Survey Results: What the Job Seekers Think of Applicant Tracking Software? - <AUTHOR> https://www.dg.ca/blog/3-key-moves-while-searching-jobs-in-canada <comment><USER2> what survey... damn ads survey linked is about other nonsense.</comment>


White iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://mobilized.allthingsd.com/20110427/apples-jobs-and-schiller-on-why-making-the-white-iphone-was-so-darn-tough/

<comment><AUTHOR> Color makes all the difference.</comment>


Show HN: Viddme - Imgur for video - <AUTHOR> http://vidd.me

<comment><USER2> Nice site. Although, what's the value proposition besides being free video hosting? YouTube provides that along with millions of users.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Some basic advantages for starters:

1) no signup/login requirement whatsoever, enabling anonymous video publishing,

2) very low friction uploading - just 2-3 steps to get a video on the web, visible to anyone in the world, from any device

3) lax content restrictions - if its legal, we'll host it

4) no forced G+ integration

Currently focused on the simple utility value, but as usage picks up, we will be targeting some of the larger issues on youtube that are driving content creators & consumers mad.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also forgot to mention, we have animated GIF -> video conversion. This means uploaded GIFs are converted to video at 1/16th the filesize, and enhanced with better playback tools.</comment></comment></comment>


You Can't Pick My Brain. It Costs Too Much. [2011] - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2011/03/28/no-you-cant-pick-my-brain-it-costs-too-much/

<comment><USER2> Do you really want to start acting more like lawyers? I mean I get not doing anything that would require serious time investment on the whim of some friend, but not _talking_ with friends about technical issues? Personally I usually end up enjoying these types of conversations.</comment>


Ask HN: Where is patio11? - <AUTHOR>

I haven't seen a blog or email from Patrick in quite some time. Anyone know what he's been up to? <comment><USER2> Long story. Short version: health issues, business deadlines (many slipped), and travel ate up last two months or so.

<comment><USER3> Get well soon Mr M!

<comment><USER4> Yep, get well soon dude.

As an aside, as a fellow "Mc...." surname holder, I've always abbreviated it as "McC", not "M"... I wonder if patio11 likes "M", or "McK"....

 _(Yes this is another fun weird naming example for patio11 's list)_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> He has been active on HN though: [https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=patio11](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=patio11)</comment>


Flying Cars Are Closer Than You Think - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/a/verge-2021/marc-andreessen-horowitz-verge-interview <comment><AUTHOR> > The price of cities relative to the price of not being in cities continues > to grow. I think that's going to be a major political stress. I actually > think that explains a lot of what's happening in this election.

Interesting way to look at things. Someone in rural Ohio would have many more opportunities in a major city like New York, but they can't move there. They can't afford it.</comment>


Show HN: Collaborative text editor with PouchDB and ProseMirror - <AUTHOR> https://emergence-engineering.com/blog/prosemirror-sync-1 <comment><AUTHOR> Hey there! I co-authored this article about a web-based collaborative editor. The main trick is that by using PouchDB's sync functionality we can do client- server communication without a custom WebSocket layer, making everything easier. By the way, we're looking for gigs, mainly with Node/React/TS. I'd _really_ appreciate any kind of feedback! V</comment>


I am conflicted on who is correct regarding a healthy diet. Need help - <AUTHOR> I've been a follower of whole food plant based diet rich in plants, vegetables and beans thanks partly to [Nutrition Facts](https://nutritionfacts.org) and Dr. Michael Greger's extensive articles/videos backed by what I thought was research. I knew he had vegan bias but after coming in contact with these two pieces below:
- [Your Brain on Plants: Micronutrients and Mental Health](http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/micronutrients-mental-health/)
- [EAT-Lancet's Plant-based Planet: 10 Things You Need to Know](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know)
Specifically the first article. It argues strongly that there can't be a healthy diet without consuming some kind of animal food.
I am not a nutritionist and I care deeply about animals and the ethics of consuming animal products. But having said that I am confused and don't get who is actually correct. Is whole food plant based diet actually damaging to my body and I am losing out on very important micro and macro nutrients by not eating animal food?
I am considering becoming pescetarian if that is indeed the case.
Thank you for any comments on the matter. <comment><USER2> As far as I can tell, no one knows for sure. Everyone has their bias, and tries to sound as sure of themselves as possible, often for financial reasons (buying books, reading their blog which has ads, promoting products, etc.)

So I try to do what makes the most sense to me. I eat a large variety of foods, so as not to leave out any nutrition. Lots of vegetables, some fruits, some nuts, lots of fish, and a little red meat.

I'm honestly not too worried about the impact of meat in my diet is. I eat very little red meat, maybe one serving every couple of weeks. And I think lab grown meat is going to be indistinguishable from traditional in the next 5 years both in price and taste/texture. How much of an impact am I alone going to have anyway? As for the ethics of it, I sleep fine at night.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is that the thinking of 'I am just one person, how much impact does doing .. really have?' is dangerous. Because such thinking compounds where everyone can start thinking that (where in reality no one even questions the impact their actions have) and thus no change is ever made (and in this case animals still suffer on a global scale).

I honestly think knowing the things we know about the meat industry and complete disregard for animal rights that the current world has, it is unwise to go to a supermarket and buy nicely packaged meat on the shelf.

Although my question wasn't about ethics of it but about health. I am just curious if that is indeed the case that whole food plant based diet is not enough to support a fully healthy human life.

<comment><USER3> I think the best thing to do is to study what the longest living populations eat.

There's a new post slightly above yours that theorizes a high carb diet may be correlated to Okinawans longevity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can only offer personal anecdotes. I was on many different diets since I was very little. I've been a strict vegan and a carnivore and gluten-free and diary-free, bla, bla ... way before any of these were fashionable. Everyone of these diets had their drawbacks. For example, veganism left me frail and weak whereas all-meat carnivorism did make me rail-thin, strong and agile, yet gave me terrible breath and complexion, not to mention digestive issues.

Now I eat everything (fried stuff in moderation, though) and do intermittent fasting. So far it works for me. My body took very well to time restrictions as opposed to food restrictions.

YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you are worried, then continue to eat a small amount of meat. But be thoughtful about how it is sourced. And try to have respect for the animals you decide to consume. A few years ago, Zuck challenged himself to only eat animals he himself killed. There is something admirable and redemptive in that way of being. Not saying to copy... just saying...

</comment><comment><USER6> I think we used meat as species. But use with moderation, since we now can buy as much as we want and when we want.

