Gitlab 11.10 Released - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/04/22/gitlab-11-10-released/ <comment><USER2> Can't help but feel that their focus on moving all operation insights into gitlab itself will not be as successful as they want it to be (as far as I read, their goal was to replace their operations and monitoring tools with gitlab itself[1]). I've worked with the ultimate edition for a year and the kubernetes integration is nowhere close to the insight you would get from google, amazon or azure in terms of insight and integration with ops-land. I wish all these hours were spent on improving the developer lifecycle instead.

I can understand how their huge success of "built-in CI" quickly leads to "built-in XYZ", but competing with github that lets other companies solve developer/ci problems via marketplace (and now CI via their new terraform actions) may lead to loosing market-leader [my take on their product] position for a code/test/review/merge ecosystem.

[1]: [https://about.gitlab.com/2018/10/01/gitlab-product- vision/](https://about.gitlab.com/2018/10/01/gitlab-product-vision/)

<comment><USER3> Hi jbergstroem. GitLab PM here. thanks for the feedback. Our vision is indeed ambitious and we recognize that not all of our categories are yet "complete" (more on our category maturity here [https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/categories/maturit...](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/categories/maturity/)). While we are aiming to make GitLab a first class application for operators, we continue to focus on the developer lifecycle at the same time. You can see what each of our groups is focusing on upcoming releases here [https://about.gitlab.com/direction/configure/#upcoming- relea...](https://about.gitlab.com/direction/configure/#upcoming-releases). I'd love to learn what areas and level of insight you'd like to see in out application that would make you consider using it as your daily ops-land driver. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> GitLab has really come a long way in the past few years. The days of being a github-alike are long gone. Very happy to see them continue to find success.

<comment><USER5> Amen. Gitlab is to GitHub what AWS is to DigitalOcean. GitHub is great don't get me wrong, especially for open source general releases. But gitlab lets you actually build pipelines and fully integrate a bunch of services. They're the best CI/CD service around, honestly, and I think they've been playing to that strength. On top of that they have excellent project management, which makes them a lot more suitable than GitHub for company project's imo.

<comment><USER6> Sounds accurate (AWS vs DO), the Github UI/UX is just way better IMO, just like the DO one is better than AWS one.

<comment><USER5> I still have some issues with the Gitlab UX but they've improved it a _lot_ in the past couple of years. Especially knowing that there are way more features than a few years prior (and WAY more features than on Github), they manage really well IMO.

<comment><USER7> I dont like the way the breadcrumbs work (do people still use the term breadcrumb? I'm old) and I've got this one repo that is always on the 2nd page of the list. That's my gripes about gitlab. I reckon it's a great product.

<comment><USER8> Breadcrumbs refer to the link/hierarchy list thing near the tops of pages which goes something like "org name > project name > issues" and you can click on one of those to go back to that level. I think you might be thinking of a different feature.

<comment><USER7> no, that's what I was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In case somebody from Gitlab team is reading, a lot of people want to have runner priorities in gitlab - the feature seems to be trivial, yet can save a lot of time and money for the user for you can use less ondemand runners or give more work for more powerful runners

[https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/12715#note_11...](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/12715#note_118238957)

<comment><USER10> You caught me, I'll pass this along to our product team. Thanks for the feedback!

<comment><USER11> Love your product. It's the backbone of our distributed remote startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's amazing how good Gitlab is for a free product.

Interestingly, the fact that we need to host _some_ of our repos internally means we have an on-site install, but _because_ of that I much prefer to host our public / non-internal repos on gitlab.com rather than github, because I can use a single workflow / UI / system for all our projects. So steadily all my open source etc. is moving to gitlab.com because of this effect.

Thanks to the team at Gitlab who make all of this available for everyone to use!

<comment><USER10> No, thank _you_ for using GitLab! We appreciate you :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was a Gitlab fan, until I tried Gitea. I wish they'd start shrinking Gitlab image sizes quite a bit.

