The cult of the free must die - <AUTHOR> https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2020/08/the_cult_of_the.html <comment><USER2> The author suggests getting donations to (partially) finance Firefox. That would never work without changing the culture of Mozilla Corporation in a huge way: Currently, they take every chance to annoy their users, break their workflows, add new unnecessary but costly mistakes. They frivolously spend on side-projects nobody needs. People would be very quick to cease donating if they are being annoyed in such a way. The only reason people currently put up with Mozilla's behaviour is because they didn't pay for the product.

Having people pay, even voluntarily, and having even a small reliance on those payments would just kill Mozilla more quickly without a visible leadership change first.

<comment><USER3> > They frivolously spend on side-projects nobody needs.

I'm curious, what unneeded side-projects do they have?

<comment><USER4> The new crappy address bar that nobody asked for, pocket, hubs, three different mobile browsers, some useless award and probably more that I don't remember.

Also annoying is how they constantly kill useful features like RSS or bookmark descriptions.

I use Firefox because I still like it better than Chrome and I like to support free software, but it's obvious to me that Mozilla doesn't really care about their users and they're too busy chasing shiny things. I expect they'll keep losing market share until they become irrelevant and disappear.

<comment><USER5> Isn't pocket a sponsor of Mozilla? I always thought that was why it was there.

<comment><USER6> Pocket was a third party service when it became a default Firefox feature in 2015. Mozilla acquired it in 2017.[0] I could not find any data on what they paid.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_(service)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_\(service\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Small company gives away software for free.

A company employing ~1000 people, with $500m+ revenue, is not a small company. It's not even mid-sized. This is a large multinational, only seeming small when compared with FAANG.

<comment><USER8> revenue isn't a good measure of business size. a $500m revenue might translate to very low "profit". Most size measurements will use owned asset value (or market cap, which is a very rough guesstimate of the net present value of all future profit of the company) as a measure, as it is more directly comparable between different businesses.

Mozilla, is at best, a small-cap software company. Calling them mid-sized is probably not wrong either, but would be closer to being wrong than right imho.

<comment><USER9> There is a definition in certain stock market indexes of a "small cap company" that actually means "big company". Mozilla is one of those.

<comment><USER10> You don't businesses worth single digit millions listing, its small cap in the realm of public markets

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It boggles my mind that Mozilla didn't build an endownment with all the money they've received in the past 10-15 years (mid-billions!). They could've been a bit slimmer and slowly build an alternative revenue stream that would make them much more resilient to shocks like these and, long-term, independent of Google or other competitors' cooperation.

Looks like they spent like the money will be flowing forever.

<comment><USER8> Interesting you bring this up - why don't normal businesses also setup endowments like this?

How come i've only seen universities do this?

<comment><USER11> Because having "leftover cash" that is not immediately redistributed to shareholders is seen as a Bad Thing (tm).

Because in the end, when shit hits the fan like with the 'rona, the government will be conveniently pressurable to bail you out. Personally, I rather have government bailouts than mass bankruptcies - but bailouts should come with "strings attached" like, let's say, a requirement to always keep one year of expenses at a reserve to avoid the need for future bailouts.

<comment><USER8> > "leftover cash" that is not immediately redistributed to shareholders is > seen as a Bad Thing (tm)

sort of a short sighted view if that's really the case - since the cash being in the company's books, or in an endowment, is still value owned by the owner. The small penalty of it being illiquid shouldnt be a problem.

<comment><USER5> I guess, from a shareholder perspective, why would I want my investment to invest in other things/companies? Then they might as well pay out the money, so I could invest it myself.

<comment><USER12> One reason is that it makes the enterprise more resilient, and that is valuable in many industries.

Look at how quickly oil and gas companies implode when there is a price shock.

<comment><USER5> True, and I personally think it's a good idea.

The stockholders though would probably say that they can just supply the capital themselves, if the business is in trouble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I personally would like to distinguish between donations to the Firefox product and Mozilla as a company. I donated every month for a year, but eventually didn't feel that my contributions were making it to the actual devs making a difference. Or even balancing the books. I cannot explain why, but something feels off about Mozilla. I'm not being conspiratorial, but is Mozilla really one of the "good guys"?

<comment><USER13> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OarBwHc2JzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OarBwHc2JzY)

I feel like Mozilla does not understand the "old-internet" which it prostitutes to sell itself to users. Lawyers, Amazon extensions, this is how we are fighting Fake News!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Having all of your products that are absolutely free for everyone just promotes a culture of "gimmie dat opun sauce warez 4 free" cult and relying on donations for supporting 1,000 employees, doesn't make any sense for sustainability for them.

So what's the next step for Mozilla's mission for protecting your privacy? Re- new that contract with your #1 anti-privacy competitor [0] and continue selling free things.

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/08/13/mozilla...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/08/13/mozilla- extends-critical-firefox-search-deal-with-google/#7dc07d8b6ea2)

<comment><USER15> Maybe ask yourself first, if you need 1000 employees and a CEO with a salary of 2.5 million/year to build a browser. That's the way to think about this.

Oh, and I would happily pay/donate to Mozilla for Firefox and Thunderbird, but not for all the other "adventures" they went after. VPN service... As if there were not enough of those already...

<comment><USER16> Mission creep has been a fundamental Mozilla flaw for too long.

And are they a corporate, a charity, or a corporate non-profit? Charities very often pay substantially lower salaries, the tradeoff being you feel you contribute to a greater good. That's how I thought of them, but the wage bill doesn't match up.

<comment><USER17> They are a non-profit. Their main income had never been donations.

Plus, their main competitors are Google, Microsoft, and Apple. They do pay their executives a substantially lower salary.

<comment><USER18> > They do pay their executives a substantially lower salary.

How much does the team lead for Safari or Edge make? They're competing with a team in Google, Microsoft, and Apple, not with the company as a whole.

<comment><USER17> Neither is a fair comparison, those team leaders don't need to manage all the other aspects of a company like Mozilla does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude > Small company gives away software for free.

They have had years of ~$500M of revenue. I don't consider this small.

<comment><USER19> Small relative to their main competitors.

<comment> the-dude Is MS spending half a billion on their browser du jour? Apple?

<comment><USER20> But Mozilla isn't either. That's the trouble. They make plenty of money from Firefox but then don't spend it on Firefox, so Firefox market share declines, so they make less money from Firefox. Maybe they should try turning that wheel the opposite way.

<comment><USER19> From where I sit, it looks like there has been a lot of technical effort going into Firefox in the last few years - like 'Electrolyis' and 'Quantum'. 'Quantum' in particular has been translating the more experimental work (Rust & Servo) into improvements in Firefox.

So it seems more like they've been losing marketshare _despite_ investing in Firefox. Google has much more money to spend on development, and can potentially also make popular sites like Youtube or GMail work best in Chrome.

I use Firefox and I hope it will get more popular again. But I'm baffled how many people seem to think that if only Mozilla tried properly, the users would come flocking back. All the evidence suggests that most users go to Chrome no matter what they do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> No amount of requesting donations will ever support an organization the size of Mozilla. It's annual budget is _half a billion dollars_.

I also consider reverting to "nagware" a huge step back. Either you sell a product, monetize part of it, or offer it for free - giving it away "for free" while sneaking in a shower of requests for money is the worst possible outcome.

<comment><USER22> Imagine the amazing stuff they'd do if that half billion was focused squarely at improving and maintaining the Firefox browser.

<comment><USER23> What's there really to improve? I don't think the experience with Firefox is fundamentally different, nor could it be made fundamentally better. It's a browser. People don't care about browsers, they care about websites. Even if Firefox were to implement some fancy feature, websites aren't going to adopt it until Chrome has it too.

Sure, you could argue that Firefox doesn't track you like Chrome does. That's basically their whole marketing message. People who care about this already use Firefox, the rest just doesn't care.

<comment><USER24> > you could argue that Firefox doesn't track you like Chrome does

Yeah, it tracks you more: [https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11658588961766604...](https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/1165858896176660480)

<comment><USER22> Not at all. All of that can be disabled. The code is all yours.

<comment><USER24> > All of that can be disabled

If you mean in about:config 1: they change it and add hidden options all the time (you have to browse the code to find them) and 2: this is about the first run, all of that data will be sent before you have the chance to open about:config.

> The code is all yours.

So is the Chromium code.

Regardless, considering Mozilla's trademark policy it can't technically be disabled in firefox.

> Seeing as your original comment said Chrome ...

Firefox contains proprietary components too (such as EME) that you can't modify. The code is all yours in Chrome as much as it is for firefox.

I personally do not buy that argument, it is like saying that firefox has an integrated emacs in it because "the code is all yours".

<comment><USER22> > So is the Chromium code.

Seeing as your original comment said Chrome, that's what I'm contrasting it with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is there such a cult? I keep reading arguments like "nobody would pay for Google search, therefore they must track everyone and push ads", but I'd happily pay for search if it aligned their interests with mine ("high quality search results").

I'd also happily pay for a browser, but I'm not a big fan of "donate because it's the right thing to do", I prefer "pay because the product is worth it".