Unless you have a special disease, exercise and be done. Moderate all kinds of foods. Don't eat late at night. You will die one day, regardless of diet.

<comment><AUTHOR> One thing I am optimizing for is health and specifically the rate at which I can absorb and retain information. Amongst other things like overall well being and capacity to do sports and other activities.

Ideally I want a diet that allowed me to maximize that without supporting the animal slaughterhouses built around the globe.

Until today, I thought I found this perfect diet (whole food plant based). But now with these two articles I mentioned, I am confused who is actually correct.

And sure, we all die one day, I just want to live a good life with least negative impact on other living beings and environment whilst still being the healthiest I can be. Hence this HN thread asking for opinions on how to achieve this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The DNA with a closest match to ours is chimpanzees' DNA with a 99.9% match. From our jaw to our stomach we're the same.

Approx. 90% fruit, 9% vegetables, 1% insects and honey.

End of the story.

<comment><USER8> You're unaware that chimpanzees eat meat?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think it's difficult to give the right answer. For example the daughter of Jordan Peterson had a lot of health issues, but her health issues have been gone once she switched to an all-meat diet [0]. What works well for one person, might not work at all for another I guess.

I personally feel it's best to listen to your body _and_ avoid eating too much sugar, cause we know for sure the harmful effects of eating too much sugar.

Intermittent fasting however seems to have some beneficial effects, so with regards to your diet, you might want to try that: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxjMdqevE88](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxjMdqevE88)

\---

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDEwblGDz2Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDEwblGDz2Y)

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxjMdqevE88](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxjMdqevE88)

<comment><USER10> An all-meat (carnivore) diet turns out to be a hell of an elimination diet, which probably explains the large impact on their well-being.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I feel like we do not know the answer 100% for sure.

But from what I know eating vegan is totally safe if you watch your micro nutrients.

\---- Speculation below ---- (corrections and comments welcome)

Doing double blinded control trials with diets over the long term is impossible, and there are so many confounding variables with diet study.

Also, as Peter Attia likes to talk about, there is a lot of variation from person to person.

I follow Rhonda Patrick and Peter Attia, and it's very interesting to hear what they have to say, and they are clearly smart individuals who are consistent, and really try to do their best with looking at diet. Also, I trust their intentions and the way they approach these problems, unlike certain other people. (I believe consistency is one of the best ways to point out issues in the way someone evaluates evidence, and to now use them as a reference source)

I think part of the issue comes down to if you want to be on the cutting edge, you have to take risk, because at the leading edge there isn't enough evidence to be 100% sure.

It's interesting to see vegans and keto type people degree with each other, because it shows two group of people who are convinced their way is best.

Things that are popular right now seem to be keto, vegan, various forms of fasting, and omega 3.

Peter Attia likes to talk about keeping blood sugar, and therefore insulin low, which I think has a good amount of evidence behind it, but good luck getting a continuous glucose monitor.

I think we can pretty much all agree on avoiding too much red meat, processed foods, and sugar is generally going to get some of the largest results.

There is also a lot of talk about fasting. It seems like eating in a smaller window is best, but at the same time we don't 100% know.

If I were trying to eat an optimal diet, I think I'd side on the low sugar (and trying to minimize blood sugar), lots of plants, a little bit of meat (not much red meat), eating within a small window, low mounts of (or no) alcohol.

We are becoming aware of the many issues with scientific studies, and dietary studies may be some of the worse.

Additionally, things that we discover on mice (and other animals) often don't translate to humans well.

I think with a vegan diet you have to be careful that you are getting all your nutrients, but I haven't seen much evidence against it.

Some notable vegans include Alex Honnold (Free Solo, first person to climb El Capitan without a rope and harness), Clarence Kennedy (insanely strong weightlifter, freak of nature; he does steroids, but still is extremely strong given his body weight), Scott Jurek (one of the fastest people to complete a 2000 trail, Appalachian Trail). These are people at the extremes of performance.

I think at the end of the day it depends on how much risk you want to take, and how much time you want to invest in this. At some point you can spend more time optimizing your diet than the gains you get from those things. Also, individual variation can be huge between the way ones body processes things.</comment>


Mapping efforts in an unsurveyed land - <AUTHOR> http://blog.smc.org.in/mapping-efforts-in-an-unsurveyed-land-koorachundu/

<comment><USER2> I am very impressed by the photos of the landscape. India is rich in having flora & fauna like that and India is rich in having a sentence like the one mentioned in the introduction in its Constitution. I do hope India will be able to hold on to all of these riches while modernising.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very interesting result. The volunteers, local people make map using free and open source GIS tools, and using OpenStreetMap. But it wasn't just a means to an end as the exercise proved that there were areas not in the official village, and areas in the village were not in the official map. That showed a problem with official records and lead to the government agreeing to redraw the official maps, properly surveyed. I'm not sure if that work has been done or if they don't have the money.

</comment><comment><USER4> An interesting article for both the application of tools ans people to solve a problem and the pictures. I had to go through the article twice because the first time I stopped reading and just enjoyed the photos.</comment>


Interchangeable parts revolutionised the way things are made - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49499444 <comment><USER2> Fun Fact: One of the first mass assembly operations that used an early form of interchangeable parts was the Venetian Arsenale, which could produce up to one ship per day. The ships were floated down a canal in an assembly like manner and fitted with pieces made by artisans to standardized specification, allowing the same piece to be fitted to different ships as well as allowing for pipelining. As ships were also repaired in the Arsenale, this could be viewed as an early form of interchangeable parts as replacement pieces were fitted from stock.

Also, Galileo visited the arsenale and was fascinated by the many interesting questions of mechanics raised. For instance, why do the oars in the center of the ship most account for the ships movement? Galileo experimented with new oar designs as well as questions of naval architecture and artillery design, eventually moving to Venice and working as a consultant for the Arsenale. It was the world's first mass munitions factory.

Some links for further reading:

[https://italoamericano.org/story/2016-7-7/arsenale](https://italoamericano.org/story/2016-7-7/arsenale)

[http://echo.mpiwg- berlin.mpg.de/content/shipbuilding/venice_...](http://echo.mpiwg- berlin.mpg.de/content/shipbuilding/venice_arsenal/lettura_gal_html/LetturaGal.html)

[https://leanfactories.com/venetian-arsenal-venice-ship- build...](https://leanfactories.com/venetian-arsenal-venice-ship-building- using-mass-production/)

<comment><USER3> The more I dive into the history of various technologies (and even professions), the more it becomes apparent that militaries are responsible for a _vast_ proportion of historical advancements, even in the most unexpected areas.