<comment><USER14> Saying Gitea is better because it's lighter weight is like saying a moped is better then an SUV because it's lighter weight. Gitea / Gogs is great for personal projects and small teams that don't need all the CI/devops/scrum/etc features that GitLab provides, but they're not really in the same ballpark.

GitLab is definitely resource hungry, but we self-host it for under $100/mo on AWS. This includes the cost of the CI infrastructure as well - EC2 instances being spawned by the multi-runner with docker+executor for each unique pipeline running.

Management of the server has been as easy as logging into the GitLab server periodically and running a yum update... It's never gone down.

<comment><USER15> Gitlab didn't have those extra features at early stages either (Gitea does have CI API BTW, if not a built-in CI). And Gitea doesn't have Gitlab's financial resources.

But the point being made is orthogonal to the feature set: Gitlab (mostly written in Ruby) isn't using hardware resources (memory, CPU cycles, parallelism) as efficiently as Gitea (written in Go) does.

This is well reflected to the _minimal_ system requirements, even when you aren't using any of those additional features: [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html) whereas you can in principle use Gitea even on a Raspberry Pi Zero for a small group.

For example, disregarding parallelism and wasted CPU cycles and just looking at memory usage: I have a running instance and its using 30MBs of RAM at the moment (~10 users, ~100 repos). If I move all the repos, issues, PRs to a Gitlab instance, I would be looking at GBs according to their minimal requirements. This is related to the mindset in which memory and CPU are considered as infinite resources.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> To me, the biggest feature is [https://about.gitlab.com/2019/04/22/gitlab-11-10-released/#s...](https://about.gitlab.com/2019/04/22/gitlab-11-10-released/#scoped- labels). I've seen so many repositories imitating custom fields with labels starting with the same prefix, having it enforced by is such a good thing.

<comment><USER17> The decisions to include features based on price tier has seemed to grow increasingly petty IMO. We are on the Bronze tier, and won't upgrade because of a feature like this specifically. But each time I see that we don't get new features like this, I lose a little bit of that love I've had in GitLab as a user for over 4 years now.

<comment><USER18> While using the free tier, I honestly can't validate a a $19/user/mo ($228/user/annum) expense based solely on a single feature, let alone why I should move to the paid version at all if more and more features start to be gated beyond multiple levels (a la Windows 7).

I love using Gitlab as a part of development cycle, managing issues and handling pull/merge requests but per seat licensing is a bit steep for a single user, even more so for a team.

The norm for pricing products and services is more and more "just for a pint/coffee/sandwich a month" but when everyone wants their share of the cash, the end result is a mismash of services and products that don't work together well (if at all) and you get stuck without a pint/coffee/sandwich for the whole month now.

<comment><USER19> You don't think you get enough value out of Gitlab to justify the seat price? Based on the fact it seems to power all (or majority) of your development process it seems like it would be worth it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A really simple way to improve the UI is to just add some margins on the right and left of the page. It's very off putting to have meaningful content butted up against the absolute edges. Not sure why this is, but I really hate interacting with gitlab because of it. Hope that helps.

<comment><USER21> thanks for the feedback - it always helps. There was some discussion around max widths of certain pages here: [https://gitlab.com/gitlab- org/design.gitlab.com/issues/47#no...](https://gitlab.com/gitlab- org/design.gitlab.com/issues/47#note_84593437)

We prefer 990px containers where possible, so if you're using gitlab on a browser smaller than that it'll usually butt up against the edges.

Couple of questions about your issue:

1\. Any pages this is particularly bad for? Some dense pages (e.g. Pipelines or side-by-side diffs) need all the width they can get

2\. what screen size do you normally use?

3\. In Settings > Preferences > Behaviour, are you using Fixed layout or Fluid? Fixed should give you left/right margins if your window is >1280px

4\. Do you collapse the left/right sidebars? I usually keep them both collapsed which helps reduce the crowding. But since they are expanded by default this is not an ideal solution

<comment><USER20> Let's look at the main page for a repo: [https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/fedichat](https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/fedichat)

The main middle section is fine, your eye doesn't have to travel far to read the code files and the readme because it's in your primary viewing area.