As far as I understand, donations to the Mozilla Foundation won't go into development anyway because of the way they're structured.

Don't ask for donations in the browser. Offer a product that people want and sell it to them. My personal approach: focus initially on developers. They're somewhat easy to understand (you have developers on the team), they have more money than the average user, their requirements and desires are clear and a little effort goes a long way, they already pay for tools that do some jobs that could be done in the browser (e.g. Fiddler).

</comment><comment><USER25> > Small company gives away software for free. Large companies give away the > same software for free, and to them the cost is essentially peanuts, and > they own the platforms the sofware runs on. Therefore small company will > lose, decreasing diversity in the browser market. Simple as that.

Alternatively: Small company sells software, large company gives away the same kind of software for free. Small company loses, again.

You're not going to fix market forces artificially. We pay what we pay because that's what someone's willing to offer it for. Also, not all value is in dollars.

<comment><USER26> Or more accurately - developers create software for free and license it as Open Source because of social pressure within the development community. Large corporations say thank you very much and use it to make vast quantities of money without contributing back financially to the people who actually do the work. Anyone who points out that this is grossly counter productive if you want to build a sustainable ecosystem that doesn't depend on the unpaid labour of volunteers gets shouted down by free software cheerleaders who condescendingly stress that they mean "free as in speech rather than free as in beer," despite all Open Source licenses literally demanding that Open Source software can be distributed for free (as in beer).

<comment><USER27> > and license it as Open Source because of social pressure within the > development community

I hope you are not implying that that is the main or even only reason to release free software.

> Anyone who [...]

IME people get shouted down for suggesting to "fix" free software by removing freedoms.

<comment><USER26> I'd actually say it's one of the primary motivations, but then I think that's the reason most people do most things. On the second point freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum and exercising ones freedoms almost always involves impinging on the freedoms of others. Therefore there is a constant negotiation going on that involves the balancing of freedoms of different individuals, not to mention the balancing of freedoms with other ethical goods that people value (like equality, happiness etc.) There is very little recognition in the fsf / open source world that adopting a maximalist approach to a specific set of freedoms - those that fit into the free software / open source ideology - necessarily impinges on other freedoms that many people also value - like the freedom to own and profit from one's labour without further enriching google et. al (Yes there are differences between the fsf and open source camps but they're largely of the peoples front of Judea / judean people's front variety.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> That's essentially my problem with the open source.

I was an open source apologist some time ago, but since I quit full-time job and started to freelance/working on my own personal projects I began to realize, that I as an independent developer can't actually profit from it. In fact, it takes a lot of my time to contribute to something and I get nothing in return.

From my perspective:

* Behind every popular open source project there is a company (typically big), which pays core team salary to maintain open source project. Community is typically do work for free. The bigger the project, the better for the company public image.

* Open source projects end up to be designed by committee, which inevitably turns projects to bloatware, which are hard to maintain and hard to use.

* Increase in technology turn-over. Projects become hyped and die faster that

* Competition is becoming more difficult. Why to try to make another deployment manager if there's Kubernetes?

* En-masse community memebers get nothing from contrubuting to projects while doing a lot of work for free. One may argue that in return they get polished product, but in reality that's far from true.

<comment><USER29> I don't think "open source" needs to apologize for anything. Making profit from it wasn't ever the goal for most projects. That you cannot derive profit from it may have to do with your business model.

You could offer support for the product you are offering or maybe you can just write proprietary software. To think that there is a problem with open source as a concept sound like a pretty alien conclusion to be honest.

Most open source projects don't have corporate backing obviously. The large ones that are heavily in use? Sure, because their developers use it too.

> Open source projects end up to be designed by committee [..]

I can agree on that point, but again, that is a minority of project that have become very successful.

> En-masse community memebers get nothing from contrubuting to project

That is the point of any free contribution. I know that can get exhausting and that there are ungrateful users that can ruin it for you, but I still don't see how open source is the problem and not your disposition to it.

I think the article overall is not convincing. Maybe our expectations are too high, but whose aren't in todays software world. Without open source it just isn't possible to let developers teach themselves as efficient as they can do now. That these costs are externalized by companies and that they might not give back enough is the nature of voluntary work. But it certainly not undercutting some imagined market.

<comment><USER26> The problem with open source is not that the source is available, that you can modify it to your own needs, or that you can contribute back, it is that anyone can redistribute your software for free, and that you can't discriminate between e.g. small businesses or personal use and Google in your license terms. This cuts off the possibility of actually supporting yourself financially as an open source developer in many cases and is an ideological commitment that mostly benefits large corporations at the expense of individual developers.

<comment><USER30> Then someone can dual license the code. Something like AGPL for general development and commercial licenses via request. This way the source is open at all times and companies that want to use it and modify it for commercial purposes can get a commercial license for that. In this case the biggest issue is copyright assignment. In order to dual license you require everyone who's contributed to agree. In large projects that's difficult. In a company, copyright can be handed over to the company, but anyone outside the company who contributes has to either sign over copyright or agree to letting their contributions be dual licensed.

The best option looks like a tight copyleft license combined with a contract for copyright assignment and revenue sharing for contributors and dual licensed for commercial use. The most difficult part of this would be gauging developer worth based on contributions, but that's something that happens in every company anyways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Mozilla needs a more focused leadership to survive, not a perpetual gofundme campaign. The current leadership focused on free lock-in features (Firefox Lockwise, Pocket integration etc). But that's how you play when you have deep pockets. Mozilla Corp. never had them.

If instead Mozilla Corp. had focused on cross-browser freemium/paid features, they could have been self-sustained by now. E.g. I would definitely pay for a Firefox Account that included:

\- Password manager with cross-browser cloud sync. They already have Lockwise. Only need to make it cross-browser.

\- Firefox send. Great convenience feature. Trivial to integrate to other browsers. Currently "unavailable while we work on product improvements." WTF?

\- Cross-browser bookmarks sync with improvements in core functionality. E.g. make tagging easy, support tag-based dynamic folders to the bookmarks bar. I wish they had brought the person behind Buku bookmarks manager aboard instead of buying Pocket.

<comment><USER32> > Firefox send. Great convenience feature. Trivial to integrate to other > browsers. Currently "unavailable while we work on product improvements." > WTF?

"In light of recent reports of Firefox Send being used to distribute malware we have decided to temporarily take the service offline to implement new features..." [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened- firefox-s...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-firefox-send)

What do you mean by "integrate to other browsers"? Firefox Send is a website.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > So allow me to make a modest proposal: build in a donations function in > Firefox itself — for instance by adding a simple "Please support us" message > to the update page you get to see whenever you update the browser, and by > adding a Donations item to the main menu.

Agreed. We need a way to directly fund Firefox development, and Mozilla is not currently providing this.

<comment><USER34> They need to be clear however that the money goes to the browser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> It is difficult to have a discussing about funding Firefox without knowing what kind of company or organization that Mozilla want to be. Do they want to be an advocacy non-profit like EFF and ACLU, getting their main revenue from donations (and then maybe pay their CEO similar to those organizations)? Do they want to be more like IBM, using the free open source products to promote and support the paid services and proprietary products (in which the CEO get paid according to market rates)? Or are they more like the Linux foundation, focusing around maintaining and developing a core open source project, funded and paid by corporate sponsors and donations.

</comment><comment><USER36> I tend to do all my work for free, and in open-source[0]. One big reason, is that I don't feel like I really want to watch other people destroy my work, like they did for thirty years.

Another reason, is that I am not particularly thrilled about having someone else calling the shots on my work. I do what I do for _love_ , not money or status. Once money comes into the picture, the fun drains out like a popped balloon.

I write my stuff as enterprise-class software. It may be the "tinkering" of an old codger, but it is nothing to sneeze at.

And I set the agenda. If you don't want to use my stuff; fine. No loss to me. It's great stuff, but tastes differ.

If, on the other hand, you _pay_ me to do work for you, then you get to call the shots. That's just the way of the world. It doesn't matter whether or not it's "fun." You are paying me for a service, and it is my fiduciary responsibility to deliver. I spent my entire career delivering software on schedule, and to spec. Like I said, I found it annoying that it wasn't treated so well, after delivery, but it was their property, and I had no say.

I just found out that a company that makes two great, free, open-source utilities I use all the time, has been sold; throwing their future into doubt. That sucks, but it is also not something that I really have a right to whine about.

I am not particularly thrilled with corporations making commercial products on the back of free, open-source projects; even really high-quality ones (I won't list any, because there are religious wars over them).

If it's free, then you get what you pay for.

[0] [https://riftvalleysoftware.com/open-source- projects](https://riftvalleysoftware.com/open-source-projects)

</comment><comment><USER37> Who is going to pay for Firefox if they fired the people pushing the tech forward (i.e. the servo team)?

If anybody is going to pay for a browser it must be better than its competition.

I would pay for better privacy, adblocking, higher speed, better dev tools and what not. But Firefox is not so much better than Chromium in any of these points to warrant payment.

<comment><USER38> They let the Servo team go?! Does that mean Gecko isn't going to see any significant new development?