Edit: Also responsible for a vast supply of historical datasets.

Edit 2: IMHO, the most fascinating is all the tie-ins between artillery, spycraft, astronomy, aerospace/rockets, geodosy & cartography (and invention of the chronograph), tidal monitoring & weather keeping, nuclear weapons, gps, and probably a dozen more topics I'm forgetting off the top of my head.

Individually, each of these is a mammoth of a topic on its own. But the interplay in their development (as influenced by big-picture military strategy) is just mind-boggling to me. It is by far, the most interesting, persistent, and deep rabbit-hole I've encountered.

(Hint: Ballistic missiles are essentially long range artillery. Hint 2: They require gravitational variation to be taken into account for targeting.)

<comment><USER2> I think this is absolutely correct. Huge advances are driven by war, for obvious reasons -- survival is at stake. John Napier discovered the logarithm due to his work on artillery. A lot of Archimedes's innovations were driven by the desire to build weapons. The demand for accurate clocks was driven by the Navy, giving rise to many innovations. And of course in the 20th Century, integrated circuit design was driven by a desire to build computers that could be embedded in ballistic missiles and withstand large amounts of heat. Fairchild semiconductors' first big contracts were primarily for defense and NASA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am rather concerned that this failed to leave out Eli Whitney[0], whose contributions for interchangeable gun parts were taught to me in university history class.

> By January 1801, Whitney had failed to produce a single one of the promised > weapons, and was called to Washington to justify his use of Treasury funds > before a group that included outgoing president John Adams and Jefferson, > now the president-elect. As the story goes, Whitney put on a display for the > group, assembling muskets before their eyes by choosing (seemingly at > random) from a supply of parts he brought with him. The performance earned > Whitney widespread renown and renewed federal support. It was later proven, > however, that Whitney's demonstration was a fake, and that he had marked the > parts beforehand and they were not exactly interchangeable. Still, Whitney > received credit for what Jefferson claimed was the dawn of the machine age. > [0]: [https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/interchangeable- > pa...](https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/interchangeable-parts)

</comment><comment><USER5> I believe 1911 (handgun) slides and frames still have to be hand fit to one another. Though there is a company claiming tight enough tolerances that theirs don't. I have two identical 1911, but have not tried it.

I wonder how original Colt 1911 were produced for military orders? I can't see hand fitting those.

The AR-15 is fully interchangeable, but I have read of takedown pins on Colts not fitting more modern lowers receivers. Also wonder if the gas system has to be tweaked? The FN-FAL has an adjustable gas block, but that may be due more for ammo than parts compatiblity.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like an urban legend. Colt and John Browning shipping something that needs to be hand fit doesn't pass the smell test. Major world powers don't adopt a gun that can't have parts interchanged as their standard sidearm in the early 1900s. For a specialty weapon of 30yr earlier maybe but only the cheapest of "boring old small arms" were still being hand fit around that time and even then it was rare in industrialized countries.

Edit: adjustable gas systems are in fact there to tune for ammo variations and fouling.

<comment><USER5> I don't think the original 1911 were hand fit, but all of the modern, upper tier 1911 claim to be hand fit. Why the purpose behind this; reliability?

<comment><USER6> If you're really lucky hand fit translates to "our QA department is stocked with measuring tools and they actually use them to confirm parts meet spec before being assembled, maybe if you're lucky they write down how over/under something is so that the assembly guys can pick combos that work well". (If you're paying big bucks this is hopefully the case.)

More likely it means someone cycled the thing to make sure it worked before slapping their "qa by <unintelligible scribble>" sticker on the product or packaging

It's mostly just marketing mumbo jumbo to make it seem like a fancy hand crafted product. Back in "the day" the marketing people would have advertised that things were made by precision machines. Today labor is expensive and machines are cheap so they're advertising that they put a lot of labor into it in part to justify the price (and the reverse would have been true in the early 1900s, they'd emphasize the machine contribution).

Firearms are tight like a retired hooker compared to the kind of tolerances any reasonably modern manufacturing operation of that sort (mostly machining and stamping/forming) is capable of working in (they need to be loose so all those steel on steel parts will move like they're supposed to). Loose fitment tolerances translate to less need for super precise parts to begin with. Say you have a slide that wants .010"+.002"/-0001" of clearance. Sure you _can_ make that part to .0005 but insisting on that level of consistency just adds unnecessary cost to do so when you have an entire .0003" space to shoot for.

For ultra high precision stuff tighter tolerances and more consistency are used but that's mostly limited to the pressure bearing parts of the action that touch the case/bullet (the goal is to get that cartridge to fit in there the same way each and every time).

Some of the most reliable firearms out there use very loose tolerances. For a 1911 I feel very safe saying that the modern high end ones do it more because they can than because it improves performance in any measurable way. High end guns almost by definition will never see enough use to get to the point where manufacturing it more precisely could ever effect reliability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of this article, which I think was also discussed on HN

[https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/03/08/halls-law-the- nineteen...](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/03/08/halls-law-the-nineteenth- century-prequel-to-moores-law/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I never even considered that early machinery was custom made and had no readily available parts. I guess for any repairs, you had to go to the original maker, who would create a replacement part that would only fit on your machine.

Seems like a really simple concept, just like the drill press for that matter, but it took so long for people to realise the potential.

<comment><USER9> Also true of the most basic components that we take for granted now, e.g. screws. The concept was known to the ancients, but they weren't mass produced as fasteners until the 1760s [0]

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw)

<comment><USER10> I remember watching a documentary about a country in central Africa where, less than 15 years ago, blacksmiths were making screws and nuts by hand. They needed to be kept together or the manufacturing variations would mean that last week's screws might not fit this week's nuts.

These guys were fast, but nowhere remotely as fast as thread-rolling machinery of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The Packard Merlin is an interesting story. The famous Rolls Royce Merlin was widely used in allied fighters and bombers during ww 2, but many parts where manually fitted. When licensed to the American auto manufacturers to mass produces, they tightened up the specifications and changed the things like the bearings.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_V-1650_Merlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_V-1650_Merlin)</comment>


How do Democrats win in 2020? These battleground state leaders have some advice - <AUTHOR> https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/10/14/2020-election-how-do-democrats-beat-trump/3899108002/ <comment><USER2> What are the current rules about political discussions on HN?</comment>


Google and Waze Must Stop Sharing Drunken-Driving Checkpoints, NYPD Demands - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/nyregion/waze-nypd-location.html <comment><USER2> This is laughable. It's our freedom of speech to alert others to DUI checkpoints, speed traps, or coupons at at the donut shop. Whatever we want. It's the same as flash the brights, which the police have tried (and failed) to stop [1]. I hope the NYPD does try to push this so they can get smacked down in court.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/2014/02/05/flashing-headlights-to-warn-drivers-of-a-speed-trap- constitutionally-protected-speech/)

<comment><USER3> That's true, but something tells me the same people opposing this will scream like banshees when people start sharing lists of known speeders and bad drivers publicly.

