped Using Multiple Monitors"

</comment><comment><USER27> I remember when two monitors were a new thing that someone did a productivity study and found that getting 50% more real estate (i.e., half again as many pixels or a few more inches diagonal) on your single monitor was as effective as having a second monitor the same size as your old one.

Personally, I thought having multiple wide aspect ratio monitors was a complete waste. I don't turn my head that far when I work normally. But my latest trick, adapted from a coworker, is to put the second monitor in portrait mode. My CI build window is the top 2/3rds of the screen, and the log tail for the code I'm running or the build script I'm running are the bottom 2/3rds, which leaves enough visible in each window to discern when the other needs my attention. I'm getting a lot more use out of that monitor now.

<comment><USER28> Heh, I run two 30", one landscape, one portrait. I have 6 code windows open on the landscape and I can run a browser with the viewport set to 1280x720 and have a crapload of space below for the debugger/console. Below that, a term used for transferring my current iteration to my test server. On the other side of the landscape monitor I have an old 20" 4:3 rotated to portrait mode, two term windows, one tails and the other is in psql.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Someday I'm going to write a Medium article titled: "Why I Don't Care About What You Started or Stopped Doing."

</comment><comment><USER30> I can hardly imagine being productive on a single monitor anymore. After having three 19" monitors for a couple very productive years, I tried switching to two 27" monitors. It added up to more space, to be sure, but I spent way too much time managing windows.

And then I took a job with a startup and bought a laptop since they wanted me to show up in the office on occasion, and working with one monitor was like driving with one eye open. I started to get better at it, but there was so much extra effort involved in context switching. Even as it became muscle memory, it didn't come close to beating a simple glance to the left or right.

They offered a separate monitor, but I chose to go back to working from home and switched to three 22" monitors, which has been perfect for years (though I want at least one more now for testing non-linux apps).

Focus has nothing to do with monitor layout. I have three monitors, but only one thing is happening at any given time.

When I'm coding, email, slack, etc, are all off. It's a terminal on my left with git, and logs, a fullscreen IDE in the middle, and documentation and test application on the right.

When I'm shopping, it's reviews in the middle, shopping cart on the left, and search on the right.

When I'm catching up on slack / email, they're both open on separate screens with an extra for research (Github, etc).

When I'm editing photos, its the collection on the left, editor in the middle, research (editor docs, etc) on the right.

Focus is all about strictly doing one thing at a time. Multiple monitors is about switching contexts without losing focus. The only problem I have now is that I don't blink often enough.

Also, to the point about "Same Workflow When Remote", I just choose not to work while traveling any more. I'm not as productive, nor do I want to learn to be more productive while on the road. That used to be a dream for me; And then I _really_ tried it; And I _really_ sucked at it. I'd rather have my sit/stand desk, comfortable chair, and tea pot - all optimized for focus - than try to drive uncomfortably with one eye open.

<comment><USER31> > After having three 19" monitors for a couple very productive years, I tried > switching to two 27" monitors. It added up to more space, to be sure, but I > spent way too much time managing windows

That seems bit odd (in this specific case); half of a 27" display should have almost exactly the same screen-estate as a 19" screen (1280x1440 vs 1280x1024), and even Windows can do half (and quarter) screen layouts easily these days. So I don't really see why windows managing with 2x27" would be worse than 3x19"

<comment><USER30> For me, the larger screens made for either more wasted space or more effort to figure out placement of windows on each screen.

With my three wide screens, I'm almost always running one window per screen - not necessarily full-screen, but still, one-per. With two larger screens, I constantly found myself trying to tetris my screens into an "ideal" layout.

<comment><USER32> Yeah I'm much the same. If I've got one monitor, give me 32" with as many pixels as you can get. Two monitors, give me 2x24"; Three monitors, 1x24" central, 2x22" side panels.

I use a tiling window manager. If I have a single monitor I'll split it evenly, but I'll need as much space as I can - whilst using virtual desktops to avoid clutter.

If I have two monitors I'll tend to use full screen apps rather than split, but may occasionally split open a terminal or small chat window. By small I mean, a narrow vertical tile rather than a wide horizontal.

If I have three monitors, the extra width of large monitors starts to get annoying with how far around you have to look to see the farthest extent to left or right. It's easier to have smaller monitors (although still as high definition as you can get) and run them with full screen applications.

The big problem though with the large monitors is that you have to do too much window management. On a 22" screen a horizontally designed app at fullscreen is great. At 32" you start feeling like you wasted a ton of space off to the right. So you use your tiling WM to do a vertical split. At that point the horizontally designed app at 3840×2160 is now a vertical oriented app at 1920x2160, which is not at all what you want, so you adjust the tiling to make the 2nd frame smaller. But if the 2nd frame should also be horizontal, you have to move it to a different monitor... Thus ending up doing a load of annoying window management when your WM is supposed to do it for you.

So really, big monitors are just a tad annoying unless it's the _only_ monitor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Try a decent size 4k screen. I find a single one to be enough as it gives me effectively 4 1080P screens.

In windows 10 I snap each window into its own corner.

When doing Game Dev in Unity, it gets left half of screen (1920x2160) so I can see scene and preview comfortably simultaneously, Pale Moon top right, Visual Studio bottom left.

If I need to look at long file in Visual studio, then it'll take whole right side of screen.

Outlook and MS Project in 4k is great with 2160P height for looking thru inbox or looking at a lot of tasks.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is actually a really interesting topic. My laptop screen broke down a while ago and I moved so I'm now forced to use only one monitor for now after a long period of using multiple (mostly 3) monitors. It feels like I am actually able to focus better and am less strained by unnatural monitor positions and the constant switching between monitors. I guess your focus is always only on one thing, and whenever you need to switch focus you can just bring that into the foreground instead of switching your eyes to look at somewhere else. This actually doesn't cost that much productivity. In most use cases one monitor is really enough.

Though I guess programming, compared with other cases, does have a legitimate claim to using multiple monitors, especially when you're performing constant documentation lookup or running a live preview of the program, both of which can exist side-to-side with the code itself. I think the positioning of monitors is really key here. If you have to accommodate them such that all of them are in an unnatural position instead of the natural position that one single monitor can occupy, it can actually hurt your productivity. If their positions are mostly ergonomic, it should be much better.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why can't this be a matter of preference? A lot of people in this thread saying "you're wrong, it DOES increase productivity!" and others saying "no, it DOESN'T increase productivity!" It seems obvious to me that it's not necessary or sufficient for max productivity, but if it's part of your productivity strategy (or not) then great.

I use a single monitor, mostly because I like being able to move around, from the desk to the couch to the coffee shop to my yard. I'm not going to bring a spare monitor into my yard.

I also program in 40 character width, so that helps a lot. I can have a console, debugger, and a browser all open side by side on a single screen. If I want 6 pieces of open open side by side on my laptop I can do it easily, although I pretty much never need more than 2.

I find workspaces work just as well as monitors. I have three, and I four- finger-swipe to move between them. I don't see why four finger swiping would be slower than turning my head or my eyes.

</comment><comment><USER36> The prevailing assumption is multiple monitors equals one computer with multiple outputs but I've usually run multiple machines. Financially its a rounding error WRT cost, I get more use out of old systems before the environmental damage of recycling them. I can run different architectures simultaneously. If the new machine fails on burnin testing the old machine is literally on its left side so I can keep right on working.