But you know what's not in your primary viewing area? All of the buttons that do important things. They're shoved off to the side. If you want to do anything other than read the code files, you need to be looking at the exact leftmost edge of your screen and away from the main content. It's a disjointed viewing experience.

But that's just about the navigation. Let's say that you find the Issues page and go there: [https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/fedichat/issues](https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/fedichat/issues)

Ok, now the main content AND the most important buttons (navigation) are shoved to opposite sides of the screen. There is no max width on the main content, so your eye has to travel a veritable mile to read all of the content for each issue.

Even looking at the content for a specific issue has the same problem: [https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/fedichat/issues/6](https://gitlab.com/pwoolcoc/fedichat/issues/6)

If I had to put my finger on the primary reason for this design, it's probably an over-focus on the idea that you should feature some "main content" for each page and kind of hide what you believe is "superfluous".

For example, "oh they clicked on an issue, so they really only care about the discussion that is taking place. Let's feature the discussion text but make all of the metadata shoved to the side and even collapsible." But the problem with this line of thinking is that the user _does_ care about more than just the "main content" of a page. The metadata, the navigation, it's all factored into a typical user experience. So when you are making the decision for the user about what they _should_ be looking at, you're forcing them to break your flow to do what they want. Now the user has to dart their eye from the far left to the far right just to see what they want.

I know I didn't answer your numbered questions directly, but I hope I'm conveying this correctly. I've never made a gitlab account, so I just use the default settings.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the detailed explanation!

Our navigation was redesigned about 2 years ago ([https://gitlab.com/gitlab- org/gitlab-ce/issues/32794](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/32794)), and we conducted a lot of research and user studies to ensure we were creating the best possible experience ([https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/34917](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/34917)). All the navigation items to get to different pages within a project are contained in the left sidebar, while the buttons on the main portion of the screen are directly related to the current page.

For the issues page, I agree; we should probably add a max-width to the list. I've opened an issue to try it out [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/61046](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/61046)

We're currently also in the process of rethinking the right sidebar. It's getting cluttered, and there are items in there that probably aren't as frequently used as others. I've opened an MR to test a new design idea- [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/merge_requests/27752](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/merge_requests/27752). We're also conducting research to find out which items are most frequently used/most important- [https://gitlab.com/gitlab- org/ux-research/issues/134](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/ux- research/issues/134) (the issue is private, but will be made public once the studies have been completed).

Hopefully this addressed at least some of your points. Please feel free to open some issues with any other ideas you have.

<comment><USER20> There's quite a lot of issues there! So I'll just leave one more comment with you for now.

When I look at a Merge Request ( [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/merge_requests/27776](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/merge_requests/27776) ), the primary thing I do is look straight at the code changes.

It took me an embarrassingly long amount of time to find where the code changes are in the UI. It seems like the actual content of the MR is the most important part and should be up at the top with the title and text description.

I think if I had to summarize my take on Gitlab UI, it would be claustrophobia (sidebars closing in on me) and information overload (what am I looking at or what _should_ I be looking at).

Thanks for taking the time in this interaction! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> When GitLab starts to fully support automatic Let's Encrypt certificate generation with GitLab Pages — just like GitHub, I would strongly consider moving.

AFAIK it's in the pipeline to be added, but seems to not be a #1 priority[1]. Please let me know otherwise.

[1] [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/28996#note_15...](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/28996#note_159251434)

<comment><USER24> Out of literally bajillion features GitLab provides from DevOps lifecycle to project management and everything in between, Lets Encrypt certificates is what will make you switch? Are you serious?

<comment><USER23> Why would I not be? I see it as a feature that I would like to exist. And yes, they to have many features, but atm. I don't use them to the extend that I must switch at this second.