<comment><USER4> The government doesn't have freedom of speech rights, and in any case accusing people of being "bad drivers" likely gets into issues of slander in a way that pointing out the fact of the existence of checkpoints or cameras doesn't.

<comment><USER5> Indeed, it's almost as if the laws were designed to defend liberty and hinder authoritarianism. As if even when authoritarianism sounds like a good idea, it is not...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So it's not enough to set up anticonstitutional totalitarian checkpoints, but they complain when their victims have the audacity to report on them?! Given how readily these charlatans will waste public resources, it seems like the best way to "make the streets safer" would be to lay off as many are necessary until their organizations can once again focus on fighting crime rather than creating it.

But of course that's just the ongoing issue with these lawless thugs. The noteworthy problem here is the vulnerability caused by centralized applications and centralized app stores. Waze may not immediately succumb to this whining, but the technical foundation of the mobile ecosystem makes it a sitting duck for repeated attacks. Eventually enough pressure will build that they will have no choice but to succumb to the totalitarian ratchet.

<comment><USER7> The Supreme Court has expressly ruled these constitutional: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz)

You can think it was a bad decision (3 judges dissented) that should be overruled, but they are currently constitutional.

<comment><USER6> The Supreme Court ruling something constitutional does not mean that it _is_ constitutional. It's every citizen's duty to understand the law for themselves, in order to know when the government has exceeded its mandate.

<comment><USER8> Seven Supreme Court justices, products of the same era, training, experience, and institutions, cannot in all cases unanimously agree that a thing is (or is not) constitutional.

Let us pause to imagine for a moment the comity arrived at by "every citizen," having taught themselves law in accordance with their civic duty, in considering the same matters.

How are we to imagine a thing to be (or not be) constitutional, in such a circumstance? If most citizens think a thing constitutional, does that make it so? Or have they merely 'ruled' that it was constitutional, in your view, should your own self-taught understanding persuade you differently?

I agree in general that there is a civic duty to understand principles of government, to understand the nature and limits of law and justice, and to grasp (if not embrace) the fundamentals of ethical reasoning.

However, in this instance what you seem really to be saying is that you hold your own judgement to be absolute and superior with regards to what is and isn't constitutional.

I am not going to impugn the quality of your personal reasoning or education. The problem is that that just isn't how it works. None of the rest of us are interested in having that be how it works, and as a pragmatic matter it simply would not 'work' in any meaningful way. It would not result in a system in which most of us could agree and get along.

The overwhelming majority view, from the time of the framing of the Constitution onwards, has been that Section 2 of Article 2 conveys the power of interpretation upon the federal judiciary in instances where the need for interpretation arises within the constraints imposed elsewhere upon their power.

The other view is not a 'view' in the sense of a workable alternative. It is a stubborn naysaying, notionally on principle, that renders the entire system of law and governance unworkable.

We don't want it.

<comment><USER6> > _If most citizens think a thing constitutional, does that make it so?_

It means that most citizens think a thing constitutional. You seem to have an assumption that saying "X is constitutional" can only represent some universal fact rather than a personal opinion.

> _Or have they merely 'ruled' that it was constitutional_

I mean yes, this is exactly how Supreme Court decisions are talked about - whether the Court will _rule_ certain way. A court can _rule_ that pi equals 3 and lower courts will even have to follow that precedent in their own decisions, but it would obviously be foolish for anyone else to repeat this as factual.

What you're doing is akin to equating legality and morality, a standard technique to quash dissent. Categorically ruling out that a code could be wrong prevents being able to critically discuss it.

> _It is a stubborn naysaying, notionally on principle, that renders the > entire system of law and governance unworkable._

Yes, it is an all-too-common refrain that dissent hinders effective governing.

<comment><USER7> The text of the constitution at issue is your right to be free from "unreasonable searches". Your pi example ignores the fact that "unreasonable" is hard to define, and indeed, this case would not have reached the Supreme Court if there were easy answers.

All we are saying is that in the United States, what the Supreme Court says on this issue _categorically_ makes it constitutional. That does not mean you cannot disagree with the policy, or advocate it be changed. For example, you could advocate that your state pass a law prohibiting the practice. Or you could advocate to amend the constitution.

But saying it's unconstitutional just makes no sense, and would make our entire system unworkable.

How do you feel about other issues? Is the right to an abortion (Roe v Wade) unconstitutional? Gay marriage? The Affordable Care Act? The right to tax income at all?

There are groups that think all of those decisions were bad and unconstitutional -- but the Supreme Court has the final say. Amend the constitution, pass new laws, protest all you want, but saying any of these things are unconstitutional just because you disagree makes no sense.

<comment><USER6> > _All we are saying is that in the United States, what the Supreme Court says > on this issue _categorically_ makes it constitutional_

This is a _political_ assertion you are making. It prevents invoking the _intent_ of the constitution without some contextual disclaimer, thus hindering critiques of whether the current government has run aground of its charter.

> _There are groups that think all of those decisions were bad and > unconstitutional -- but the Supreme Court has the final say_

The final say over whether _the government_ considers an action constitutional! While the Supreme Court interprets the law for the government, it does not have a monopoly on the definition of the word "constitutional".

Please note that my original comment even used the term "anticonstitutional", because I did somewhat anticipate this authoritarian fallacy that _courts define truth_. Regardless of arguing the semantics of whether "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" are constrained to only referencing the legal scope, the argument I'm making is that the practice of stopping and harassing every traveler runs _directly contrary_ to what the founders intended as well as the values our society purports to hold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am struggling to think of a way in which prohibiting the sharing of such information could be made illegal. The checkpoints are publicly visible activities of public employees. The right to photograph and video record police when acting in an official capacity is well established. If anything, noting their location seems less intrusive and more likely to represent a protected form of speech.