Evolution in hardware and software is very slow now compared to the 80s/90s/00s. My wingman PCs are perfectly adequate at displaying data sheet PDFs or acting as SSH terminals or normal web browsing.

If you're worried about electrical power my son has a raspberry pi desktop and that works fine. It can do everything we did with a computer in the 00s, which is pretty much unchanged today... Mostly he types school reports because the real keyboard is better than any ipad keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER37> It depends on what you are doing. I find programming on one monitor to be fine, but I have a schedule with email, excel workbooks to compare with Visio diagrams / Word docs, Web conferences, a soft phone, and my Surface happens to be touch/tablet with OneNote. Virtual desktops with multiple monitors works great on Windows 10, but other than when I am running a VM, I never use them.

However, one major gripe I have with Windows 10 is how stupid it is with multiple monitors. If I click on a link, open a file, or open an app with the Start Menu, I expect it to open in the same window. Not Windows 10, I swear it has an algorithm developed just to pick the least expected monitor. It is practically a game of whack-a-mole. This alone is a huge unnecessary UX productivity loss that doesn't exist with a single display.

</comment><comment><USER38> Alt-tab causes me to lose focus much more quickly than glancing to the left. As a front-end developer I ALWAYS have my text editor, test browser, and Web Inspector open.

Among all tasks, I've found using Web Inspector to be incredibly difficult on a single monitor, especially on websites with deeply nested markup.

</comment><comment><USER39> Having used only one monitor for every and only recently bought a second one, I feel different. It's not about two equal monitors, but one for all the stuff that is static. A paper to be read, a formular to be used or just the notes that were taken before and are now used for implementation.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm firmly in the multiple monitor camp because, for me, switching between maximized windows or virtual desktop is a greater distraction than the more intuitive gesture of turning my head and moving my chair, while fiddling with windows is a quickly amortized setup cost that allows me to see what I want without further interaction.

For me, the loss of adequate window resizing in recent Windows versions (you can still drag edges and corners, but not near screen borders) is a good reason to use the good tiled window management in Emacs as much as possible. On a related note, Microsoft Office allowing multiple windows only with tricky workarounds is a strong advantage for LibreOffice.

</comment><comment><USER41> I mean, this sounds fine if you are able to actually focus on a single thing. Leaving aside for the moment the desirability or practicality of burying social media and other such distractions, there are times when work itself requires displaying more information than I can fit on a single screen. I usually have a code editor, one or more tmux sessions, a cloud console web UI, etc., and I have to move back and forth and reference different things in those windows constantly. It's a lot less work to shift my eyes and mouse to the left than it is to cycle through buried windows.

</comment><comment><USER42> I used to have two thunderbolt displays. Now I only use my laptop.

The main reason I switched is because I got so used to working with the additional real estate that it became impossible to use my only my laptop. Since I travel a lot and work from coworking spaces, where I only have my laptop screen, it makes sense to adapt my workflow to that constraint. Having multiple monitors became a crutch that damaged my ability to work productively from a single screen.

</comment><comment><USER43> Most of our user base uses single monitors. All of our developers and testers use 2 or more monitors. We used to have bugs caused by the difference. An example which comes to mind was an acknowledgement pop-up (something happened, click ok to continue) which would pop up on the other screen. For single monitor users, it would pop up off-screen. Because I'm a stubborn single monitor user, I was able to reproduce the bugs.

</comment><comment><USER44> I've tried full stack programming on one monitor and it took forever and was really frustrating. Multiple text editors/IDE's, test browsers, remote SERVER connections, SQL server admin consoles. Heck, a few command prompts. Constantly minimizing and maximizing. My browser had so many tabs open it was ridiculous. I'm totally not against one massive wide screen but they don't make them wide enough yet.

</comment><comment><USER45> I use only the laptop monitor. Originally I did this because I did a lot of live support, and having to undock was a slight impediment to going to somebody's desk to work on an issue with them. The communication was more important. Once I got used to using just the monitor, I was happy having the same setup everywhere. Every now and then a manager tries to give me a giant monitor, but I just pass it off to the next engineer that might want one.

There was another benefit, too. Even though I get that it's convenient to have docs/browser/editor up at once, I can really only LOOK at one thing at a time, and I found that I was getting lazy. If my brain can only hold things that I am actively looking at, then I'm not thinking very deeply about them. Now granted, I'm old. As I age I notice things like tiny short-cuts that make me a little weaker over time. In your 20s or 30s, you have almost infinite capacity. You may not notice the top line dropping a little bit. In my experience, external monitors made me a little weaker. Keeping my brain sharp allows me to keep up much better.

</comment><comment><USER46> Multiple monitors sure are a drag. This weekend I downgraded my primary monitor from a 32" 4k display to a 27" 1440p display, for the purpose of gaming at 165Hz instead of 60Hz (and wow, what a difference).

This has caused several annoying side effects. I used to run my 4k 32" monitor at 125% scaling, and my ancillary 24" 4k monitor at 225%. Everything looked fine, or so I thought. Now my 27" monitor runs at 100%, and this causes some internal Windows flag to change somewhere, making many apps on the secondary monitor look horrible. It just nearest-neighbors apps up to 200% instead of scaling them correctly. If you make the second monitor the primary monitor, then everything looks good again -- except you can't use Nvidia GSync on a secondary monitor, the whole reason I downgraded my main monitor. Amazingly, the mere existence of the 100ppi montior is what seems to break things. If you run it at 200%, apps on the other monitor at 200% still look terrible.

My theory is that things looked bad before, but the 125->225 scaling didn't look quite as egregiously bad as 100->200 does. But I'm picky about these things and think I would have noticed. So I don't know.

Some apps, notably Chrome, work just fine. (But Discord is an offender, and it's just Chrome, isn't it? That makes it all the more annoying.)

As an aside, everything looks pretty crappy at 100ppi. Fonts are blurry again. You can see the pixels in every photo or illustration you view. Upgrading to 4k a few years ago didn't make much of a difference to me, but downgrading is a huge difference. That said, Overwatch is soooo smooth. I can't wait until technology allows us to run games at 4k@120/144/165/240, however. I also miss the wider-than-sRGB color gamut.

<comment><USER46> Oh, and as for the actual utility of multiple monitors, I like them. I use a second monitor off to the side for lower-priority things. At home, music player and Discord. At work I usually have Emacs on my main screen and a terminal on the second screen. If I'm doing a lot with the terminal I'll just move the window over, but most of the time I just need to press up arrow and look at the output for a second, so it works fine. YMMV but I like having multiple monitors. I don't know if there is any productivity improvement, but it's enjoyable nonetheless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I have been using a 15" laptop for dev work for quite some years now. I have an external monitor next to it but most of the time it stays off, only using it to test things on large resolutions.

There are a few reasons for that:

1\. It protects my eyes. I felt much more tired with 2 displays glaring at me all day.

2\. Most of the time it's just useless information sitting idle on my second screen. I rarely need to work with 2 windows at the same time and when I do (fe. when coding while reading the docs) I can just fit them on one screen. Though I usually just switch tabs in order not to copy paste and try to understand what I'm reading first. I try to keep my mental load small, focus on what I am doing. I for one I'm not that good at multitasking (and after reading Thinking Fast and Slow I understand I'm not alone) so whatever is on that second screen will steal attention from what I'm focused on.