For future school project, I do see myself using GitLab. As you yourself said, they have many good features. (After been forced to used Bitbucket for a school project, I'm happy to use anything else.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Overview of the three main improvements in this release:

1\. Pipelines on the Operations Dashboard The Operations Dashboard allows users to have an overview of project information throughout the entire GitLab instance. You add individual projects, one by one, so it's flexible to whichever specific projects are of interest. Also, the pipeline status information is added to the Operations Dashboard. This should help teams view the pipeline health of all the projects that they care about, together in a single interface. [1]

2\. Pipelines for Merged Results When working in a feature (source) branch, it's normal to have it diverge over time from the target branch if you aren't rebasing frequently. This can result in a situation where both the source and target branch's pipelines are green and there are no merge conflicts, but the combined output will result in a failed pipeline due to an incompatibility between the changes. By having your merge request pipeline automatically create a new ref that contains the combined merge result of the source and target branch, then running the pipeline against that ref, GitLab can better ensure that the combined result will be valid.Please note that if you are using merge request pipelines (in any capacity) and you use private GitLab runners that are version 11.8 or older, you will need to upgrade them to avoid running into the issue described in gitlab-ee#11122. Users of GitLab's shared Runner fleet are not impacted. [2]

3\. Suggest changes to multiple lines Collaborating on merge requests often involves spotting problems and suggesting a solution. In GitLab 11.6, we introduced support for suggesting a change to a single line. With 11.10, changes can now be suggested to multiple lines when leaving a comment on a merge request diff, and accepted with a single click, by any user with write permissions to the source branch. [3]

[1] - [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/operations_dashboard/](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/operations_dashboard/)

[2] - [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/merge_request_pipelines/#pipel...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/merge_request_pipelines/#pipelines- for-merged-results-premium)

[3] - [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/discussions/#multi-line- sugg...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/discussions/#multi-line-suggestions)

</comment><comment><USER26> One thing that always seems a but more complicated at gitlab is to get a full overview/dashboard of my companies projects/repos. Has anyone found a better way to deal with that?

<comment><USER10> One option would be to add your most important stuff to the Operations Dashboard, since the button for it is always shown up top. You can also set it as your home page (Settings - Preferences - Default dashboard)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> We already use it and it's getting better at every release. However there is few pain point that makes it hard to use for non-agile projects and planning. One is the ability to set the desired start date of an issue: [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/39862](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/39862)

<comment><USER10> Hi! Thanks for the feedback. I see that issue hasn't been commented on by us in a while, so I'll pass that on to our product team

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I like gitlab very much and i see that they improve there autodevops feature. That looks promising that i now can include single steps.

I'm playing around with autodevops and currently it sucks. I cloned there script and the helm chart otherwise it is not possible to just use it.

And quite frankly if you promote it as auto and enable it on default and it is not able to build a standard spring boot application or a angular frontend, i'm a little bit disappointed.

there is also a bug open for frontend builds: It is able to detect and build the anguluar project but is not able to execute karma tests because the image doesn't contain chromium. And for the backend there is another bug: autodevops builds the spring boot application and enables/enforces postgresql ssl but the image from gitlab for postgresql doesn't support it.

<comment><USER3> Hi @sigi45, GitLam PM here. Thanks, I'm glad you like GitLab and have noticed the improvements we've been working on for Auto DevOps. I'm sorry things didn't work out of the box for you, we've worked to cover many use cases but we recognize we don't yet cover them all. If the particular stage in question is not supported you have a couple of options: 1) you can disable the particular job in question with the use of environment variables (see [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/topics/autodevops/#environment- va...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/topics/autodevops/#environment-variables)) or you can use composable Auto DevOps to only pull in the parts that are relevant to your project and use a customized CI script that fits your application better. More info on composable Auto DevOps here [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/topics/autodevops/#using- componen...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/topics/autodevops/#using-components- of-auto-devops). Is your project public by chance? Would like to take a look and make sure we do what we can to support it. Thanks.