</comment><comment><USER10> In NJ they announce the checkpoints ahead of time in local newspapers. This is (presumably) to avoid breaching the 4th amendment.[1] Otherwise police would have to establish reasonable cause to pull a car over. Or at least that's what a shitload of case law looks like (they had a window obstruction or were driving 'erratically', for instance)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz)

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm shocked at the comments in this thread decrying DUI checkpoints. Does anyone _not_ see drunk driving as a serious threat to public safety?

<comment><USER12> We have lots of threats. We don't arbitrarily stop every single person to ferret them out. A free society demands some level of risk at the hands of other citizens.

Freedom of movement without harassment is important to me. More important than catching every drunk driver.

<comment><USER13> > We don't arbitrarily stop every single person to ferret them out.

This is NYC we're talking about. Stop-and-Frisk was a fun game the cops played for years.

<comment><USER14> It's interesting how effectively propaganda has convinced people that searching known felons for illegal weapons isn't a "common sense gun law."

Edit: Case in point.

<comment><USER12> Stop-and-frisk had little to do with felony status. It was your black-and- young-and-male status that would trigger a search.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > ... the group expresses concern that people who abduct children could use > the app to plot routes that avoid police checkpoints.

That's some spectacularly tenuous, desperate, ludicrous, over-reaching rationalising. Once I got to that point I wasn't sure if the whole thing wasn't a sophisticated trolling exercise.

</comment><comment><USER16> In SF, I drove by a big road sign that said "DUI checkpoint ahead".

It seemed like the SFPD was advertising it a few blocks in advance and it was easy enough to take another street to avoid it if you wanted to.

<comment><USER17> Where I'm from (Midwest), they'll set up the same checkpoint signs and then have an alt checkpoint waiting after the most likely exit point.

<comment><USER18> To optimize, they should probably have the checkpoint only on the alternate route.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The NYPD have no legal recourse to do so regardless of their demands so it shouldn't make any difference.

</comment><comment><USER20> It does make you wonder. Exactly how much should the government be able to inconvenience the large majority of law abiding citizens to catch the rare few?

This isn't just about checkpoints, but implies to privacy, encryption, etc.

</comment><comment><USER21> It would be smarter for NYPD cops to start posting fake DUI checkpoints on Waze all over the city. If any Waze users were thinking they could DUI safely, this will persuade them otherwise.

<comment><USER4> I imagine that even perfectly sober people are interested in skipping these checkpoints, and so a checkpoint on Waze, whether real or not, causes enough traffic diversion that fake checkpoints will just make traffic even more of a mess, which seems unlikely to be a politically popular decision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think the traditional attack on this sort of thing is to have a bunch of concerned citizens drive around and create false checkpoints. Or spoof the GPS and just do it from home.

</comment><comment><USER23> It would be disappointing if Google and Waze capitulated to this demand. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional and of questionable value.

<comment><USER24> The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints in Michigan Dept. of State v. Sitz [0][1].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz)

[1] [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/)

<comment><USER25> Setting aside the legality of the checkpoints themselves, the general public has a clear freedom of speech right to share information about the activities of law enforcement authorities. Barring some exceptional circumstances, there's no constitutional authority by which they can prohibit an individual or a company from disseminating this information, especially given its clear value to the public.

Whether the companies capitulate on their own accord or due to some behind the scenes strong arming is another matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maybe they could move the checkpoints into close proximity of drinking establishments.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've never seen a checkpoint in Manhattan. Where do they typically operate?

<comment><USER28> I've been through one right before the Holland tunnel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Makes me think that the NYPD doesn't have any direct connections to Google.</comment>


Youtube retires video responses - <AUTHOR> http://youtubecreator.blogspot.com/2013/08/so-long-video-responsesnext-up-better.html

<comment><USER2> The thing that bugs me about the way Google retires something is that they do this:

1) Retire a feature

2) Offer a half-arsed work-around

3) Wait an indeterminable period of time

4) Release a new feature that covers the original use-case

That's crap, as users are stuck at #2 for ages and some of them migrate away to use other tools that cover this use-case. All this method achieves is to annoy every user that used the feature (even if they seldom used it).

Surely it would be better to:

1) Release a new feature that covers the original use-case

2) Wait a declared period of time (short or long)

3) Retire a feature

Which means people can immediately start using the new way. And if the new feature fully covers the use-case of the old one, then #2 could be skipped altogether.

<comment><USER3> Listen, I agree with you on this with things like Google Reader.

But _4 in a million_ people clicked on the video responses. On a mathematical level, it just wasn't worth it. This isn't a big deal, I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up about it. It's an extremely marginal feature, not a flagship component being eliminated tomorrow without warning.

<comment><USER4> People aren't mathematical entities. On average, you're a fool, because most people are fools. But if I start out treating you that way, you're right to be upset.

In evaluating a feature, it's important to have a global view. But it's also important to have a local view. If you choose features at random, they're generally used by a small number of people, but they get made because they're important to somebody.

In this case, you can't think just about the people trying to view the video responses. You also have to think about the people who have been making them. Content creators are a vital part of the YouTube ecosystem, and getting non- creators to cross over and become creators is an important engine for content growth.

To somebody who has been using this feature, this is a fuck-you twice over. The first time is shutting down a feature they were using. The second time is the recognition that YouTube was having them do something that didn't work well, but that YouTube doesn't really care.

Can YouTube get away with offending a bunch of people? Sure. But treating people like they only matter when they are currently useful to you? That's for sociopaths and supervillians. When you're building things for people, it's important to treat them as people. They'll remember when you don't.

<comment><USER5> >People aren't mathematical entities. On average, you're a fool, because most people are fools. But if I start out treating you that way, you're right to be upset.

That's true, but the two cases can't really be compared. Groups of people are, very frequently, in nearly every discipline and line of work, treated as mathematical entities. It's how governments determine how to allocate resources and funding in social programs, and how advertizing and marketing work.

In a public company, one of the main goals is to make as much of a profit as possible. Reducing costs is paramount to keeping profits in the green, and when you're operating on the same scale as YouTube, even a tiny optimization like this can translate to huge savings in the long run.

<comment><USER4> I agree that people are treated as mathematical entities. And I even said that was fine if that's not all you do. The mathematician's solution to the problem of overpopulation is just to shoot people until you get below the required number.

You are also wrong about the main goals of a public company, and wrong again about how to get there. Those are central dogmas of the MBA worldview, but they're just dogmas.

A great example is cars. American car companies minimized costs and focused on profits. Toyota maximized user value and minimized waste in creating that value. Toyota has been kicking the asses of American car makers for decades. Even when Toyota teaches American car-makers their secrets, they can't adapt, because those and other items of dogma make it impossible to change: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/403/n...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/403/nummi)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder what the reverse click-through rate was.