3\. There is really not much "realtime" work I need to do so 1 min or 2 until I check my email/Skype is acceptable.

Anyone else doing the same?

</comment><comment><USER48> Use the right tools for the right job. If all I'm doing is putting together new code, then one monitor is fine. If I'm debugging, porting code or troubleshooting an oncall emergency then multiple monitors is better. Also, on a Mac I can more easily get away with one big monitor however on a PC I must have at least 2 monitors to feel ok. Of course, YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER49> The reason I'm way more productive with multiple monitors* is not that I open twitter and want to look at it constantly, but because I open my code from different angles like: \- comparing two pieces of code \- opening code review and opening actual code in text editor on the other \- opening a text editor for commit and looking at the diff on the other \- open the documentation and look at the code on the other So I'm way faster at switching things or way better to compare things this way.

I tried i3m today (the tiling window manager) but I realized it not gonna fit my workflow because I can't have 10 windows open and look at just two-three at once because you either maximize and then you can look at only one thing at a time or see 10 tiny windows at once.

* Having one big enough monitor with huge resolution is the same, but one with simply HD resolution is not enough for me.

</comment><comment><USER50> I usually use one large monitor with my MacBook as a smaller sidecar for little things like music, billing timer, notes, etc. but there's one time when I've found two monitors come in really handy: if I'm mixing local terminal work and server-side terminal work. The most important thing when doing this kind of work is to ensure that you always know if you're working on your local or on a server. I've used different terminal colour schemes, even different terminal applications - but for me it's even better to have local on one screen and remote on a completely different screen.

(I've sometimes dug out an old machine so I would even have to use a completely different keyboard - but those aren't always available.)

But as a developer, I'm generally more happy with lots of terminal windows on one big screen - but that's just me.

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm definitely on the one monitor train. For the longest time, I didn't even use an external monitor, just the one on my laptop. I like having a consistent experience when working from the office, or working remote. In this way, my flow is _always_ the same, no matter where I'm working at :D

<comment><USER52> I used to _love_ multimonitor setups, but one of my employers had an open office with many different areas to work, including bean bags and other casual furniture that didn't have space for monitors. After relearning to only use my laptop, I'm loathe to switch back. Being away from your desk without the claustrophobic feeling is nice, and with enough tweaks I think you can minimize any negatives that come from the smaller screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I use dual 32" 4K monitors. I love it. I do computer graphics though that demands attention to detail. I love a full screen 3D editor (Clara.io) with some documents/task lists open in the other screen.

Say what you will about this setup, but I'd never go back. I am very productive in this setup.

</comment><comment><USER54> my fingers did not like the constant alt+tab when I had less desktop real estate.

Perhaps I need to get USB foot pedals.

<comment><USER55> Tiling window managers are your friend

<comment><USER56> Multiple monitors are your friend

<comment><USER57> Best of all, multiple monitors play very nicely with both tiling window managers and virtual desktops. :)

<comment><USER58> Some tiling WMs on x11 allow to share virtual desktops between monitors, so you can move a whole virtual desktop from a monitor to another.

Spectrwm for sure, maybe xmonad inspired it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I have an external 27" 4k monitor connected to my MBP and while I use multiple screens at times, it's only occasionally for productivity.

Sometimes I'll have a chat window open on the laptop just because I'm waiting on a message, but usually, I'll just have Netflix or Youtube running on it to give me some background noise while I focus on work on my 27".

The 27" has been a huge productivity booster however. With Spectacle (which I recommend to everyone), I'll have 3 windows neatly placed: the browser, Sublime, and the console. It's a great setup for me. The screen is also the perfect size. Any bigger and I would be drowning in light and craning my neck. Any smaller, and I would not get 3 full working-size windows.

</comment><comment><USER60> Using multiple monitors is exactly the opposite of the emacs philosophy and the unix philosophy.

If anything, it can be described as the Bloomberg philosophy, modeling one's development setup after a Bloomberg terminal, designed for quick decision making based on data streaming in from the periphery of one's visual field, optimized for an OS without a good windowing system.

If you have a mouseless development workflow, multiple buffers in emacs offers the same power as multiple monitors, and uses less electricity.

For most programmers, having a multiple monitor setup (likely connected with gold plated Monster brand HDMI cables) is like having custom rims on your car... a decorative adornment that conveys social status and bling and offers little utility.

</comment><comment><USER61> Interesting. I bought a cinema 4k display for 2500$ and put it next to my 'old' 1920x1200 display. I find myself constantly using the smaller display and I don't know why.

This makes me just want to get rid of the smaller one and use the large one exclusively.

</comment><comment><USER62> The main reason for multiple monitor setups would be, that they were cheaper than getting a single larger screen. But the general reduction in screen prices and the new class of ultra-wide screens gives alternative options to get a lot of desktop real estate. The only reason I sometimes prefer my dual- screen setup is, that when I have a full-screen application (vmware in my case) running on one screen, the other would give me additional desktop space like for reference documentation. I would never consider putting a normal windowed desktop application into full-screen mode. As my typical work requires to use multi-windowed applications, I like my desktop to be as large as possible.

</comment><comment><USER63> It all highly depends on your context. Are you reading, are you coding, are you creating some art? I am usually perfectly happy with just one monitor but for example if edit graphics or read papers it is very helpful to have additional displays.

<comment><USER64> And if you're coding, are you doing something routine where you only need one file open, or are you e.g. trying to learn a new library or integrating unfamiliar systems, where having documentation or APIs open is essential if you don't want to alt-tab every second line of code written?

A single wide monitor works for these cases as well, or even a single small monitor if you're willing to squint a bit. But I think the assertation that "single window = focus" is a massive over-generalization that ignores a whole bunch of what some of us coders do on a day-to-day basis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I just bought a 34" 21x9 ultra wide monitor and am in a similar dilemma. I use ShiftIt ([https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt](https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt)) for window management since I can assign a single keyboard command to center whatever window I'm working on. However, what I'd really like is for command/alt-tab to automatically place the active window in the center, the previous window to the left, and the second-most-recently used window to the right. I might have to contribute to ShiftIt to make it happen, unless someone here knows an app that already does that.

</comment><comment><USER66> I tried multiple monitor setup for about 6 months and in the end I couldn't stand it. I used to put certain reference data on the second monitor - like a DB schema, or the layout of a particular communications flow etc...At first I liked it for that purpose. Then I started to get irritated at occasionally losing my cursor over the edge. Over time I also found myself glancing at it for no reason. Eventually I realized a paper print out of my schema or doc, sellotaped to the wall worked much better.

I reverted to single. Much happier. As mentioned elsewhere a tiling window manager (I use i3) is the key to making this productive.

</comment><comment><USER67> Although I never found virtual desktops to be useful for me, I can't imagine learning new skills without a multi-monitor setup. I keep the tutorial (video, blog, ebook) on 1 monitor open and I have the IDE, text editor, browser, emulator open in the other monitor. For non-computer related stuff, I have OneNote open in the other monitor for taking notes as I'm working my way through the material. Multi monitors definitely have use, I probably can do the same with a 35" wide angle monitor (super expensive!) but I feel its more convenient when it is split between 2 monitors.