<comment><USER39> Its not very clear at this point[0].

[0] [https://github.com/servo/servo/discussions/27575](https://github.com/servo/servo/discussions/27575)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Things I would pay Mozilla for:

\- Privacy and security-centic browser-based email (to replace Gmail). \- Basic browser-based apps to replace Google docs, sheets, etc. \- A legit no logs VPN \- A privacy-centric replacement for Google analytics \- A privacy focused comms tool - a la Zoom, Whatsapp or Messenger.

In short, an alternative to Apple without the commitment to their hardware.I understand that many of these exist on their own. I'm asking (read: begging) for a unified offering (again a la Apple), one vendor to pay, and so on.

The problem with Firefox and free is that they're trying to compete again an entity (i.e., Google) that has the same type of product as a loss leader. That's a suicide mission on Mozilla's part. Without a blue ocean (e.g., Apple) they will struggle - just like every other company that doesn't seek higher less competitive ground.

</comment><comment><USER41> Just putting this out there: The government should have grants for critical OSS infrastructure, like it does for medicine, scientific research, and even (though highly gutted now) art. It's only because the web got started after the Regan years that this isn't blindingly obvious to everyone. Why is FireFox getting its money from Google and not Uncle Sam?

If MDN closes, productivity for millions of web developers across the county will plummet. Why is this being left to charity?

<comment><USER42> > If MDN closes, productivity for millions of web developers across the county > will plummet.

If that should happen, I would consider it a gift from heaven ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I wonder if it is not so much "the cult of the free" as "the art of directionless misspending". Look at all the projects Mozilla got involved in that were not really related to the browser.

Also, from the list of jobs laid off there are some jobs that seem superfluous to the main core concept of browser development:

Diversity and Inclusion Lead, Office and Culture Project Manager, Director of Strategic Alliances and Platform Strategy - Mixed Reality, Global Event Maker, Senior University Recruiter, Senior Product Designer + Growth, Staff Business Strategist, Lead UX Designer for Brand, Senior Brand Designer, Head of Design, Senior Executive Assistant, Brand Designer.

I am not even sure what some of those jobs involve! Some even sound like invented jobs to me.

I mean, is a "brand designer" someone who actually draws graphics or is it just someone who thinks what the "brand" should involve? ie. The Web, a browser.

Education welcomed.

<comment><USER44> > Diversity and Inclusion Lead, Office and Culture Project Manager

Staff recruitment and retention roles.

> Director of Strategic Alliances and Platform Strategy - Mixed Reality

Easily mockable since it has "strategic" in it twice, but ultimately this role should either get money into FF or get FF into more platforms. Focus on mixed reality / AR seems questionable in retrospect.

> Global Event Maker

Did Mozilla have many events? I don't really remember hearing of any.

> Senior University Recruiter

Fairly obvious: recruit graduates from universities.

> Senior Product Designer + Growth

This actually sounds pretty core; _someone_ has to define the product, and I don't think you really want that left to the forums.

> Lead UX Designer for Brand, Senior Brand Designer, Head of Design, Brand > Designer

That may be one or two many designers, resulting in unnecessary UI churn.

> Senior Executive Assistant

Everywhere has one of these. PA to the boss. They tend to be surprisingly critical since they know what's going on even if they don't have formal responsibility.

<comment><USER45> > > Diversity and Inclusion Lead, Office and Culture Project Manager

> Staff recruitment and retention roles.

More like the exact opposite: annoy your staff with superficial stuff.

<comment><USER46> You don't think those are important?

<comment><USER47> Most people don't care about D&I. Neither for or against, just an annoyance.

<comment><USER48> Can you give more of a reason why "most" people don't care about it? Why would inclusion be an annoyance?

<comment><USER49> Because "diversity offenses" typically happens against minorities, which definitionally aren't most people. It's also a questionable use of funds in that the places that would hire one are probably less likely to need it. But treating everyone well and handling issues through HR as normal is no longer sufficient; a diversity and inclusion staff has become the requisite "Workers of the world, unite!" sign: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Hav...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Havel's_greengrocer)

Add to this that most people don't like being preached at not to be racist etc. when most already aren't.

<comment><USER48> Okay so I am a bit more confused now. You are comparing being told about diversity and inclusion in the workplace to communism?

> handling issues through HR as normal is no longer sufficient

I am almost certain most of these "diversity and inclusion staff" you speak of are part of HR, so yes, it is still normal.

I get it, you don't want to preached to about something you aren't, but isn't that life in general? Being told stuff daily that either doesn't apply to you, you already know, or would never do?

<comment><USER50> > I get it, you don't want to preached to about something you aren't, but > isn't that life in general? Being told stuff daily that either doesn't apply > to you, you already know, or would never do?

To me, that's not life, that's being micro-managed or treated like a child. I'd never want to work somewhere that treats employees like that.

<comment><USER48> Do you throw your hands in the air every time your lead reminds you of a due date you already knew? Do you skip "meetings that could have been emails"? I have yet to find a place that doesn't tell me something I already know or hold on my hand on some minor things. I just go about it, being upset over it isn't worth my time.

<comment><USER49> No, but were it a regular problem, I'd absolutely bring up that it's likely an annoyance and a productivity hit for most people and a good manager would try to help fix the issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The problem I have with non-free software isn't that it's free, but that the community and support are much, much worse than OSS alternatives.

Back in the site-backed-by-CMS days, I was always on the lookout for something better than Wordpress. Every time I thought I landed on a good alternative, I'd start to hunt down some esoteric needs that just didn't exist, and discussions with the staff who ran said solutions were usually fruitless. Meanwhile, the answer to literally any problem with Wordpress was just sitting there on Stack Overflow.

Today I've moved on to JAMstack, and while everything is massively superior from both a consumer and developer perspective, the headless CMS offerings — which seem like a natural fit for the OSS world — are mostly proprietary and very, very expensive. It feels just like trying Wordpress alternatives, where the support is uncommunicative and the community is nonexistent.

My clients can afford to pay for a good headless CMS, but I'm seriously considering using Wordpress API for "headless" because the paid options are a pain in the ass.

</comment><comment><USER52> Perhaps the problem is the reverse: The more things that aren't free, the more money people need. By expanding the amount of free things, that reduces the amount of money required to produce new free things. Put another way, if 'software is eating the world', then if it's free software the cost of goods and services should drop dramatically.

<comment><USER23> > Put another way, if 'software is eating the world', then if it's free > software the cost of goods and services should drop dramatically.

Software cost generally isn't a "dramatic" part of cost, wherever you look. Because of zero marginal cost, the price of widely-used software approaches zero naturally. Only highly specialized software commands high prices, those reflect the cost of developing or replacing it, as well as the value that it is providing.

<comment><USER52> Is that true? I can buy a blank laptop for £215 ([https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/notebooks/gemini- IV/](https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/notebooks/gemini-IV/)) and then install Debian for free. The same laptop with Microsoft Windows / Office costs £352. So I'd say that in this case at least, software is a dramatic part of the cost.

<comment><USER23> You were talking about the "cost of goods and services", by which I assumed you meant COGS as a factor of running a business.

Let's say you put a minimum wage worker to some task on that laptop. Over the amortization period (3 years) of that laptop, that extra cost of the Windows license amounts to maybe 0.1% of the cost of that worker, assuming they use nothing _but_ that laptop to perform the work.

Now, let's say that the worker needs to learn how to use Linux and it costs you, say, 20 hours in opportunity cost to get them up to speed. Linux is now _more expensive_ than Windows.

<comment><USER52> Okay, let's go with your figure of 0.1% of the cost of the worker. My point is that if society were to switch to Open Source software that 0.1% is compounded because all the other goods and services that a business has to buy become cheaper. This then means that they can lower their prices while still making the same profit. Which in turn lowers the cost of inputs to other businesses in a virtuous cycle.

So using your analysis of the single worker, which I agree with, it actually makes a very big difference when applied to _all_ workers.

To address your point about the training costs of moving from proprietary to Open Source, again this disappears if the move happens at scale. It disappears because every worker would have learnt Linux at their previous job (or at school / college etc.) and so in fact the cheapest thing becomes to use Linux.

What your argument demonstrates is the network effects of proprietary software, whereby if you're the first to use Open Source software it's a disadvantage, but if everyone used it, it would be an overall advantage to society.

The question then becomes, how do we get from here (often proprietary) to there (mostly Open Source)?

<comment><USER23> > So using your analysis of the single worker, which I agree with, it actually > makes a very big difference when applied to all workers.

It doesn't, because it's still just 0.1%. That may be billions upon billions of dollars in aggregate, but per unit sold, it's still just 0.1%.

So, if your question is "how much cheaper could goods become by switching all production to free software?", then answer would be 0.1%, if we assume that 0.1% is the average share of software licenses in COGS.

In practice, software licenses averaged over all industries might be 1% or higher. Again, that might be _trillions_ of dollars, but it's still just 1% per unit sold. Also, that money isn't evaporating, it's mostly going into the pockets of people who build that software.