When you watched a video that was a response to another video, YouTube showed "This is a video response to ______"

I personally used that a few times, unlike video responses which I don't remember ever using.

<comment><USER7> I had a small video on my channel a while ago which originally procured a few thousand hits but when someone made a much more popular video response (made popular due to virality through reddit/digg) my viewings for that video shot up due to, as you described, "reverse click-through".

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> At first I thought this meant video _comments_ had been retired. For a split second there I thought the world had been suddenly healed of a great evil and had great joy. Alas, it passed.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. Video is so bloody inefficient for anything other than how-to. Video is _lazy_ journalism for those unwilling to subject themselves to the rigors of concision or clarity demanded by the written word. When the video/text ratio of a site rises, I stop visiting.

<comment><USER10> _When the video /text ratio of a site rises_ __above zero __, _I stop visiting._

Fixed that for you.

<comment><USER11> DID YOU KNOW:

Hacker News has featured videos on its home page. A lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I stopped clicking on video responses when I realised that almost all of them were spam videos trying to get some views after the original video went viral.

<comment><USER13> Youtube Video Response spam was pretty nasty. It did attract some attention for unique spam detection algorithms for video responses as well [0,1].

[0] Fabricio Benevenuto, Tiago Rodrigues, Virgilio Almeida, Jussara Almeida, Chao Zhang, and Keith Ross. 2008. Identifying video spammers in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Adversarial information retrieval on the web (AIRWeb '08), Carlos Castillo, Kumar Chellapilla, and Dennis Fetterly (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 45-52. DOI=10.1145/1451983.1451996 [http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1451983.1451996](http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1451983.1451996)

[1] [http://www.iiitd.edu.in/~ashish/PST-2013.pdf](http://www.iiitd.edu.in/~ashish/PST-2013.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've only ever seen one useful thing done with video responses: a kind of pseudo-playlist, where the next video is a response to the previous one, making it easy to click from one to the next. With YouTube's new playlist interface, even that's no longer useful. (And with the ten-minute length limitations lifted, the need for multi-part videos has gone down significantly, so only long-running series need them anymore, and those can easily create playlists.)

Now if only they'd bring back the ability to subscribe to a playlist rather than a channel. I still have some playlist subscriptions, but you no longer have the option of following a playlist without seeing all the other videos from that channel.

</comment><comment><USER15> Video responses are often used by content creators that want people to submit content for mashups. Wonder how they'll do it now.

<comment><USER16> Ideally, an existing or a new competitor will fill the void. I really like YouTube and I realize there are viable alternatives, but web video often feels like more of a monoculture than it should be.

<comment><USER17> You can't effectively compete against YouTube for this particular space (which is why even though there are alternatives it still feels like a monoculture): the reason that website exists is because Google has a sufficient monopoly in search advertising that they can afford to dominate any other market they want by operating well below cost. Supposedly they finally got YouTube profitable (at which point you can just view YouTube as a legitimate investment), but this was after years of running the website at a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There are lots of guitar competitions hosted on YouTube. The way to enter this competition is by replying to the original video.

Maybe by using the title, description, etc. the competition creator can aggregate them and create a playlist but that's more work for them. Just browsing through the video responses is a much quicker way currently for both the competition creator and participant.

<comment><USER19> Perhaps a _hashtag_ would be in order? ;)

<comment><USER18> Sure. But what I don't understand about the spam video responses meme in this thread is that the video owner can currently choose to automatically accept video responses or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Theorem:

Features need to be trimmed now and then for a piece of software to survive in the long term - otherwise it evolves towards infinite complexity and feature bloat, and subsequently ossifies.

If you're one of the 1 in 100,000 youtube users that enjoyed this feature, you're upset that it got removed.

But for the greater good you should just accept you were unlucky.

The alternative is a system (and UI) that gets more and more complex over time to the detriment of everyone

Discuss.

</comment><comment><USER21> There can be features with VERY poor CTR overall that are still valuable for very specific and valuable segments of your population of users. I wonder how much they dug into this and explored the potential systemic impact? I assume they did... but I can't help but have some doubt.

</comment><comment><USER22> It is right and good to kill things nobody uses. Come on with the bellyaching, on this one. Google Reader this wasn't.

<comment><USER23> I used it

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A lot of vitriol in the comments of that post.

I wonder how many people will stop using Google products as a result of this design decision.

<comment><USER25> About two and a half, probably.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why are people upvoting this submission? What's interesting about the fact that YT removed some insignificant and unused feature?

<comment><USER27> I find it notable that something that seemed so prominent on a very popular website like youtube only had .0004% click-through rate.

<comment><USER28> I find it interesting that basically 100% of videos were from spammers (spare me the rounding error anecdote) so the CTR for video spam is "about" two orders of magnitude lower than the supposed (although highly gamed and faked) CTR for banner ads which are also by definition 100% unwanted spam.

So are there really two orders of mag of fraud in the bigger industry of banner ads, or despite popular belief is video two orders of mag less compelling than static banner ads or email spam... Something doesn't add up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> .0004% of the respondees or .0004% of visitors?

</comment><comment><USER30> NO! I'm afraid of change!

</comment><comment><USER3> Not surprising. There's really not much justification for getting worked up over this. They're not sunsetting a critical component of Youtube. This isn't a Google Reader...come on.

 _4 people in a million?_ You'd get rid of the feature too. That's what you _should do_ \- it might alienate four people, but honestly, your business has to pick and choose which customers to piss off. You really can't please everyone in the world with your decisions, and this frankly wasn't useful to Youtube from a mathematical perspective.

The math pretty much proves it - this was a smart decision. People will adapt and get over it. This is barely news.

<comment><USER4> Four clicks in a million is not 4 people in a million. Unless all of your users show up exactly once per month, click one thing, and leave. Which is probably not the YouTube model.

Further, who these people are matters. The number of active editors on Wikipedia is about 0.0004% of total users. But if you kill something even a small percentage of them use, god help you.

Most importantly, people aren't mathematical entities. You may _sometimes_ have to piss some customers off. But most of the time you don't have to piss anybody off. And that's a good choice, because unlike, say, your average integer, people have memories, and they talk with one another.