</comment><comment><USER13> One thing I did realize is that I suspect a lot of the "1 monitor is good enough" comments are probably from OSX users.

Frankly, inbuilt window management in Windows (especially with KB shortcuts) is far superior to that on OS X. The Win + Arrow Keys combinations just make multiple monitors so much easier to use.

You can get this on OS X (although it has never felt as nice to me) with BetterTouchTool, but I wonder how many OS X users who don't like multiple monitors have actually tried it with BTT installed.

</comment><comment><USER68> I prefer multiple monitors because they allow a more physical distribution of documents compared to virtual desktops. Having the document I'm going to refer to already in peripheral vision makes it much easier to switch to it than a switch to another virtual desktop and re-orient.

The article notes the problem of having your mail open on the second monitor. There is an easy solution to that: close it. Sure if you then can't find anything useful to put there, you don't need a second monitor.

</comment><comment><USER69> As a data business analyst in large and small companies, I find myself working on very complex systems (people and apps), and a single monitor helps me focus. Occasionally I switch the second monitor on, but usually use it as an expensive document stand.

Of course all the marketing/finance/ops/pm people I support love to multitask and hack spreadsheets and email all day. I get the pros and cons for various flavors of developers, but EVERYONE with two monitors is total insanity.

</comment><comment><USER70> I've been traveling with a lightweight 23" LG monitor for several years now.

Combined with 15" laptop and i3 tiling window manager this feels like my ideal setup, though I wouldn't mind trimming down to a 17" laptop sans external monitor. The external monitor is probably more convenience/habit than can't-live-without-it.

Saying that, if I ever settle down I'll probably go with 2X external monitors -- extra screen real estate can be quite helpful at times.

</comment><comment><USER71> I don't agree. I maximize all the apps on my monitors. I like to see the max amount of data in each app. The secondary monitor is used to look at help, docs or something useful.

Using a single monitor means I have to position and resize all kinds of windows on it on a regular basis. Very unproductive for me. Eventually the Windows will be too small for my eyesight. This is a highly personal preference with everyone.

</comment><comment><USER72> I'm seeing a lot of self-righteous "I need the second monitor for the sheer amount of data my programming requires I have immediate access to". Ok, but speaking as someone who spends a few dozen hours a week in computer labs with College CS students, the second monitor does seem to collect an awful lot of non-task oriented material in that population.

</comment><comment><USER73> I stopped using multi-monitor a few months ago, the advantages of just working from a single laptop started to outweigh the benefits of multi-monitors.

\- the window-snapping is better on a smaller screen. Less fiddling to get the layout just right.

\- the portability is great. Now I work from bed, couch, office, home, all in the same way.

</comment><comment><USER74> I have a 2 monitor setup with laptop. One monitor for my google searches/documentation reading, the second holds my code/spreadsheets, and the laptop for terminal/finder/calendar. All my work is in front of me, nothing here adds to distractions, and I get my work done faster.

</comment><comment><USER72> I dislike multiple monitors. Part of this is going to be age-dependent. I prefer to work from my hand-written notes and a pen-annotated paper-spec, so I don't really have much of a need for a second monitor for my primary task, so the second monitor is usually just a source of distraction.

</comment><comment><USER75> I got used to using workspaces to expand my desktop and I've had a hard time making use of a second monitor even though I have one now.

The advantages of a second monitor over workspaces are not totally clear to me. It feels like the same context switch is required in either case.

My coworkers do laugh at me though.

</comment><comment><USER76> I wish I could do single monitor, but I need at least two - one with editor, one with browser for the app/site I'm building. Then preferably one for database admin/documentation/email/chat. Context switching between all that tends to slow me down I feel.

</comment><comment><USER77> I also disagree. I work in government affairs, which involves a lot of legislative research and analysis. Having three monitors is extremely useful, particularly when I'm trying to bring together multiple ideas into one.

</comment><comment><USER78> Perhaps if you have one of those huge 4K monitors, but I usually keep console on a laptop, and editor and browser on two external 24" monitors, and probably could use another one if only I had space for it on my desk.

</comment><comment><USER79> Another reason for just one monitor: your neck will feel a lot better!

<comment><USER7> Try having one monitor in the centre and the second one off to the side. You'll always be using one monitor as the primary anyway so there's no reason to pretend they're equal.

<comment><USER80> I did that for a while, but I found I was turning my head reasonably often.. ended up giving me nasty neck strain. I went back to a single monitor and it cleared up nicely.

I am now using an ultrawide, but I think my next monitor will be smaller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> > Why I Stopped Using Multiple Monitors

> Too much monitor becomes a distraction. So when it comes to monitors, I > embrace these maxims:

> Less is more.

> Quality over quantity.

> Location, Location, Location.

Good for you. Now, why do I care about your opin-- oh wait, I don't.

Seriously, this is about as subjective as it gets. Okay, maybe keyboard switch and cap selection is even more subjective, but that's it. There's hardly a point if any to make (apart from basic ergonomics?)

</comment><comment><USER82> Virtual desktops + Pomodoro work wonders for me, focus wise.

I still want to go back to having a secondary monitor, though.

</comment><comment><USER83> I disagree. I use multiple monitors for work (2), and virtual desktops. And it works pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER82> Virtual desktops + Pomodoro work wonders for me, focus wise.

I still to have a secondary monitor again, though.

</comment><comment><USER29> "How I Beg The Question That Mac Spaces Aren't The Same As Physical Monitors"

</comment><comment><USER84> Good, I'm not the only one who thought this article was completely ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER85> All the value in hot-loading front ends is with the multiple-monitor set up, imo.

</comment><comment><USER29> "Why Everyone Should Adopt My Personal Preference"

<comment><USER86> TBF, i see a LOT more people in the comments here saying "you should use multiple monitors" than not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> In my case it's to have a single immutable desktop whenever I'm working at home or at a customer site. A 15" laptop screen is enough for me.

</comment><comment><USER88> I'm unsure whether this is satire.

</comment><comment><USER89> I've used multiple monitors for years. They keys are:

* virtual desktops. This keeps each desktop simple and clean

* keyboard shortcuts to switch between desktops. This makes the cost of switching near-zero

* one monitor is used 90% of the time for 90% of the work.

* the second monitor is used for critical situations when virtual desktops don't work: more documents than will fit on the first one, writing articles (main) versus research (secondary)

With that workflow, I don't miss it working from a laptop. But it is useful for when I need it.