Sure, there's a profit margin in software development, maybe 10% on average. So, if you eliminated that profit, you'd save 10% of 1%. You'd still have to pay for that development, even if it is free software. If you eliminate the profit motive, what governs development? Some form of bureaucracy. We already know bureaucracies are inefficient. So you would probably end up paying more to develop "free" software.

From an efficiency perspective, free software is strictly unnecessary, because the marginal cost of software is zero, the cost of developing it is a constant, and therefore its price naturally converges to zero as its development is amortized.

Let's say OpenSSL was proprietary and cost $1000. That would add $1000 to the cost of developing anything that uses it, until a cheaper competitor comes around. How expensive is it to implement SSL? Not that expensive. How many people use SSL? A lot! Do the math, make the business case, and you would probably find that you can turn a profit selling a competing implementation at only 10$. Why is this not happening? Well, because somebody already made OpenSSL free and it's "good enough".

It is a misunderstanding of market forces to assume the compounding effect of free software licenses would be greater than the compounding effect of _cheap_ software licenses that the market produces all by itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> People can and do pay for "free" web services like Firefox. They pay with their personal data. This is exchanged into regular currency via the advertising industry. Services that cannot or will not exploit this income stream will inevitably run into financial trouble.

Economically, spending personal data makes sense for a lot of people. Unlike money, you generate personal data continuously and effortlessly. You can spend it multiple times, many people spend it with little obvious downside, and the process is completely frictionless. Consider the effort involved with setting up, maintaining and eventually cancelling a subscription to a money-financed service, vs. a data-financed one, which you simply start and stop using at your leisure.

Some people do not like this situation. They object to the entire notion of personal data being used as a currency. They attempt to prevent it via advocacy and legislation. Advocacy does not seem to work, at least on its own. Many people, if you explain the situation to them in terms of privacy, will express a theoretical desire not to trade away their personal data. However, their behaviour is not consistent with this. Faced with a choice between using data-financed and money-financed services, the majority chooses the former.

Legislation attempts to resolve this dilemma, either by outlawing the use of personal data as a currency at all, or more often by making the spending of personal data more a onerous and explicit process, in the hope that a closer equivalence in terms of convenience combined with repeated reminders of people's stated preference to maintain their privacy will alter their behaviour.

Personally, I'm skeptical this type of legislation will succeed. Clicking a few checkboxes and cookie banners is still far more convenient than giving my credit card details to every single website or app I want to use. And most humans act in opposition to their stated ideals and desires in myriad ways, every single day.

</comment><comment><USER54> I recommend Michael Widenius's video[1] about "Doing business with Open Source" it goes trough different models, and explains the reasoning behind MySQL license model, although I'm aware how different is a browser from a database it might help to think about this problem from different angles.

In the case of Firefox, if I'm not mistaken they do only consumer focus products, maybe they could release something that companies are willing to pay for.

They could captilize on the good reputation while it lasts, and maybe employees that resonate with Mozilla history will promote their products to their bosses for free.

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

<comment><USER55> This makes a lot of sense. I would rather they either built amazing orthoganal SaaS products and charged me for them, or had some >$100k ACV enterprise plays.

On the former, it's of course a massive shift off of their current focus and they'd get a lot of kickback from the community, but you could imagine a world where they had a model like 37 Signals/Basecamp/Hey etc. On the latter, I don't know anything about the browser market in proper enterprise and if there are many opportunities for products there - you would presume there could be some value capture though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I hate to break it to you developers and tech people out there, but Firefox isn't used by consumers. It has become a niche web browser for you guys. I've been a developer for 20 years and briefly used it in 2009-2010. Then Chrome took over and I switched to what my customers use. I have zero reasons to use Firefox. I do feel bad about since it is dear to the community of developers I am part of. In the end though, and logically, I don't have any incentive to use Firefox.

Mozilla in my mind is a lab company with one product to monetize it: Firefox. At the end of the day though if you're product can't bring in enough money, you need to cut. Seems to be what's happening.

<comment><USER57> I think it is actually the other way around. We technically minded people are mostly the tastemakers on this kind of topics.

I know a lot of "normal" people using Firefox with privacy add-ons, mostly because someone knowledgeable told them to. I have often seen these people very receptive when I tell them why I deem Firefox a better Choice then Chrome.

I do however see no way to convince my coworkers to switch. And look at hacker news threads on this topic. It's always some variation of "I don't like google collecting everything I do but Mozilla did this one thing once so I can never ever use Firefox!"

So if we, the people who are supposed to be in the know don't recommend it, why would anyone who is not in the know want to use it?

<comment><USER58> > Mozilla did this one thing once

Nobody is saying this.

<comment><USER59> I think some on here did after the Mr. Robot fiasco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I would gladly pay for MDN access. Mozilla has done a wonderful work with that, it's a goto place for any kind of web related documentation (and I'm probably not the only one).

</comment><comment><USER61> I am SO waiting for Mozilla to give my ANY endpoint to throw my money at, and I bet I am not alone. Why cannot I have an Firefox mug? Or get that VPN running in Europe finally?

<comment><USER62> Pocket is useful and has some paid features: [https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/pocket/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I agree with the author that this expectation everyone has that things are actually free hurts everyone.

Some people say they'd pay for Firefox. Some say they'd support it, but nothing outside of the main browser. But are there really enough people to fund something as big as Mozilla?

Sure there might be some excesses (like I keep reading about the CEO's salary every other comment), but it seems few realize that the commercial ventures were created for a reason: to bring money in.

If Mozilla only ever worked on the browser, would they have survived up until now? I reckon no.

I do think they should create some sort of recurring donation system in a Patreon style (even without rewards, maybe with nice lists for the biggest donors) and test the waters. Are there really a lot of people willing to put money where their mouth is? I hope so, but my gut feeling also says no.

<comment><USER18> > But are there really enough people to fund something as big as Mozilla?

I believe so. My favorite example is JetBrains. They're making about half of what Mozilla is Making (if you include the other commercial competitors, it's much probably closer, and they're competing with Microsoft giving a free IDE away), people are happy to pay. JetBrains' products are significantly better than the free alternatives though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> There are some interesting behavioural economics experiments on "the power of free". Here is a decent overview: [https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/business/impact-free- con...](https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/business/impact-free-consumer- decision-making/)

In essence, people overvalue free goods. This means it is very hard for a paid product to compete against free goods, even when the paid product is itself cheap and better quality. This explains a lot about the state of the Internet, where a large number of eyeballs go to free products maintained by a large companies with other revenue streams or to low quality junk. It also makes me, unfortunately, doubtful that any efforts to directly monetize Firefox will be successful.

</comment><comment><USER65> Why don't others consider Firefox as worth funding?

The EU is spending 1e9€ over a decade to build a neuroinformatics platform.

It seems like having a major browser not beholden to corporate interests on another continent could be at least as beneficial as speculative science projects

(1000 employees at 50k€/yr puts Firefox in a similar price range)

<comment><USER66> Exactly.

Governments need to communicate with whomever they govern and in their language. It should be a strategic imperative to have a browser that isn't reporting back to Silicon Valley with every click and that can be the defacto in a given locale.

Browsers are expected to be for free. The work done on developing the things has been done. At least up to where they are now. There is no god given right for browser developers to be on a money train. We have standards and governments that give a damn about things like education should be making sure that they have a standards compliant browser for their citizens to use. None of this up to the free market malarkey as it doesn't work with a free product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I value time the further into my professional life I get. So for me, paying for good quality documentation, wether it comes in form of a website or a book, is a better bargain than me trying to read up on 10 blog posts and going down the rabbit hole of the source code.

</comment><comment><USER68> > This brings us to the core point I'd like to make: the culture of > volunteering in web development, and especially within the Mozilla segments > of our community. To my mind it's not only outdated and should be replaced, > it should never have been allowed to take root in the first place

Never 'been allowed'? By whom?

This 'cult of the free' is also historically how software development was done long before the web ever existed - the 'cult of not free' arising from the PC era is the one encroaching on open software, and it's attendant software profit incentive is largely what created the need to document for-profit browser incompatibilities which the author is complaining needs commercial support..

</comment><comment><USER69> It's not the cult of the free. It's the cult of the profit that must go.

</comment><comment><USER70> Regarding donations that the author mention, it is always tricky to balance between getting a stable revenue stream (monthly patronage) and simplicity for the user (one time payment so I don't have one more expense to keep track of).

As a user/consumer I found that setting a monthly sponsorship budget helps. I spend a part of it monthly when available (ex through Patreon), then sum up what is left by the end of the year and do one time donations (for projects that work that way, ex Wikipedia or Thunderbird).

I'm curious how others sponsor software or projects you care about?

</comment><comment><USER71> I think this comes down to the old socialism vs capitalism debate. Industries gain a lot at relying on 'free products' that are most of the time financed by states (think roads, infrastructure, etc...), but you can find counter examples where privately owned & sold products work better.

Concerning software, I agree the situation is a bit different as states are hardly strong players there. But I would disagree on the fact that the 'clut of free' is a sin. The whole industry gained a lot in terms of openness, sharing of best-practices and just innovation. Try finding how to build a washing-machine from scratch or just getting the PCB layout of your radio, it's a really painful process.