Product decisions aren't mathematical decisions; they're human decisions. Ones often helped by good math.</comment></comment>


Blockchain and Bitcoin Publicly Traded Stocks with Drastic Business Pivots - <AUTHOR> http://bitcointradinglaw.com/roundup-blockchain-bitcoin-publicly-traded-stocks-drastic-business-pivots/ <comment><USER2> I knew a startup that did something along these lines. Started out as a healthtech startup, decided to have an ETH-based ICO to raise funds, then paused and sat on their ETH reserves when the price went up while they "re- evaluated" their startup. Businesses have found that living off hype leads to easier riches than actually working on something.

It's like watching the South Park startup episode in real life.

<comment><USER3> I am starting to realize that this is more common than I thought. How are they doing now that some of the hype has died down?

<comment><USER2> They are still not sure what to do. I think it also messed with the team chemistry. Rather than 5 people working towards a common mission, it become 5 people thinking about cool projects they might like to spend their time on. The cohesion seems weaker, and I wonder how that will impact things when they have to come together on a product to deliver.</comment></comment></comment>


Sublime Text 2 Build 2091 - <AUTHOR> http://www.sublimetext.com/blog/articles/sublime-text-2-build-2091 <comment><USER2> The text rendering updates (it looks perfect and pixel-for-pixel the same as TextMate now) and the fullscreen mode in Lion make this an awesome upgrade for me. I can't believe how fast Jon kicks out his builds because they have huge new features every few days. It's literally a night-and-day development difference compared to TextMate and is one of many reasons why I made the switch to ST a few months ago.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sublime Text is awesome! Even though it's still in beta and missing lots of features, I still bought a license for it last week.

As a Mac user, text editors are a pain in the ass. When you're booted into OSX, you wish you had access to your Windows-only text editors. When you're booted into Windows, you wish you had access to your OSX-only text editors. Running Parallels just to edit text is over kill. ST solves this problem beautifully--on Linux as well!

The best part is that the license if PER USER instead of per machine, so you can install Sublime Text on all your different operating systems.

I also want to mention that the config files and plugins are written in Python. Yes, the config files are actually Python files. I haven't made a plugin yet, but the API looks great and simple to use.

<comment><USER4> As a VIM user I find that amusing, people that use editors other than Emacs and VIM are very disloyal to their editors, I've been using VIM for years, and I'm not switching to another one...

Just out of the curiosity, what editor do you use on Windows?

PRO Tip: Pick an open source editor, so it's always updated (ejem TextMate).

<comment> alexis-d Maybe that's because Vim and Emacs have a steep learning curve so it's hard to switch to another editor.

Or it may just be because they do all what we can want from an editor (and even more).

<comment><USER5> The learning curve of Vim and Emacs making it hard to swith TO another editor? Sorry, but that makes no sense. :-) Maybe Vim and Emacs do have qualities that other editors don't match?

<comment> alexis-d That's not what I meant. What I wanted to say is you put so much effort to master Vim/Emacs (as you want) so if you say "oh great a new editor i'll use it" all the efforts spent in learning Vim/Emacs are "lost".

I hope you get my point!

(and I agree that they have qualities that other editors don't match)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It'll take a lot to convince me to switch to a new text editor (coming from a perfectly-customized MacVim experience). Sublime Text 2 is the first that has even caught my attention, and each new build has given me more to love about it.

That said, it's going to take real vim bindings for me to actually switch. Of all the amazing features ST2 has been adding, none of them increase my productivity while programming more than vim's modes right now.

<comment><USER7> Do you open lots of buffers on a single vim session, or just start a vim from the terminal for the file you want to edit?

<comment><USER6> I start vim from the directory of the project that particular MacVim window will be working on. From there I use NerdTree and Command-T to open buffers/tabs in the same window.

<comment><USER8> I do this too. How do you manage switching between open buffers, or closing one without closing the others? I don't have a good solution for the first, and for the latter I find I have to close nerdtree for :bw to work as expected.

<comment><USER9> You realize that commandT also comes with a 'commandB' command that allows you to navigate open buffers?

<comment><USER8> hmm, just tried <cmd>B, :commandB, and :CommandB and none worked :/

I am using Janus, so maybe it overwrites this.

<https://github.com/carlhuda/janus>

<comment><USER10> I think the parent is mistaken.

I have been looking for the equivalent of CommandT for buffers for a while, and the closest I've found is this: <http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=1890>

Unfortunately it's fuzzy file matcher is nowhere near as useful as CommandT's, so you'll have to use them in conjunction.

<comment><USER9>
      :help CommandT

      ...
                                                       *:CommandTBuffer*
      |:CommandTBuffer|Brings up the Command-T buffer window.
      This works exactly like the standard file window,
      except that the selection is limited to files that
      you already have open in buffers.

and then later...

      MAPPINGS                             *command-t-mappings*

      By default Command-T comes with only two mappings:

        <Leader>t     bring up the Command-T file window
        <Leader>b     bring up the Command-T buffer window

Note that this is only available since 1.1b which was released in March.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's amazing the consistency of quality of experience between Mac and Windows.

The cross-platform license is also fantastic. There will be those days where you, for some reason, arrive on a Windows box and having Sublime Text around will make your day substantially less painful.

<comment><USER12> Add Linux to that, I couldn't be happier with it's quality.

<comment><USER13> This. Most of the time I am on linux but occasionally on windows and its great to have the editor on both

</comment></comment></comment><comment> St-Clock For an updated thread on vim bindings: [http://www.sublimetext.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=221...](http://www.sublimetext.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2217&start=0&hilit=vim)

Github code: <https://github.com/lunixbochs/sublimevim>

Will try it later today.

</comment><comment><USER14> You've done it. I'm ditching TextMate for Sublime. A couple things that are still bugging me, though:

-Syntax highlighting for Gemfile, Rakefile, etc (files without extensions).

-The selected file is only highlighted in the "Files" list, not in the directory view.

-Preferences are a little confusing - a better explanation in the comments of the various config files would fix this.

Now I'm going to go and buy it. Great work.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've been trying to use Sublime for a while now but really disliked the dark skin (even with theme changed). I just installed: <https://github.com/buymeasoda/soda-theme/> and am in love -- definitely going to be switching over.

<comment><USER16> Wow, this is nice! Even the dark theme is an improvement over the default.

<comment><USER17> The dark theme is nice. I quite often use Sublime in full screen mode, because I need a large font size to see the text, and use the blackboard theme to repvent eye strain. Having the bright sidebar on the left was always a distraction (while distraction free mode, of course, meant no sidebar).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A lot of people have been talking about switching from TM to BBEdit, but I found Sublime Text 2 to be much closer to a successor to TM than BBEdit.