</comment><comment><USER90> Even with a 30 inch 4k monitor, a second 2k monitor is a great productivity boost, as one can keep windows opened (eg documentation, email app)</comment>


Ask HN: US Hackers Who Spent  6 Mos Traveling Europe - <AUTHOR>

My wife and I are looking into spending a year traveling Europe. I plan to pick up some freelancing work, however, through some research it looks like I'll need to obtain a visa to be able to stay in Europe that long. Has anyone done this? And if so, which country did you go with to get the visa? Also, what about health insurance? <comment><USER2> From [http://thesavvybackpacker.com/long-term-travel- europe/](http://thesavvybackpacker.com/long-term-travel-europe/)

> The easiest ways to extend your trip past 90 days is to visit both Schengen > and non-Schengen countries. Once your 90 days is up, travel to the UK, > Ireland or many of the Eastern European countries that aren't part of the > agreement. Once you've spent those 90 days there you are free to return to > to the Schengen area for another 90 days. You can keep repeating this > process until you run out of money. - See more at: > [http://thesavvybackpacker.com/long-term-travel- > europe/#sthas...](http://thesavvybackpacker.com/long-term-travel- > europe/#sthash.NV8Ne3nr.dpuf)

You can only be in Schengen zone for 90 days out of 180, so expect to spend some in eastern europe or UK/Ireland. You may also qualify for the german freelance visa:

[https://medium.com/@imcatnoone/how-to-get-your-german- freela...](https://medium.com/@imcatnoone/how-to-get-your-german-freelance- visa-without-losing-your-sanity-8fa68b39431a)

</comment><comment><USER3> You are right that you will need to get a visa to stay in a specific country for 6 months. However, "Europe" has several different regions. You can be in the Schengen countries for 90 days out of 180. The Common Travel Area (UK, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey) is its own region. You can be in the UK for up to 6 months without a visa.

So what you can do is split your time between those two regions, plus the other countries in Europe which aren't part of those regions.

If you get a visa for a year's residence then you will also be paying local taxes, on top of the US taxes.

</comment><comment><USER4> You need a Schengen visa.

[http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we- do/policies/bor...](http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we- do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy/index_en.htm)

You also need to declare your income and your intention to work while here.

Your current insurance provider will surely have some travel insurance package for this exact purpose. For primary care and dentistry work you can just pay cash like the locals.

</comment><comment><USER5> I suspect in most of the countries in EU you can go without visa for 3 months - your US passport grants you a tourist visa. When you go to another country, you get a new visa for that country, which means that you could stay in Europe for a while by going to a new country every three months.

</comment><comment><USER6> no you just have to try another country after your 14, 30, or 90 day tourist entry expires.</comment>


Polar Pageviews: A tool for annual traffic comparison - <AUTHOR> http://bckmn.com/polarpageviews/

<comment><AUTHOR> Code open-sourced: [https://github.com/jbckmn/PolarPageviews](https://github.com/jbckmn/PolarPageviews)</comment>


BBC is down - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/

<comment><USER2> Just seems to be the BBC homepage. The rest of the site seems to be working just fine: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/](http://news.bbc.co.uk/) for example is working - watching the BBC News Channel right now.

</comment><comment><USER3> The site has been updated to say they are having issues:

Due to technical problems, we are displaying a simplified version of the BBC Homepage. We are working to restore normal service. Visit BBC News or you can try the other links below.

</comment><comment><USER4> No, it's not.

[http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.bbc.co.uk](http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.bbc.co.uk)

<comment><USER5> That links says it's down!

(and it's down for me, here in Yorkshire)

<comment><USER5> ...and now the links says it's up again - but it's still down for me.</comment></comment></comment>


Deploy any Linux x64 app on AWS with one command - <AUTHOR> https://boxfuse.com/blog/linux-x64 <comment><USER2> Boxfuse seems like a brilliant idea, but partly hamstrung by the need (which I'm not complaining about it all, just observing) for a business model. I would like to use technology like boxfuse, but I do not want another service between me and the AWS or other cloud provider account my VMs run on.

I think something like this, but sold "as plain old software you buy and run" instead of "as a service" would be compelling, although perhaps difficult to make a business model around.</comment>


10 reasons to develop for Android first - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2012/05/10-reasons-to-develop-for-android-first.html

<comment><USER2> 1 reason to develop for iOS first: revenue.</comment>


Goodyear's Oxygene Tire at Geneva Motor Show - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/goodyear-oxygene-tire-alive-geneva-motor-show-auto/ <comment><AUTHOR> Or actually a better link for this news could be: [https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/goodyear-unveils- ox...](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/goodyear-unveils-oxygene-a- concept-tire-designed-to-support-cleaner-and-more-convenient-urban- mobility-675956303.html)</comment>


What Do Physics, Bacteria, and Tai Chi Have in Common? - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/37/currents/bacteria-are-masters-of-tai-chi <comment><USER2> > No microorganism gets to move for free. Newton's third law, that every > action has an equal and opposite reaction, becomes something of a tautology, > for there are no longer any actions.

I acknowledge this post was made by a scientific author catering to the masses who have little experience with physics but this is misleading and wrong.

 _Nothing_ gets to move for free (according to known laws and our mutual agreement of what it means to have a 'potential' energy) of course including microorganisms. He even contradicts himself by earlier stating that the tiny organisms do move miniscule distances on the order of angstroms, micrometers etc after they stop "swimming" ( applying a force to the water (abiding by newtons third law, and thus, swimming.) They _do_ have both positive and negative accelerations.

Taking into account the micro fraction force and size of these tiny "things" compared to larger "things" this conclusion just makes a whole lot of intuitive sense, regardless of ones understanding of Reynolds number

Finally, to get a numerical grasp of how the physics is different for small Reynolds number, the average ecoli is 2 micrometers, and an angstrom is 0.0004 micrometers which I admit is interesting, since in one of his exemplary cases, the bacteria only travels 1/5,000 of its average length before stopping, whereas a human may travel maybe 1/2 body length before stopping, swimming at ~0.5 m/s.</comment>


Show HN: Ghurl – URL Shortener with GitHub Issues - <AUTHOR> http://ghurl.github.io/?12 <comment><USER2> There are some funny result!

ghurl.github.io/?14 → [http://ghurl.github.io/?14](http://ghurl.github.io/?14)

</comment><comment><USER3> As cute as this is, it seems like an abuse of Github's resources to make your own url shortner.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's just a proof of concept :)

<comment><USER3> Fair enough. Just sometimes people do stuff like that and try to convince people to use it regularly. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You should Base62 encode the issue number in the URL string!

<comment><USER5> Base62? Why not a prime number?

<comment><AUTHOR> Base62 is 26 lowercase + 26 uppercase + 10 digits

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Probably best to not use Github Issues as a cloud datastore.

</comment><comment><USER7> ghub.is is available, just sayin' ...

<comment><USER5> Too long. The ideal domain would be "u.rl".</comment></comment>


Thoughtbot: Using rbenv to manage rubies and gems - <AUTHOR> http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/47273164981/using-rbenv-to-manage-rubies-and-gems <comment><USER2> If you are looking for a minimal alternative to RVM, you should also checkout chruby (<https://github.com/postmodern/chruby#readme>). It's only ~90 LoC, supports bash/zsh, optionally supports auto-switching of Rubies, and doesn't install obtrusive bin-stubs.</comment>


Goodbye Foursquare, Hello OpenStreetMap - <AUTHOR> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/pzumk/diary/393135 <comment><USER2> Nice. I hope more and more people soon will find out that there are no value of feeding global and closed commercial structures. These companies are designed to solve their greedy problems and not to develope human world..

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought Foursquare disappeared years ago, how bizarre.

<comment><USER4> These days they sell location data to other companies. Map names, location based user advertising, and everything in between. Check out their website, it's insane the amount of data they collect and have.</comment></comment>


How a Champagne-Laden Steamship Ended Up in a Kansas Cornfield - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-a-champagneladen-steamship-ended-up-in-a-kansas-cornfield <comment><USER2> If you're in Kansas City, the wreck museum is a great place to visit. The amount of goods retrieved from the wreck of the Great White Arabia is just astounding and serves as a window into the trading goods of the early American frontier. It's a true time-capsule of the 1850's.