But I would agree that I'm worried too on the future of software, but I would rather push for more financing of open source (& free) projects - by states or NGOs - rather than pushing the whole industry to go sales first.

<comment><USER33> Why "states or NGO's" rather than nimble, grassroots campaigns via crowdfunding? The latter seems to be working quite well for a bunch of projects, while "institutional", politicized funding is a lot harder to come by and brings its own unwanted distortions.

<comment><USER71> You're right I think crowdfunding campaigns can be a really useful tool for such financing. Altought, I think recently, crowdfunding have a bit diverted from their original purpose to become marketing tools for some companies.

I think the ideal solution is hard to find, but I doubt we will come to something stable without a bit of regulation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Micropayments are proven to work but everyone seems to hates micropayments. Software is good when regularly updated but everyone hates on subscriptions, claiming to be OK with one time payment but that business model got almost wiped out because people actually don't like to pay one the (sustainable) one time fee too.

Pay with your data and liberties business model seems to be the darling of the masses.

Cult of free is actually just that and Mozilla is also part of it as it is making its revenue from Google.

<comment><USER73> Micropayments are used somewhere? Anywhere? And they work? Examples, please.

<comment><USER72> Pretty much all mobile games. For example, candy crush.

They made $1.5B of it reportedly. [https://www.eteknix.com/candy-crush-series- made-1-5b-2018-vi...](https://www.eteknix.com/candy-crush-series- made-1-5b-2018-via-microtransactions/)

I am not big fan of the series so I would not know what is the current situation(maybe now they also do annoying ads? I wouldn't know), but essentially if you want to play all day long you need to chip in, otherwise you wait for life refills. There are also pay-to-win options(consumable power ups) but you don't have to use it. It is a delight for the people who are into the genre, my mother plays the game since years and she is loving it.

What I liked was that, the deal is sipmle: We will give you a game that you like but if you want to play it a lot or be given an easy time you will have to pay. This is in contrast of all the ad-based software out there where the deal is "We made something that you want however we would like you to consider doing something else by clicking on our ads, we insist".

I myself play a lot of PUBG Mobile and it's also an excellent experience. It's free to play, ads's don't interrupt and I can play as much as I would like but If I like to customise my characters appearance, then I need to pay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> > Mozilla should take a small step in that direction by requesting donations > from inside Firefox — on an entirely voluntary basis.

That's a sure fire way to annoy users. Mozilla have tried various ways diversify their funding. Vocal users have reacted strongly against anything they perceive as "ads" in their browser, no matter how benign. And yes "please support us" will be seen as an ad/nag. Just as it was when they promoted Mozilla donations for a time.

</comment><comment><USER75> I use Firefox because it does things that Chrome won't like extensions on mobile and better (and riskier) extension capabilities overall. So many of their projects stink of indulgence and adventurism rather than anything that differentiates them from other browsers.

</comment><comment><USER76> So just explain to me why something like linux can be free, but a web browser can't.

<comment><USER74> Corporations spend a lot of money funding Linux. Not only providing resources but even assigning full time developers to work on the kernel.

<comment><USER77> Right, because the enhancements directly benefit the company donating the kernel code. A similar thing happens with compilers: Sony donate code to Clang/LLVM.

Couldn't that apply to web browsers too, though? If a company stands to benefit by some browser feature becoming widely available, perhaps it would make sense for them to do the work on the major browsers and donate the code. From their point of view, this might be better than waiting for the browser vendors (who may view it as a low priority) to do it.

I don't know of this ever happening, but I can't see a reason it never could.

<comment><USER74> The trouble is Firefox is, objectively, not a major browser. I think it's below 5% share at the moment. If companies were to contribute to a browser it'd be Chromium. But there's rarely a reason to do so as Google itself has more than enough resources to throw at Chrome whenever needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Mozilla needs to "rent" the browser, just like every other application or app on the market today. $5/mo, or $50/yr. They could continue to give away a version that, say, doesn't allow plugins or something.

<comment><USER77> Out of the question. Firefox is not Opera. It's Free* and Open Source software, and that's central to its appeal. You can't treat it as a paid-for proprietary software product.

* Hopefully this doesn't need to be said, but _Free_ in this context refers to software freedom, not to price.

<comment><USER78> That's utter bollocks. This has been central to the debate since it started in the 90's. You absolutely can charge for Free Software, and many people have done so. I collectively paid a lot of money for boxed releases of Red Hat and SuSE back in the day, to support development. The risk, of course, is that someone else will take the codebase, and produce a free-as-in-beer version (ala White Box Linux). I say: let them. I'm willing to pay for a supported, professional version, and I have a history of doing so.

<comment><USER77> I don't know of a single Free Software project that gets significant income from selling the software. Introducing the _option_ of paying for Firefox would change nothing, as people would continue to download Firefox without paying, and Firefox would continue to auto-update itself without charge.

People are already able to donate to Mozilla (although _not_ directly to Firefox), if that's what they want to do.

> I collectively paid a lot of money for boxed releases of Red Hat and SuSE > back in the day, to support development.

Right, exactly. It's essentially an optional donation, and sadly, few people choose to make optional donations.

> I'm willing to pay for a supported, professional version

Charging for premium support is a different idea.

I'm not opposed to paid Free Software support, in principle I think it's a great idea, but I doubt it would generate much revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> > So allow me to make a modest proposal: build in a donations function in > Firefox itself — for instance by adding a simple "Please support us" message > to the update page you get to see whenever you update the browser, and by > adding a Donations item to the main menu.

The core problem is the product itself. People haven't paid for web browsers in 25 years.

Rather than trying to fit the square peg of "ending free" into the round hole of browser software, a more sustaining change would be for Mozilla to develop a product that people _will_ pay for. One they have not been conditioned over the course of decades to get for free.

In other words, Mozilla needs a product (or service) built not for the masses but a small group of people who:

1\. have a problem that needs to be solved; and

2\. have money to spend

Whether or not Mozilla has the leadership or even culture to pull this off is another question.

</comment><comment><USER80> I remember when free access to the web and its technologies was something good. From having a free browser, free web server (as in Apache/Linux, not the hardware/connection) to being able to read the very HTML code that's used to send you that stuff.

Now it's paywalls, gated communities and Valley technologists crying about moochers from the steering wheels of their Teslas.

</comment><comment><USER81> Mozilla already asks for donations. And they get plenty of donations.

They have a spending problem. Spending money not on firefox or thunderbird, but spending way to much for public policy and other things.

</comment><comment><USER82> > _by requesting donations from inside Firefox..._

Donations are a bad idea. Companies can't make donations (usually). But they can buy software licenses.

They should sell something. Not sure what, though.

</comment><comment><USER83> When executives are making $500k/year, and there are millions in Google money floating around, it's hard to make the case for donations.

</comment><comment><USER84> Off topic but I really like how the top banner on this page draws your eye to the start of the text. Never seen that before!

</comment><comment><USER85> "Die" is a bit heavy, but the point has merit: stuff costs.

What would be great from Mozilla is a subscription model.

</comment><comment><USER86> Wait until OP learns that even asking for donations won't net them positive returns.

</comment><comment><USER87> The problem of the cult of the free is a microcosm of the larger global struggle against capitalism. Who will (or rather, can) build an open and secure browser?

Obviously, a corporation (like Google, MS, Apple, etc) can't be trusted because they have too many conflicting interests. The MS monopoly lawsuit was about browsers; how people connect to the internet is a big huge deal and there's a lot of money and power to be gained if you become top-dog in that space.

Just ask Google, whose dominance of the browser space with Chrome has massively shaped the way to web works today, making it much friendlier to invasive DRM, micropayment schemes, invasive advertising, and many other consumer exploiting features.

So you need an independent source for a browser, but browsers are big and very complicated and need strong security and on and on. It's neither easy nor cheap, but why would the average person want to pay for an independent browser when MS, Apple, and Google will all give you a great browser "for free?"

There is no real answer to this under our current economic model. Donations and fund-raising are patches on a broken system, usually requiring additional support from advertisers, corporate donations, influencing foundations, and so on. If the money isn't coming from consumers buying or donating, then it's coming from someone with money and a vested interest that their money is buying influence for.

The Internet was built on public money from university grants and military funding. But the internet was stolen from the public decades ago and sold to big capital. Until we fix that, Mozilla is just another in a long line of past and future downsizings as the corporate world continues to pillage and privatize the Internet.

</comment><comment><USER88> And then the footer says:

"If you like this page, why not donate a little bit of money to help me pay my bills and create more free content?"

To live like you teach would make the article a "pay-wall, didn't read" for me, seems we're in a catch 22?

</comment><comment><USER89> Isn't it a big blow to Rust that the servo team was fired?!?

<comment><USER90> 5 years ago it would have been worse because the community was smaller back then. But it's grown since and more companies have adopted Rust, contributing back by maintaining own open source projects.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Maybe get rid of capitalism instead?