<comment><USER28> Hey,

nope its not public. But for example the ssl bug you can find here:

[https://forum.gitlab.com/t/auto-devops-postgres-database- ssl...](https://forum.gitlab.com/t/auto-devops-postgres-database-ssl- error/13987/4)

I personally have asumed that when you introduce autodevops, you would make sure that the top x default stacks are working fine. Spring Boot and Angular are very popular (i believe) but they don't work out of the box but not much is missing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> can we please get "Number of contributions in the last year"? one of the only things keeping me at github

[https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/47320](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/47320)

<comment><USER30> How come this is (such) a dealbreaker for you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> My only gripe with gitlab is that gitlab-runner config is mutated by the runner itself. This makes it extremely hard to deploy gitlab-runners reliably and reproducibly in a declarative fashion which is kind of ironic given their whole sales pitch is "ci/cd".

Apart from that it is great so far

</comment><comment><USER32> I want to like GitLab, but the (comparative) lack of integrations is a showstopper.

For instance in our Github, Code Climate runs against all pull requests and adds comments on files when it detects quality issues (as a bot user).

I get this is up to companies like Code Climate to build, but having done a bit of integration building myself, the platform and marketplace strategy at Github is just so much more mature and thought out. The GitLab marketplace/integrations capability feels very much like an afterthought (no bot users for one thing).

Would love to see GitLab focus on making a broader platform & marketplace play, and working with big ecosystem players to really enhance the GitLab offering.

<comment><USER33> Interesting feedback. Could you give a few more examples? For instance, if you could build your DevOps toolchain and add any 3rd party integrations to GitLab, what would they be?

<comment><USER32> DevOps toolchain you've got covered. Your pipelines are pretty neat.

One thing I really like about GitLab is seeing pipeline errors in the merge request. For instance, we have rspec bubble up failures and they're right there in the test summary on the merge request. GitLab shows us a check failed, but we have to click through to Circle CI to see what the actual failures were.

One thing GitHub does well is the idea of checks. The entire pipeline in GitLab is a binary pass or fail. To see which bits failed, you have to dig into the pipeline.

Would be great to see that (similar to test results) in the merge request, in a similar way that GitHub checks are displayed.

Our typical DevOps set up is Jira for issues, GitHub for source and peer reviews. The pull requests are set up to include a few things like Quality (usually Code Climate), CI (usually Circle CI, sometimes Buildkite), a security auditor, a dependency auditor etc. At the other end, we use a service like Codefresh or whatnot to handle deployment to our environments.

Obviously, GitLab does all this in one ALM, which makes it closer to Azure DevOps than GitHub for direct feature comparisons, so this is more about the source code peer review through merge/pull requests than other aspects of the ALM process.

In GitHub pull requests, when checks fail, we get immediate visibility right on the pull request screen which checks failed, rather than having to go into the pipeline to look at jobs.

From a DevOps perspective, GitLab far exceeds GitHub (obviously). From idea to code, to review to build and publish is great. The pipelines (as I said above) are good.

I'd just like more integration points in the merge request process for external services to augment the functionality provided out of the box, such as Code Climate, Hound, Dependabot, LGTM/GuardRails/Snyk etc. Whilst you can wire these up (kinda) yourself - you could just use rubocop instead of Hound - you don't get the deep merge request integration. When Hound finds a rubocop violation it adds a contextual comment on the pull request at the line of code that is offending. In GitLab with rubocop, you simply fail the pipeline and then trawl through log output.

As I said in reply to sytse above, I think that is the main difference between cultivating a thriving eco-system of integrations vs providing an API and instructions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wish they'd add history to snippets, like Github has for gists.

<comment><USER35> Thanks for posting. I wanted that to 3 years ago and made an issue [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/13426](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13426)

While I'm the CEO the product managers decide what to work on next since they are the DRI [https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people- operations/directly...](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people- operations/directly-responsible-individuals/)

We are looking into this [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/48215](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/48215)

<comment><USER36> Thanks for writing this explanation for how you use DRI. It's the first time I've read about it that went into detail how it supports collaboration and consensus. A few times in the past I've tried to explain and ran into problems with the criticism that DRI means authoritarianism. It didn't help that Jobs was a bigger user of the term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Any plans to join the Rank of Shopify / Github / BaseCamp running on near / close to Rails Master?