<comment><USER3> Seconded! The Arabia museum is incredibly fascinating and interesting to anyone remotely interested in learning, or history. It's an incredibly rare and accurate view into the world at that time. Really fascinating. The wife and I have been there several times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Previous post and discussion about the same ship - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11006254](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11006254)

</comment><comment><USER5> > The plan was to bring the banks closer together, and by narrowing the width > of the river, speed up the current, making boat passage much faster.

Probably a stupid question, but what about the people who want to travel upstream?

<comment><USER6> I imagine that a narrower river would be deeper and with a better channel, removing or at least lessening the danger of snags such as the one that sank the Arabia.

<comment><USER5> But if the split of upstream/downstream traffic was roughly 50:50, the time you gained going downstream you'd cancel out on the return journey.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The excavation of the _Malta_ near the Missouri River east of Kansas City started this spring. The exploration group has a blog [0], but it hasn't been updated since March. A newspaper article from April has more details [1].

The _Arabia_ museum really is surprisingly interesting, serving not just as a time-capsule of the frontier period, but also revealing a lot about what it was like to embark on a westward journey across the continent before the railroads were completed.

(The two most-traveled trails of settlement, the Oregon and California trails, as well as the busiest overland mercantile route, the Santa Fe trail, all began in and around Kansas City, where the Missouri River turns to the north, and is consequently as far west as you could get by steamboat. Passengers and goods disembarked there before provisioning wagon trains for the overland journey, and most of the _Arabia_ 's goods were intended for sale to would-be settlers of the American west coast.)

If you're ever in KC, check it out. And if you haven't had your fill of history museums, hop on the streetcar line down to the Liberty Memorial and National World War I Museum [3], which is the best in the country on that subject and will host the national centennial commemorations over the next few years.

0\. [http://www.moexplorer.com](http://www.moexplorer.com)

1\. [http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/the- steamboat-m...](http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/the-steamboat- malta-begins-to-reveal-its--year- old/article_944f0f22-0a67-11e6-a11a-0f6a83c724b9.html)

3\. [https://www.theworldwar.org](https://www.theworldwar.org)

</comment><comment><USER8> One has to wonder whether the diversion of this river is the origin of a scifi trope. Ships being found far from any water is today a common image to suggest that someone/thing has lifted and moved the ship. But just after the diversion of this river, many wrecks would have been left high and dry in the middle of fields, an odd sight.

<comment><USER9> I toured the _Arabia_ museum last month. According to a map there, there were about 249 such steamship wrecks between St Louis and just upstream of Kansas City. The average steamship lasted just 5 years in service.

There were a lot of wrecks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So the boat sinks, and settles on the muddy bottom. Then the engineers narrow the width of the river so that the bottom is no longer in the river. How did the land level rise to bury the boat? Can't quite picture that.

 _Excellent_ occupational niche by the way!

<comment><USER11> The water flowing around the ship's hull washes the sediment out from around the bottom of it, and the ship continues to sink down into the pit that creates. Eventually the ship sinks far enough that it quits impeding the river, and the silt carried from upstream fills the hole back in.

<comment><USER10> Thanks - so the boat is actually buried _before_ the change in river route, and it was the change in route that made the boat more accessible (and dry). I've got it now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's a walk through of the museum on youtube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3W7L2vS0kY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3W7L2vS0kY)

I wonder if you could make a worthwhile VR experience out of this museum

<comment><USER13> make it a "shopping trip" to an old store, virtual time travel :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> visited the museum a few years ago. We watched a film and when it was over, the father archeologist who discovered the steamboat and unearthed it was there to greet us. Really amazing museum. Behind a few booths you can watch them still cleaning and documenting items found in the wreckage decades later.

</comment><comment><USER15> I was hoping for a story about a tornado accompanied by Wizard of Oz puns.

An interesting story nonetheless.</comment>


Biodegradation and Mineralization of Polystyrene by Plastic-Eating Mealworms - <AUTHOR> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02661 <comment><AUTHOR> _Within a 16 day test period, 47.7% of the ingested Styrofoam carbon was converted into CO2 and the residue (ca. 49.2%) was egested as fecula with a limited fraction incorporated into biomass (ca. 0.5%)._</comment>


Hulu joining the NYTimes behind a paywall - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-newhulu21-2010jan21,0,1871796.story

<comment><USER2> The networks will never keep up with Youtube, MetaCafe, and all the other video sites. I'm happy to use Hulu when it's free, but no way I'll pay when I can get the same content free through Google Video.</comment>


Ask HN: How would you improve Reddit? Is it possible to make a better competitor? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I am working with someone trying to make an alternative to Reddit and Kuro5hin called Kr5ddit. I'd link to it but it is still in alpha test and can't handle too many users yet.

It uses Kr5ddits to vote up or down posts. Kr5ddits are earned by modding posts and comments or having your own posts and comments voted up.

If you are a troll or whatever your Kr5ddit balance will be negative from being modded down and it anonymizes you to only post as anonymous until you get a positive Kr5ddit balance.

Using Bitcoin, you can buy more Kr5ddits. If you are positive in Kr5ddits you can sell them on the market.

You can vote up or down as much as you have in Kr5ddits and in 24 hours they refresh to do it again.

The owner Procasti is going to make an open source version called FreeK666 and I am learning how it works.

</comment><comment><USER3> You could argue Reddit is the natural evolution of Digg, the latter having destroyed itself. But Reddit has matured more or less through expansion and at this point has seen its own splinter groups formed via Voat and others.

At this point in time, an "improvement" to Reddit might be something that makes Reddit obsolete all together, perhaps by making the upvote/downvote system seem old and archaic in comparison to something that provides similar, but more robust content promotion.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd ask the Reddit takes more seriously their duties to remove images of naked under 18 year olds.

I've reported three images to reddit admins of naked people who claimed to be under 18, and reddit did nothing.</comment>


Future of 4chan uncertain as controversial site faces financial woes - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/04/4chan-website-financial-trouble-martin-shkreli <comment><USER2> And nothing of value was lost.

Sorry, reflex. But running an imageboard is an immense challenge in getting sponsors willing to deal with the porn, volunteers willing to wade through the CP, and the constant flow of DOS attacks. Providing a true forum for free speech is a real challenge today.

Still, is 4chan actually willing to tarnish its brand by putting Martin Skreli on the board? If so things must be getting really bad over there.

<comment><USER3> Aren't there still about twenty other English-language *chans out there these days?

One might die but the idea and format will never go away.</comment></comment>


Inside Mac OS X 10.7 Lion: Dozens of new high quality multilingual speech voices - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/02/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_dozens_of_high_quality_new_multilingual_speech_voices.html

<comment><USER2> It's still crap. The french lab tcts[1] a few years ago had a speech engine which added tongue flicks, breathing and lip noises (Don't know the technical name for these) as well as using multiple forms of a sound to generate words. IE: match up the correct version of each letter to say "match" rather than force one form to work.

This is still short trousers for text to speech. But then text to speech isn't a big selling feature for computers - yet. Think mini, data specific watsons on your iphone. Pretty soon we'll have HAL-9000's in our pockets.