</comment><comment><USER92> It's not "free" if you gain recognition

<comment><USER93> Years ago I worked for a company called Redgate. We bought a widely used free tool called .NET Reflector from its original author. The idea was that the recognition we received from owning and continuing to provide .NET Reflector for free would translate into additional sales of our other tools.

It didn't work.

For other related examples see the numerous social media stars/influencers who have moderate to large followings, but don't necessarily make that much money. The majority don't make enough to give up their day jobs.

Recognition often isn't worth that much. The real test of how much people value something is whether they'll pay for it.

<comment><USER94> A good example of how little recognition is worth, thought I'm slightly surprised I never heard about that purchase given I did hear about your flying sharks.

It's a shame the sponsored spaceflight never worked out; but I guess even though Virgin Galactic still isn't flying customers, that scheme brought more recognition than Reflector.

<comment><USER93> Indeed: it's frustrating that we were legally obligated to offer a cash alternative. It would have been cool to send someone into space regardless of any other benefits, real or imagined.

Anyway, I wasn't involved at all, so you have to understand that this is my personal viewpoint and not the view of the company but, again, the idea was that the recognition from that contest would translate into additional sales of our tools.

It didn't work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> Mozilla should abandon Firefox, fork Chromium, create the gold standard privacy-focused Chromium variant, and they should ask for donations. But they won't, and I think we'll have forgotten Firefox existed in about 10 years.

<comment><USER29> Gecko is completely fine, it is superior to V8 in many cases. There are already many products like this.</comment></comment>


Show HN: My IFComp entry that aims to be 'Skyrim rendered in text' - <AUTHOR> https://egamebook.com/vermin/v/ifcomp/ <comment><USER2> It's a cute little tool; though I guess I'm somewhat confused; is the "Show" here the egamebook site itself or is it your entry to the Interactive Fiction Competition?

Because while your story is fun and overall well done, the system it's running on is pretty interesting to me; I was desperately clicking around the top level of the site looking for the option to make one for myself and play around with the scripting, and only after searching for what IFComp stood for did I start to get that this is a one off-entry I guess?

If I am wrong, please correct me and point me to where I can play around with the system you've made, because it has nice flow to it.

<comment><USER3> Not OP, but the system is described at [0], and apparently hasn't been released yet. Code for this particular story appears to be available at [1], although:

> This code depends on package:egamebook which is not yet open source. Until > that happens, you won't be able to build this project unless you're part of > the development team (reach out to filiphracek@ if you're interested).

[0] [https://egamebook.com/](https://egamebook.com/)

[1] [https://github.com/filiph/edgehead](https://github.com/filiph/edgehead)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is correct. Both these things (the game and the system) are kind of big, at least in terms of time invested, but what I released yesterday was the game. Technically, it's also the system's first major release (there was another small game 2 years ago [0]).

If anyone wants to hack on this, I'm open to giving them access to the egamebook repo, somehow (I wish there was a github per-user privacy setting...). I just don't yet have the documentation and time to make a full open-source release — not at the quality I'd expect from a project like this.

[0]: [https://egamebook.com/lochness/](https://egamebook.com/lochness/)

<comment><USER2> I appreciate your response, as well as lambda_tango's.

Not sure if it matters, but consider this my interest in this project as a user. I unfortunately am next to useless when it comes to programming, but I could easily see this being wonderful as a platform or integrated into plenty of existing platforms as a plugin. It's a very slick presentation and works well for what it's meaning to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks fun. I really want keyboard controls though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Curious: what do you expect as keyboard controls. I've had this on my TODO list for ages and I have my own idea of what they should be, but I'd love to capture the expectations first, so that I don't break them.

<comment><USER4> Mainly I saw there were number next to each option. I therefore expected to be able to hit the same number on the keyboard to make that choice, but it wasn't working. I believe this is what they call a false affordance[1].

[1]:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance#False_affordances](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance#False_affordances)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _The system behind this game has been in the making for 7 years._

What are the parts of this system, and what were the blockers? The game is turgid, and the buttons are too big (the unchosen options should disappear on each decision point).

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry you found the game turgid. What exactly does that mean? Are you referring to the writing, the design, the illustrations, the mechanics? I'm mapping the scatter of opinions on the game and precise explanations help me.

You're asking about the parts of the system. The noteworthy are:

* a STRIPS planner for the NPCs in the game that has to deal with stochastic actions

* an NLG subsystem

* all the usual game OOP stuff that would work with the above (immutable objects with semantics)

* a layered storytelling framework

But if you're asking about the 7 years, it's mostly a lot of pivots. The layered storytelling framework was an idea that I had for a very different game last year, for example.

If I knew exactly what I'm building, it would take about 6 months of work, even with my limited free time. But that's not accounting for all the things I had to learn-by-doing along the way.

<comment><USER6> I disagree about the "bigness" of the buttons, thought the presentation was notably pleasant. Leaving the old choices was helpful, I scrolled back once or twice to check something and it makes the game feel like you're reading a novel, which is cool. Also, the prose was a little purpleish, which is _exactly_ what you want for a low fantasy Hawardesque fantasy novel (or game), so no complaints there. I think "turgid" is perhaps overstating it.

<comment><USER5> > _the prose was a little purpleish, which is exactly what you want for a low > fantasy Hawardesque fantasy novel (or game)_

No no no, you go big or you go home. You can't be a little bit _The Eye of Argon_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I hear that my mind tingles with dread about the needed time investment ;) How big/long is the game?

I love the presentation!

<comment><USER4> There is a walkthrough available.

[https://egamebook.com/vermin/v/ifcomp/ifcomp_submission/Insi...](https://egamebook.com/vermin/v/ifcomp/ifcomp_submission/Insignificant%20Little%20Vermin%20Walkthrough.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "I'll live," she says.

This has to be some kind of running gag :D</comment>


Stanford algorithm analyzes sentence sentiment - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-algorithm-analyzes-sentence-sentiment-advances-machine-learning

<comment><USER2> Neat, but is it safe to assume Google (and likely other agencies) have already done something similar to -- or a step or two beyond -- this?</comment>


MTN seeks to reduce $5.2B Nigerian fine - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34696777 <comment><USER2> On the one hand, $5.2B in 2 weeks is an unreasonable amount of money, and virtually everyone agrees that the value is only that high because of the kidnapping of the Finance Minister.

On the other, MTN's service has been _atrocious_ for the last two years or so (I've been a customer for about 15 years).

$5.2B is too much, but they really do deserve a massive fine.

<comment><USER3> > $5.2B is too much, but they really do deserve a massive fine.

Apparently it's just double the annual profits – as a private person, you can easily end up in prison for two years for facilitating the kidnapping of someone, I don't see why a company shouldn't "lose out" on two years for facilitating that kidnapping, let alone all the other issues mentioned in the article.

Of course, ideally executives and shareholders would be imprisoned, but one can only wish…

<comment><USER2> Toyota was fined $1.2b in 2014 for deliberately concealing safety defects - something that was linked to actual deaths. It was the biggest fine ever handed down to a car maker by US courts.

I don't see how $5.2b is justifiable in this case.

(This is of course besides the whole issue of whether or not people should be forced to divulge things like their phone numbers to government in the first place...)

<comment><USER3> The justice system in Nigeria (if it exists…) is not bound by US precedent. Further, deliberately concealing safety defects is usually at most (grossly) negligent manslaughter, not a active participation in an abduction. In this particular case, it was not even just one abduction but a whole series of criminal activities supported by MTN.

Imagine the uproar if Toyota had not concealed safety defects but was selling cars to ISIS operating somewhere in the United States despite an explicit ban to stop doing that.

(Naturally, but whether or not the law is just/fair/appropriate is irrelevant to the question of whether a violation of that law carries an acceptable fine, in particular when the comparison to natural persons is easily available.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> All manner of more recent developments after this article as well: 1] MTN share trading has been suspended on the JSE (Johannesburg Stock Exchange) 2] In an impressive about turn after threatening to leave South Africa a few weeks ago, they asked the SA government to help negotiate with the Nigerian authorities. 3] Any delay/reduction of the fine has so far been denied by Nigerian authorities.

To put the size of the fine into perspective: Nigerian nominal GDP estimate for 2015 (according to Wikipedia) is ~$564B.</comment>


How Can I Be as Great as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Richard Branson? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/How-can-I-be-as-great-as-Bill-Gates-Steve-Jobs-Elon-Musk-Richard-Branson/answer/Justine-Musk?srid=iAix&share=1# <comment><USER2> Determination, calculated risk-taking, a lot of hard work, a relentless pursuit of greatness, and luck. Read the bios of anyone on the Forbes billionaire list, or any top athlete, etc, and you'll see the same traits. For example, Michael Jordan didn't make the varsity basketball team, so he trained vigorously and became the star of the JV team to prove himself. Many others probably gave up. The Forbes list is full of stories of people working from poverty to billionaire status, and even losing everything and becoming billionaires again. It is the willingness to do whatever it takes to be the best when others give up that makes you great. Plus luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Early beginnings, taking risks with their reputation where others won't combined with unconventional thinking also has something to do with it: Paypal, Reddit and The Power Of Fakin' It - [http://platformed.info/seeding- youtube-megaupload-paypal-red...](http://platformed.info/seeding-youtube- megaupload-paypal-reddit/)

</comment><comment><USER4> At the risk of sounding overly trite: think different. But honestly even that is not enough.