I believe Gitlab is still on Rails 5.

[1] [https://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2019/4/24/Rails-6-0-rc1-relea...](https://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2019/4/24/Rails-6-0-rc1-released/)

<comment><USER38> There is an ongoing effort to get us migrated to latest stable first. So we just upgrade from 5.0.x to 5.1.x [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/merge_requests/27480](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/merge_requests/27480) there are still lots of warnings and deprecations to fix. Rails 5.2 will come next and I believe when we get to the point to migrate to Rails 6 it will be stable already.

There is no plan to ship with unstable/master that I know of.

<comment> smcg-gitlab [https://blog-rails5-upgrade.about- src.gitlab.com/2019/04/10/...](https://blog-rails5-upgrade.about- src.gitlab.com/2019/04/10/upgrade-to-rails5/) is a WIP blog post about how we upgraded to Rails 5 which might be interesting, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Has anyone had any luck adding API tests to Gilab's CI/CD pipeline? For some reason I'm able to build Docker images and run them as containers with dind as part of a testing pipeline but I haven't had any luck getting the API test scripts to establish any connection with the containerized service.

<comment><USER40> This sounds like a Docker networking problem. I would think you need to have docker-compose and bring your microservice and all the dependencies up and then test against your microservice _in the same network_.

I've written some .gitlab-ci.yml files in the last months. What I do is using a script to validate against the Gitlab lint API. This is done every time I save the file.

I also run gitlab-runner on my local machine and test my jobs with `gitlab- runner exec docker`. Don't forget to commit what you need in the job. You don't need to commit the .gitlab-ci.yml, but everything else, because the first step to run the job is cloning the repo.

I have also updated the brew formulas for the last releases of gitlab-runner. Gitlab is great software and I've worked with it and administrated it for the last 5 years. I don't want to miss it.

<comment><USER41> I was also going to say it's likely a Docker network problem. Docker-in-docker runners work great for us and make it possible to do all kinds testing in the pipeline; for example Selenium, custom REST, OWASP ZAP, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> My GnuPG signatures are still unverified :( [0,1] [2]

[0] [https://gitlab.com/moviuro/moviuro- pkgbuilds/commit/e4918741...](https://gitlab.com/moviuro/moviuro- pkgbuilds/commit/e491874122450314a090e5902218148f48b7650c) # Broken

[1] [https://github.com/moviuro/moviuro- PKGBUILDs/commit/e4918741...](https://github.com/moviuro/moviuro- PKGBUILDs/commit/e491874122450314a090e5902218148f48b7650c) # OK

[2] [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/58747](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/58747)

<comment><USER43> You replied a month ago saying that you downgraded the version and the issue was resolved, is that still not working for you?

EDIT: Fixed spelling of replied

<comment><USER44> Hey ! It's me the reporter of this issue xD Dowgrading the version on my system was the solution, but, it can't be a definitive solution.

<comment><USER42> Yeah... downgrading anything goes pretty much against the nature of my current distro (Arch)

<comment><USER44> Same same, and downgrading gpg on arch it's not really easy, and pretty unsafe

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Anyone know how gitlab's CI/CD compares to buildkite's?

<comment><USER46> How do you like buildkite?

<comment><USER45> We like it so far. It's great to control our own runners and be able to size larger hosts. We came from CircleCI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Hey, congrats on the new release!

Not sure if this is the right place to shed some light on my issue, but my repo is in the process of being deleted for over a month now [0]

Basically I made some mistakes in that repo and didn't know how to rectify them, so I decided to delete it and then make it again. However the deletion process got stuck it seems.

[0] [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support- forum/issues/4413](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support-forum/issues/4413)

<comment><USER10> Hi! I've passed this on to our support team. Sorry for the inconvenience!