<comment><USER19> I switched from BBedit to Textmate, then back to BBedit. And now switching to Sublime.

BBedit has been around for a long time. I remember when (besides TextEdit) it was the only decent editor on Mac.

<comment><USER20> Indeed. I'd say it's about twice as old as Mac OS X. The first version of OS X was released 10 years ago. BBedit about 20 years ago, at the end of the System 6 era.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Between the quality of this editor and the rate at which new (relevant) releases are coming out, I can no longer justify using Textmate.

</comment><comment><USER22> Some of the posts here make me think I should seriously consider making the jump from TextMate to Sublime Text 2.

Would anyone care to share some good reasons _not_ to make the jump that I should consider?

<comment><USER7> You already paid for Textmate.

<comment><USER23> Sunk cost fallacy. Sublime Text doesn't cost any more for people who have already paid for Textmate than for people who haven't. It doesn't have fewer features, or run slower, or crash more, or look worse, for people who have already paid for Textmate than for people who haven't.

The only thing that's different for people who've already paid for Textmate is that they already have Textmate. That might, indeed, make Sublime Text less valuable to them. But the person you're replying to already knows that, and is asking: What reasons might I have for not switching?.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is incredibly slick. TextMate made a big contribution to the concept of a modern editor, but, in the face of this, all it might soon have left is the brand name.

I do hope ST2 gets a better Mac icon for its final release. The big straight- on square doesn't look good; it needs a bit of perspective. Valve's Steam (which on the whole is very un-Mac-like) made this correction.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have been waiting for TM 2 for a long time. I think this is the real replacement.

</comment><comment><USER26> There are a lot of features / useful things that are actually in Sublime but just in a preference toggle where you have to look it up.

<http://sublimetext.info/docs/en/reference/settings.html>

An example would be "trim_trailing_white_space_on_save": true, (very useful)

Anybody else have any preferences that they use a lot that aren't obvious?

<comment><USER27> save on lost focus or something like that ... I tend to write some code, save the file then refresh my browser ... now I can just skip that intermediate step, because it saves the file for me as soon as I leave the window.

I also love the fact that I can click through files, without opening new tabs to see them.

Would really love it if the sidebar would highlight whatever file you're working on in the folders section as well as the files section

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> If I can ever get off of TextMate, it will NOT be to another closed source editor. TextMate is dying a slow painful death due to lack of attention from it's creator and owner. If it were an open source piece of software, the community would be adding new features and fixing bugs, not letting it stagnate while working on a ghost project.

</comment><comment><USER29> Does sublime text allow for a tree view of the directory you're working in? (similar to the way textmate does)

<comment><USER30> Yes. At least in Windows you can just drag a folder to the sidebar and it drops a tree view there.

<comment><USER29> I just downloaded the trial and it blew my mind all over the wall. I didn't think beautiful applications existed for windows.

<comment><USER3> The best part is that the user experience is consistent across all the platforms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I see that it's using Cairo Graphics (do strings on the executable), but there is no LICENSE file anywhere.

I'm also interrested in using commercial-wise, but not sure whether I can (it's using GPL or MPL 1.1 - and I'm not much familiar with MPL).

<comment><USER32> IANAL. MPL basically says "do what you want, but if you change any of the files we distribute, you must release the source to those changes under the MPL."

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a Window's user who uses Notepad++ why should I switch to Sublime Text?

<comment><USER27> Download and install it, and you'll be able to answer that for yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Why is the beta page still referring to 2076? I can't find a link to download 2091. <http://www.sublimetext.com/2>

<comment><USER34> I see it just got updated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Hadn't seen this before, looks pretty neat. The mini-map is a nice idea; just wish I didn't have to give up Vim to use it.

...figures, someone's already on the case.

<comment><USER11> The mini-map is the first thing I disable. Fun idea but distracting in practice IMHO.

<comment><USER36> That's what I thought too, but didn't disable it. Now I've found that it's great when you're searching within a file, because you can see the search matches highlight on the minimap. The same highlighting is also great when linting files (<https://github.com/Kronuz/SublimeLint>) to see where errors are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Does anyone have any idea what's the reason Sublime don't support for code folding by default?

<comment><USER38> Primary reason: It's in beta.

Code folding is on the roadmap ([http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/19281-syntax-code- fold...](http://sublimetext.userecho.com/topic/19281-syntax-code-folding/)). Personally I don't miss it. I think it's probably just not a high priority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love this editor! Once it can open files over gvfs or similar I will definitely buy it!

<comment><USER39> gvfs should be working fine (I've used it to edit via sftp in the past, at least).

If you're not having any luck with it, it's worth posting on the forums or emailing firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER13> I see.. i think it wasn't there a while ago.. or i really missed it. Great! I'll buy this great piece of software!</comment></comment></comment>


Scripted.com API: Interactive Documentation - <AUTHOR> http://blog.scripted.com/dev/interactive-documentation/

<comment><USER2> This is a nice take on the I/O Docs/API Explorer style (e.g. <http://developer.mashery.com/iodocs>). Those sample JSON responses could really stand to get some pretty printing though. Don't provide example responses if they're unreadable. The post even touches on this ("An API's documentation is its human interface") so it would nice to see them made more human-readable.

<comment><USER3> Yup, agree wholeheartedly! Will work on that shortly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> With the Scripted API, you can build a self-publishing website in < 50 lines of code. We're publishing to our own magazine sites using this API!

Basic flow:

Use a feed to parse and generate topics Push blog article jobs to Scripted Pull finished content from Scripted Post content to your CMS

We'll write another blog post about it in a couple of weeks.

</comment><comment><USER5> The Redis docs are similar, albeit not quite as fancy. The reference page for each command includes a few example requests and their results -- and it's connected to a running Redis server, so you can actually type commands into it. Check it out:

<http://redis.io/commands/sadd>

<comment><USER6> Woah - I've used those docs dozens of times and never realized that the demos were interactive. I just assumed they were static examples. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There should be a rule that if you have to write a wrapper for the API, then it's either poorly designed or poorly document, or both. Eg PayPal, Google, LinkedIn.

</comment><comment><USER7> Some of the most beautifully formatted API docs I've ever seen. It's really nice to have design care applied to developer pages.

<comment><USER8> i love the recent upgrade to git-scm <http://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm really excited to see what will be done with this.

</comment><comment><USER10> This looks very usable. Getting started tonight.

</comment><comment><USER11> This will be great for small businesses!

</comment><comment><USER12> Excellently scripted API doc.</comment>