The four titans listed here do not have as many similarities as an association might imply. However, they all do(did) share the ability to see the status quo and deem that things could be done better.

There are also many other qualities which are almost to impossible to quantify. If they were, there would be more names on this list given the billions of lives that have come before, during, and after them.

Thinking different is not enough. You have to become a force of nature in a situation where you can affect real change; and that isn't something that can be coached on a website.

</comment><comment><USER5> That's Elon Musk's wife in case no one noticed:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_Musk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_Musk)

<comment><USER6> (ex-wife)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Get a publicist.

</comment><comment><USER8> Be lucky.

</comment><comment><USER9> succumb to the greed.</comment>


GitHub reverses DMCA against oh-my-fish - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/611/files <comment><USER2> It's the first ever [1] DMCA reversal in GitHub's history! A precedent for future abuses and a very clear alert for GitHub start paying closer attention to DMCA Takedowns against open source projects.

        1: https://github.com/github/dmca/search?q=reversal&type=Issues</comment>


Ask HN: Feedback on a personal site for a coder. - <AUTHOR>

Hey all! I spent yesterday re-building my personal site and I would love to get some feedback on it. The goal of the website is to showcase my recent projects and to raise my profile online, hopefully with the end effect of bringing in more traffic to my open source projects and brining in more consulting work for the company I work for.<p>Any thoughts/suggestions welcomed. Thanks! http://thingsaaronmade.com/ <comment><USER2> To me the color scheme seems a bit ugly, but others seem to like the site so it might just be me. What I find ugly is the green on gray. Changing either the green or the gray would make the site look better in my opinion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you referring in particular to the light green links or the bright green headings? I definitely think there's room for tweaking..

<comment><USER2> Yes. I'm not a designer, but maybe you could try experimenting with blue headers/links and see how that looks?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's always worth a shot. Blue doesn't generally stand out against gray too well though. I appreciate the feedback! I'll play with some options.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link:

<http://thingsaaronmade.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the design and I give you kudos for trying out an unusual page layout (navigation bar being on the bottom rather than top). I think it works! Although I will say that it feels more like a designer's website than a programmer's; while design aesthetics are important to me as a programmer, it is generally the content or clever personal projects that give it the icing...

I'm one to speak though, my own website is rather boring! Good job on your site.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your kind words! I worked to make the site feel a bit more aesthetically pleasing because I wanted to demonstrate that I am perfectly comfortable doing UI design and that in a pinch I can do some graphic/web design.

As long as it doesn't give you the 'programmer wearing a suit' feeling that is... Thoughts welcome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool. I personally dislike it when freelancers don't _spell out_ what you're looking for: eg contract work, 6 month full time work, etc. And note your availability - today, this month, this quarter, etc.

And ideally a previous project that I can see online, and what the budget & time frame was.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good suggestions! It's worth noting that I'm not actually freelancing though. As it says on the 'About Me' page, any work I take on will be through the company I work for, Walden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The open source menu on the bottom has a project not mentioned up top, which is slightly odd, and it just links to the front page of GitHub, which is odd.

You should either mention it everywhere, or take it off that menu :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> The projects up top are just the most recent 4... The open source menu will eventually list everything I've created. I'm betting that you're referring to 'ruby-tmdb'. The repo is actually still private (probably until tomorrow afternoon) as the project is still in-progress, but I didn't want to have to edit the menu again tomorrow. Just laziness on my part...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looking at your source code in Firefox, you have a couple missing > in your code:

        <h3

and

        </body

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I actually comitted a change this morning that fixes the <body> tag, but I missed the other one. I'll run everything through a validator and clean things up. I was in a bit of a rush to get everything done yesterday!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice design. You might want to revert more conventional design if you are trying to sell your skills/services to companies.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I guess I'm not trying to talk directly to other companies, the use scenario that I'm hoping for is that other coders would see something useful on the site and then refer me to their company. The other company would then look at the WaldenDesign.com site (where I work)... Do you think that makes sense?

<comment><USER7> Okay. I misread it. My bad.

If its directed at developers its a great design then. Its cool. And we like cool stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> No no, all input is valued. Ideally I would like the website to be able to talk to programmers _and_ companies, with a focus on the programmers... I appreciate you thinking it's cool! :-p

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Love the new layout, but was disappointed when I couldn't comment; Is this on purpose, al3x.net style?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Julio! I actually am still up in the air about comments... In this case given that this is my personal site I'm not sure how much I want other people leaving their mark on it, if you know what I mean...

I'll have a think on it more though, maybe try out Disqus for a while...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As someone who might hire, there should be a "hire me" link. Which explains what consulting you do.

</comment><comment><USER10> It would be cool if top hat and icebox had demos

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point! I was actually planning on setting up github pages for them that would link directly the the code off the master branch. That's definitely something I will get to in the next few days.

Tophat is actually running the menus on the website right now as well...

<comment><USER11> Menu subheaders (such as "Rails Plugins" or "Ruby Gems") appear clickable (because of the hand cursor) but do nothing when clicked.

The signature on the about page is a nice touch. =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Your TopHat project looks very interesting

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It's actually something I have been using on client sites for almost 3 years in a simpler form. The company I work for specializes in SEO work, so it was important to have a menu solution that matched those goals.

I'll be working more on the project in the next few weeks, adding a test suite for it amongst other things.</comment></comment>


Google's wrong translation  - <AUTHOR>

When translated "India is my country" from English to Urdu http://translate.google.com/#es/ur/India%20is%20my%20country
and reversed the same
http://translate.google.com/#ur/en/%D9%BE%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%20%D9%85%D9%84%DA%A9%20%DB%81%DB%92
resulted in "Pakistan in my country".
Can some one explain why is that? <comment><USER2> You don't need the reverse translation, you can see it's Pakistan (پاکستان says "pakistan") directly in the Urdu. If you want to see how to translate India into Urdu correctly, choose Arabic and take the first word (الهند says "al-hind" or "the india"). The core google translation matrix is derived from the six official languages of the UN (English, French, Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic, Russian), since around 20 million parallel translations are available to the public for these six.

For languages like Urdu, they try to derive translations from other sources, but key among them is the corrections that users of the translation service make themselves. So, if say a student translates an English language article into Urdu, but chooses arbitrarily to edit the translation to replace India with Pakistan, then the engine will eventually adopt this translation, if it's seen enough times.

Note also that the Urdu translation says "ALPHA" in red letters above it? That's because they know it doesn't work, there likely isn't enough sample data to make a strong translation matrix.

Lastly, you might want to replace your huge URLs in your post with tiny ones (e.g. using tinyurl.com) so the page formatting isn't screwed up.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a serious mistake</comment>


Skype now carries the majority of international phone traffic - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/01/15/skypes-incredible-rise-in-one-image/

<comment><AUTHOR> Its hard to believe that internet phone calls are beginning to overtake regular phone networks (even if its just international calls.)

Times are changing...</comment>


Caesar Says hello world! - <AUTHOR> https://gradient55.blogspot.com/2019/06/caesar-says-hello-world_25.html <comment><AUTHOR> I read the blog post and to my surprise it talks about adding more characters to simple caesar cipher. Can we do it with emoji's? It is going to be fun to try out.</comment>


Dvorak7min: The free way to learn Dvorak in Linux - <AUTHOR> http://www.thepowerbase.com/2011/10/get-some-stickers-and-learn-dvorak-on-ubuntu/

<comment><USER2> I have experience with colemak, not with dvorak, but:

Don't do it for speed. I type exactly as fast in colemak as in qwerty, even after years of using colemak. (110 WPM). The limitation feels to me to be in my brain, not in the keyboard layout. Colemak _does_ feel much more comfortable than qwerty. Although I stopped using qwerty for a month while I initially learned colemak, I have been able to use qwerty or colemak interchangeably since. It takes no effort to switch 'modes'.

The biggest thing I hate about colemak is that it breaks vim keybindings. I actually use this script <http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2865> to have qwerty key mappings in vim while having colemak in insert mode

If you're interested in learning a new keyboard layout, I recommend checking out these links before you decide

<http://colemak.com/wiki/index.php?title=Easy_to_learn>

<http://colemak.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ergonomic>

Below is from the colemak FAQ on dvorak

[http://colemak.com/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ#What.27s_wrong_w...](http://colemak.com/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ#What.27s_wrong_with_the_Dvorak_layout.3F)

What's wrong with the Dvorak layout?

The main problem with Dvorak is that it's too difficult and frustrating to learn for existing QWERTY typists because it's so different from QWERTY. Colemak has been designed to be easy to learn.

Placing 'L' on the QWERTY 'P' position causes excessive strain on the right pinky. Colemak doesn't place frequent letters where the pinkies stretch.