1\. <http://tcts.fpms.ac.be/></comment>


Ask HN: Which one to choose Scala/Ruby On Rails/Java/PHP - <AUTHOR>

Let me explain the problem where i am stuck right now. I am not an expert in any of those languages, the best I know is C++ and right now I am trying to develop a web application. I am fairly familiar with Java and PHP.
The application is a kind of summarizer which will take user input as certain keywords they want to know the public opinion about it. Lets say i search for iPad2 and my web application gives users a % positivity/Negativity in public opinion, by analysing various blogs (which the links are fetched from search engines, and parsed) and finding what each one says.This is a brief description. What my prob is that this particular application would be CPU intensive and I don't want my application to be slow. Another thing is that hosting the web application shouldn't be so costly as i am currently starting off my career(just a college pass-out n working as dev in a MNC).Also the language should not be so hard to learn as i don't have lengthy hours in my hands, which i can devote.
I have things in mind but i am stuck here at the choice of language to move ahead. Any suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
Thank in advance! <comment><USER2> More important than the language is the architecture.

I'd recommend using Amazon's AWS services. They have a free starter offering that lets you build and test your application on a small server and then scale it up effortlessly to larger and more instances as required, only paying for what you actually use.

If you go with AWS then either Java or PHP would make sense, since there are good SDKs for these languages.

Go to the AWS articles page and search for "architecture", there are lots of good resources to get you thinking about options.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you need to just stick with what you know best. Why not write back end services in C++ and create some services, that can be consumed with Java or PHP. When creating projects/products.. your main goal should be to get it out to get feedback on wether or not people will even use it. I wouldn't suggest AWS for cpu intensive. I would suggest Linode, you can start small and just upgrade to large instances as needed.

</comment><comment><USER4> I love Scala, but it's tools at this point in time don't lend itself to be an easily adopted new language (unless you're keen on getting your hands dirty setting up the right dev. environment). I use Java for work, and have dabbled in PHP, but I think for learning a new language for a web project, you should give Ruby On Rails a go.</comment>


Ask HN: My accounts: Twitter hacked? GMail hacked? Computer hacked? - <AUTHOR>

Last night when I got home I found over 50 emails from Twitter proclaiming that such-and-such person was now following me on Twitter. I have never had a Twitter account, nor do I want one.
After a bit of searching around I verified that there had been no activity in my GMail account since I left on Friday, so they couldn't have accessed the confirmation email to verify the Twitter account... How is it then that whoever was able to create a Twitter account for my email and have it be verified and usable? Has Twitter been hacked in some way?
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has experienced the same thing... Sorry for the slightly inflammatory title BTW, I'm not sure how else I could describe the issue.
-A <comment><USER2> this is what i would do if i were in your shoes, in this order:

      - change your email password immediately.  just in case.
      - fix the title of this article because its misleading.
      - inspect those emails a little closer.  they might be bogus.  could be spam/phishing.
      - see if you can get a password reset from twitter to see if there's an account registered to you.

act appropriately on what you've found.

<comment><AUTHOR> * I've already confirmed that there has been no activity on my GMail account since the time I know I last used it, Luckily enough GMail tracks this and I don't access me email any other way.

* Title changed.

* I had a good look at the emails when I first saw them. All the headers look as thought Twitter actually sent them, and all the links in them point back to the real Twitter site. They're not spam/phishes...

* I already got a password reset for the account: the email it was setup with was firstname.lastname@example.com, my actual email is firstname.lastname@example.com (but we already know that GMail ignores periods in email addresses). I logged into the Twitter account after the password reset, tweeted a polite warning that they should not try this whole deal again then deleted the account.

I'm not a rube, I'm a web-developer and have a good understanding of the various points where this could have gone wrong. I'm certain my GMail accoun has not been compromised (I have SSL set to permanently on with GMail, I don't use it on open wifi and my pw is a 10 char randised Alpha/Num/symbol string)

I'm just interested in finding out how they managed to verify the twitter account without access to my email...

<comment><USER2> fair enough. your wording set a different tone.

the simple answer is this: you don't verify twitter accounts via email. all you need is to input an email address and you can start tweeting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah bugger. I didn't realize that... I assume that these days everyone uses email verification as a best practice.

Sorry if I came off snooty in my last comment, I appreciate your response and thoughts in general! The whole deal had me worried!

I guess I can probably change my passwords back now :-p

I also just looked back and saw how bad my spelling was on my last post, I guess I am more tired than I realized!

Thanks again! -A

<comment><USER2> no worries.

i guess your email just got scraped from somewhere and used to register a spam account?

registration into email verification is starting to die off a bit in the newer web apps. mostly because they want to make the process of setting up an account as quick and easy as possible, provided the app is trivial enough (don't want to this for something like banking). email verification requires you to focus on something else besides the place you're registering for, as well as possibly waiting around for the email to come in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _After a bit of searching around I verified that there had been no activity in my GMail account since I left on Friday, so they couldn't have accessed the confirmation email to verify the Twitter account_

Be sure to check your filters as a common attack is simply copying all mail to another account.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cheers, I'm very confident that my GMail account wasn't compromised, I double checked that no logins have been logged since I last used it on Friday, no mail has been sent since then either.

I double checked the filters as you recommended, nothing going on there!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > I'm not sure how else I could describe the issue.

Try 'my accounts on' as a prefix ?</comment>


Jeff Bezos donates $33M to help DACA students attend college - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedream.us/news/bezosgrant/ <comment><USER2> I don't care what percentage of his income this represents, I am happy for the 33M that wasn't there before.

These are real people it will impact, with real families, and real benefits.

Let's each examine what percentage of our income we have contributed, and then maybe walk around looking down our noses, if you really donate for that privilege.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great, but for context, if your net worth were $300,000, this would be the same as donating a dollar.

Edit: my math is wrong as hell and I was being way too cynical. Sorry folks.

<comment><USER4> I get a figure of $3000 instead of what you wrote. But I think you wanted to make the amount seem pathetic. Not sure why.

<comment><USER5> "If he has x billions of dollars he should give x billions of dollars" is what I get out of the comment.

33 million dollars is going to buy a truckload of TI calculators and other mandatory essentials.

<comment><USER3> You and the other commenters are correct. I'm feeling quite guilty of being as cynical as I often accuse others on HN of being.

<comment><USER5> You're strong enough to admit it, so feel less guilty. I'm as cynical as anyone else, but you do have to step back occasionally and see nice things for what they are: nice.

<comment><USER3> I see this as very beneficial but I consider nice to be a very different thing. With that said I have a bad record on being reasonable so let me revisit this tomorrow after I've slept on it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are a ton of citizens who would benefit from college but can't afford to go. I struggle to see the utility in discriminating against your own poverty- stricken countrymen in this. What's the real motivation?

<comment><USER7> It's like donating to a charity. If you donate to one but not the other, is it discrimination to the other?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: MVP complete. Potential features - QuicklyTest.it - Test startup ideas - <AUTHOR>

Hi all. So QuicklyTest.it is live again and since my last HN post I've gone from 27 to 31 customers on numerous monthly pricing plans that I'm testing. Performance wise everything is going well and I'm looking to add maybe 2 new features to make the service more powerful.
I have reached out to my current customers but I haven't had much of a response so far. Once of the responses I did have was to just not add anything and to make the user experience even simpler (it's pretty simple at the moment) so that could be a potential area of focus.
Are there any pointers from HNers of where to go next? Perhaps integration with mailing list services (mailchip etc) or maybe some kind of live visitor feedback?
Thanks all. Paul. <comment><USER2> Interesting idea. For me, who is in the middle of validating an idea, I would be interested in finding out the actual mechanism that you are using to validate the idea.

Would be great if there are some screen casts on your "tour" page to show how it is all put together and tested.

By the way, on your "tour" page, there is a reference to learnmoreabout.it

Great Work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Yitchelle. Thank you for the feedback.

learnmoreabout.it is where the tests are hosted if you don't want to CNAME your own domain into the question.

The mechanism is basically the number of click throughs vs people leaving their email vs overall page hits vs time spent on the page.

I'm continuing to define it but overall there is good feedback coming from users at the moment.

A video is something I'm looking at. Do you think a screencast with commentary from myself is enough in this day and age or do people want a more flashy video?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Your pricing page has an issue with IE8. I cannot see the text "Click Here to get started" on the button unless i do mouse over.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi codegeek. Good shout! I will take a look at that in a minute and report back.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've sorted out the button now. Please let me know if there are any other bugs. Thanks again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Additionally - I guess any feedback on the website design, copy etc itself would be handy too as I'm not the best of designers :).</comment>


Thank Kim Jong Un for your crypto gains - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/21/thank-kim-jong-un-for-your-crypto-gains/ <comment><USER2> It's still speculation that NK is behind these attacks, but even if they were, how would that increase the price?

If they had untold millions of BTC, they'd have to offload it at large discounts. They would be trying to trade out of BTC, not into it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is only a matter of time until trading/exchanging crypto currency and/or converting to $'s is outlawed.

<comment><USER4> I don't think that will happen anytime soon. It's hard to see everyone we thought was trustworthy and will do the right thing doing exactly the opposite and take advantage of the situation.

1\. Goldman Sachs going to open trading desk 2\. CBOE launches futures 3\. CME launches futures 4\. Fed sells seized cryptos from silk road 5\. ...

The list of things that makes this as genuine as it can be goes on and on.

It's a repeat of the 2008-09 crash from sub prime loans. Everyone knew what was happening. But they just wanted to make as much money from the situation before getting out. Of course Lehman Brothers didn't get out in time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not clear from the article how he would cash out those gains?

<comment><USER3> He doesn't cash out the gains. He trades the bitcoins for the things his country needs. He launders using bitcoins the same way thieves and drug dealers launder using Tide.</comment></comment>


Disney's 'Physical Face Cloning' produces the ultimate photo-realistic robots - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/disney-clones-human-faces-onto-robots/ <comment><USER2> Despite how much awesomeness goes into it, the final product sadly leaves me unable to think of anything but two words: uncanny valley.

<comment><USER3> I often wonder what will happen to us, to our human psyche, to the media, when that threshold is crossed and we no longer know if an actor (in the objective sense) is human or not. It terrifies me and yet I hope I live to see it.

<comment><USER4> You'll know, because the person helping you at the store is friendly, and actually helpful.

<comment><USER5> You can't put lipstick on a paperclippy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's interesting about this is that this was in fact a dream that Disney himself had, in the last years of his life he was very focused on Audio- Animatronics: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio-Animatronics>

</comment><comment><USER7> Is motion capture not capable of recording full lip movement? The facial muscles look correct, but the lips are dead. For instance I noticed the 3d mesh lips don't pucker outwards when saying words like "you"

<comment><USER5> More likely the motor/skeleton can't actuate movement in the lips as well, since they stick out from the face.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Disney surpasses skynet's wildest ambitions. Invents more realistic facial expressions than Schwarzenegger.

<comment><USER9> The facial expressions did look eerily like Stalone's, yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Life Model Decoy"

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

</comment><comment><USER11> Yet another incredible project out of Disney that belongs in the future. When did they get back to focusing on the world of tomorrow?</comment>


Dylann Roof, 4chan, and the New Online Racism - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/29/dylann-roof-4chan-and-the-new-online-racism.html

<comment><USER2> "A reactionary, defiantly anti-social politics has been emerging for the last decade. It was well known under the auspices of "trolling" and well hidden by its pretense of trickstersism. It was actually juvenile fascism and vitriolic racism but, because it grinned and operated in cyberspace, it was a sensation when it first appeared less than a decade ago."

For only the last decade? Only in "trolling culture?" Where has this author been?

It's pretty common for the highly intelligent and sensitive to embrace reactionary ideology after becoming disillusioned in turn with pop culture, counterculture, and academic liberalism. Maybe this is it, they think, finally a movement that's intelligent! Neo-fascists and reactionaries know how to play to this with the whole 'red pill' nonsense. Eventually people move on when they realize that this, too, is dumb.

You'll never find an intelligent movement because there is no such thing.

For something to become a movement, it must be reduced to communicable meme- sized sound bites. Then a low-fidelity game of telephone is played with those, further bleaching out any depth. That process inherently erodes any subtilely or grace that the original may have once possessed. Then demagogues rise up and 'ride' the movement, hoping to gain money, power, sex, or just attention. These people tend to be sociopaths and narcissists, and they proceed to shit copiously upon whatever scraps of intelligence and value might remain.

There are deep, interesting, and thoughtful authors of nearly every political persuasion, from right and reactionary to libertarian to Marxist, liberal, progressive, feminist, you name it, but none of that intelligence can or will ever translate into the popular representation of any of those things. They are all worth reading, but that takes time.

The Internet is new, and we're still assimilating it. One thing we're finally (I think/hope) coming to grips with is that it's actually a great vehicle for the rapid spread of stupid, shallow ideas. Social media is biased toward sound-bites and click bait. Those are the things that spread. Ideas that take too long to consider and assimilate have a low viral coefficient.

As I've grown up with the net, one of the things I've learned is the value of being selective as to what channels I pay attention to. There's a lot of high- quality stuff on the net but you have to be picky to find it. Popular areas of sites like Reddit and noise-boxes like 4chan are the gutter and are to be avoided, as is the perpetual borgsong of the Facebook feed. Smaller and topical sub-reddits and smaller sites like Hacker News are somewhat better, and are at least decent starting points.

<comment><USER3> Wow. Amazing analysis -- put into words very well the reason for the change in content, culture, and consumption of media since the rise of the internet.

I've discovered the same as you. The small places in the internet, the HN and specific forums and newsgroups and quiet subreddits, utilizes the ease of internet communication in the best way possible. You unite people of a common interest, which is neccessary for any functional community, but given their size they still have the neccessary diversity of opinions and interests to keep things productive.

But take that ability to communicate, subject it to the tyranny of the masses -- the whole platform goes to hell. Spend 5 minutes on a stranger's facebook, or a pundit's twitter account, or a large subreddit and you can clearly see demonstrated just how shallow, memetic concepts can crowd out any meaningful discourse in a community.

<comment><USER2> ... and tribal and racial hate ideologies, fundamentalist crusades, "fear porn," naive optimism, and curmudgeonly pessimism are among the simplest and thus most viral things.

The mainstream parts of the Internet as a result are an echo chamber of hate, doom, and gloom.</comment></comment></comment>