'F' is on the QWERTY 'Y' position which is a difficult stretch on normal keyboards.

'I' is very frequent but isn't on the home position.

'R' is very frequent but isn't on the home row.

It is significantly lopsided so that the right hand does too much work.

It's not comfortable to use Ctrl-Z/X/C/V shortcuts with the left hand while holding the mouse with the right hand. Colemak conserves those shortcuts in their QWERTY positions.

Even though the design principles are sound, the implementation isn't optimal because it was designed without the aid of computers.

'L' and 'S' form a frequent same-finger digraph on the right pinky. Same- finger for the pinky is very rare in Colemak. In particular, Unix commands such as 'ls -l' are very uncomfortable to type.

Some punctuation (in particular the curly/square brackets) is less comfortable to type on Dvorak. This affects mainly programmers and advanced Unix users.

<comment><USER3> Longtime Dvorak user here. Some comments:

\- I almost always use my ring finger for 'L', including when typing 'ls', which is fairly comfortable. I only use pinky when coming from a letter that needs the ring finger.

\- 'F' is indeed in a terrible spot, I don't know what the Doctor was thinking with that one.

\- I use the setting on the Mac that leaves Cmd- shortcuts in QWERTY, so that's a non-issue.

\- I've never had a problem using Dvorak with Vim. In particular, I like how 'jk' and 'hl' are on different hands.

\- As for speed, I type much faster in Dvorak (~100 wpm) than I did in QWERTY (~60 wpm), but that may be because I learned it around the same time I started typing a lot more frequently, so take that for what it's worth.

Overall I agree that Dvorak isn't optimal but I wouldn't say the jump from Dvorak to Colemak is comparable to the one from QWERTY to Dvorak. Plus, I don't have nearly as much time/interest as I used to for learning a new layout. :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For those looking to learn a new keyboard layout, I would suggest that you take a look at Colemak before diving into Dvorak. It's easier to learn (more common keys with qwerty), doesn't break common keyboard shortcuts, and some would argue it's even more ergonomic than Dvorak.

[http://colemak.com/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ#What_is_Colemak....](http://colemak.com/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ#What_is_Colemak.3F)

</comment><comment><USER5> To anyone seeking to switch from QWERTY to some other layout: I highly recommend Colemak over Dvorak. Colemak is supposedly better optimized, and yet it's easier to switch to from QWERTY since many of the key mappings remain the same.

I switched ~2 years ago because while I could always type pretty fast (I think 80 WPM or so) on QWERTY, I could only do so while hunting and pecking. So typing was somewhat tiresome. Now, I type faster because Colemak is specifically designed for touch typing in mind. And I can still hunt and peck on other devices (i.e. friends' iPhones, or library computers), possibly because of my history of hunting and pecking with QWERTY, not to mention the similarities between Colemak and QWERTY.

Not sure if there's an app for it - I just switched my keyboard and that was that. Initially, I was pretty slow, but my speed quickly picked up. For more info, you should check out their website:

<http://colemak.com/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Anyone looking to learn a different keyboard layout to qwerty should look broader than dvorak.

Others have mentioned colemak, which is decent but QGMLWY layout[0] does better in testing[1], and with reduced pinky use.

0\. The carpalx layouts: QFMLWY is letter-optimised, QGMLWB is fully-optimised (moves the (semi)colon), and QGMLWY keeps ZXCV in place.

1 <http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?full_optimization>

E: autohotkey exe to try it w/o install: <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/49319255/AutoHotKey/QGMLWY.exe>

</comment><comment><USER7> Cheap and easy to use. Also does not obscure original key info. [http://www.amazon.com/Simplified-Keyboard-Lettering- Transpar...](http://www.amazon.com/Simplified-Keyboard-Lettering-Transparent- Background/dp/B0011FI3O8)

</comment><comment><USER8> I am a dvorak user because I never learned to touch type properly on qwerty, meaning, without looking.

I still believe that the layout is more efficient, in spite of studies which say otherwise, but I really don't care one way or the other. It works for me.

I am currently working on qwerty touch typing, without actually switching. I see no reason this should not be possible. I know people that can play mandolin, guitar (picking style), and banjo, and can successfully transition from one to the other as needed, and that is a similar skill.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm a Dvorak user. Learning Dvorak didn't help me type much faster. My qwerty was 100, my Dvorak 120. I definitely feel more comfortable typing throughout the day than before, though. I use VIM, and the location of the j,k,h,l keys on the Dvorak keyboard do not really hinder me at all.

I'll be happy to answer any questions about the transitioning process if you have any.

Dvorak is cool, but really, it's just a keyboard layout..nothing to get passionate over.

<comment><USER10> I got the urge to learn how to touch type in my mid-twenties. I didn't take typing classes in high school because I took programming classes for my tech credits, so I never learned.

I started off using Qwerty but found my hands cramping up. I fantasized about getting an ergonomic keyboard to make it easier but I thought it was strange to have to carry my keyboard between work and home (I didn't want to buy two, they're expensive) Looking at the Typematrix keyboards peeked my interest in Dvorak. I was already trying to learn Esperanto at the time, so what the hell, what's one more oddity to add to my list.

I did dvorak7min everyday for a week or two and completely switched. I've been touch typing using Dvorak for seven years now. I never had the hand cramping issues I had with Qwerty. I am sure if I tried hard, I could type fast but I enjoy how comfortable Dvorak is rather than the raw speed it would bring.

The only side effect of Dvorak was I ended up switching from Vim to EMACS because the hjkl movement keys are no longer on the home row.

Don't worry, I gave up that Esperanto thing. I figured that with the amount of effort I was exerting to learn Esperanto I could learn Spanish. I never did learn Spanish.

<comment><USER9> I was lucky enough to have parents who understood how important it would be for me to be comfortable with computers, despite the fact that they were not tech-savy at all. I was playing Mario Teaches Typing by age 5-6. I upgraded to the more (hilariously) violent "The Typing of the Dead" for my Dvorak endeavors, though ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I highly recommend learning dvorak. I've switched the keys on every MacBook since 2007 and the difference is huge (not just speed either, but mostly comfort/ease). It took about two weeks to bring myself up to the same speed as qwerty, and if you TOUCH type then switching back and forth is no problem at all. Bonus: I often find myself typing with one hand while taking notes or paging a book– with qwerty this was doable with some advanced pecking but in dvorak it just feels easy with either hand.

Caveat... it makes _other_ people look computer-illiterate when they try to use my computers... (so maybe not so good if you share a lot– or at least, switch your keys back once you've tackled the dvorak-touch)

</comment><comment><USER12> It's always interesting to see all the Colemak users recommend Colemak over Dvorak, without ever trying the latter.

</comment><comment><USER13> I learned to use Dvorak using this site: <http://learn.dvorak.nl/>.

Caveat: It took me about (painful) two months to be able to type normally, but I switched back to Qwerty because I couldn't use any other computer without looking like a computer-illiterate.</comment>


Famous people productivity methods - <AUTHOR> http://laphamsquarterly.org/visual/assets_c/2010/03/WorkingMethods-1227.php

<comment><USER2> I'm not famous, but I can tell you a few things about my productivity:

1\. When writing The Geek Atlas I worked consistently Monday to Friday from 0900 to 1200 and then 1300 to 1700. I used a spreadsheet to track my progress, predict completion time and motivate me.

2\. On a daily basis I grab a standard note card and write down five things that I want to achieve that day. That keeps me focussed on what's important.

3\. I travel by public transport and use that time for thinking, reading, and writing. Many of the articles I've written have been banged out on a Macbook Air on a London bus. Most of the content has been refined in my head in bed, walking down the street, in the shower etc.

4\. I keep my email inbox triaged ruthlessly. Currently there is a single email in my work inbox, and four in my personal one.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can boost your productivity even more by combining several of these methods. For example, you could shave half your head, take off all your clothes, and walk to work with a drink in one hand and a rotten apple in the other.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just a note to say the magazine, Lapham's Quarterly is amazing, it gives you essays and information from ancient Greece to modern america. It is my favourite subscription, really gives perspective on all sorts of issues that were as important 3000 years ago as they are today.

</comment><comment><USER5> That site is pretty cool, there are lots of similar charts and graphs on there.

Day jobs...

<http://laphamsquarterly.org/visual/charts-graphs/?page=71>

</comment><comment><USER6> Based on this sample set, plain weirdness correlates with productivity. Mozart seems to be the only one who followed a "normal routine".

<comment><USER7> > Based on this sample set

A sample set specifically chosen for the intersection of 'weird' and 'famous' (for productivity). Would anyone else but an eminence like Victor Hugo get written up for telling his valet to take away his clothes so he would write naked - or get written off as mad?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love this post! I'll probably make a hard copy and put it over my desk. Why? Not any particular reason, just for fun.

Thanks to OP for not saying something like, "Productivity Improvement Methods". These are just random things famous people did that worked for them, with or without any good reason.

I remember standing in the rooms where Victor Hugo (Paris) and Ernest Hemingway (Key West) did much of their work. I just took in the vibe, hoping it might improve my own work. Still not sure it did.</comment>