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Hey gitlab, this is just a personal preference but could you allow us to call "merge requests" "pull requests" instead?

<comment><USER10> Hmmm I'm not sure changing our whole naming system is feasible, but I mean, you can still call it whatever you want to I guess.

<comment><USER49> If I call it pull request it would be nice if the gitlab ui would have the same name. I see, you won't change, so maybe offer a config option for this name?

<comment><USER10> Unfortunately I don't see this being a priority for us, as it would be a fairly large-scale operation for not a lot of benefit. However, you can open an issue for it here if you want! [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Archive.org donations matched 3:1 until 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://archive.org/donate/? <comment><USER2> The Internet Archive is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, which means that if you're in the US and your employer offers matching for charitable gifts, you can leverage your donation even further.

For example, if your employer matches your gift 1:1, donating $100 turns into $800: (1+1) * (1+3) * $100 = $800.

<comment><USER3> And that's in pre-tax money, isn't it?

<comment><USER4> I don't really follow... For the donor, we deduct your giving from your taxable income, so by definition it must be pretax. For the donee, they are exempt from taxes so there is no concept of pretax.

 _shrugs_ did I miss something?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Done and done.

I may only be a poor college student, but the fact that my $10 just became $40 towards Archive.org compels me to donate.

<comment><USER6> Depending on the point of view, either your $10 became $40, or $30 from the anonymous donor just became $40.

I've learnt about the concept of donation matching only recently (it's not used all over the world yet). It doesn't seem very honest to me. And not only to me, e.g. [http://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let- don...](http://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let-donation- matching-affect-your-giving/)

<comment><USER7> It's completely honest in this case, because it's entirely forthright. You know the deal before you donate.

There's absolutely nothing inherent to the concept such that it's dishonest.

It exists to drive others to get involved. It's an excellent mechanism and works very well by getting attention and encouraging people that their contributions will be magnified. It's a deal: you give, I give. There's nothing dishonest about that.

Further, the donor in this case is matching an 'unlimited' sum. There's no artificial cut-off.

<comment><USER8> I think the correct word to express m_rcin's concerns should not be "dishonest", but "manipulative".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's the backstory on what was lost in the November fire: [http://blog.archive.org/2013/11/06/scanning-center-fire- plea...](http://blog.archive.org/2013/11/06/scanning-center-fire-please-help- rebuild/)

</comment><comment><USER10> I've received far more than $50 in value from archive.org. Total no-brainer, especially with the 3:1 match.

</comment><comment><USER11> Done: [https://blockchain.info/tx/953f52b1bf1e55e85c59e28e319093c0a...](https://blockchain.info/tx/953f52b1bf1e55e85c59e28e319093c0a9d613a94d566836bddc5fd0fa27da50)

<comment><USER12> This reminds me of this wonderful reddit bot: [http://www.reddit.com/user/bitcointip](http://www.reddit.com/user/bitcointip)

<comment><USER13> reddit could really start a nova business model like that. Think there are already many novelty accounts and bitofnews, youtube linker bots, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I used to think Project Gutenberg was one of the most important projects on the internet, then Wikipedia. But the amount of value I'm getting out of Archive.org increases every day. Some examples:

1) I'm a fan of old-time radio because it can be more entertaining than books on tape or the radio for long car or bus rides. Archive.org has an unbelievable collection, literally _months_ of well produced radio plays, including some great classic sci-fi like "X minus 1". [https://archive.org/details/XMinus1_A](https://archive.org/details/XMinus1_A)

[https://archive.org/details/oldtimeradio](https://archive.org/details/oldtimeradio)

2) On top of hosting a copy of all of Project Gutenberg (almost 40k books), they have numerous other libraries including an awesome collection of scanned Magazines. I'm into old computers and sci-fi, so their OMNI archive ([https://archive.org/details/omni-magazine](https://archive.org/details/omni- magazine)) and an unbelievable collection of old computer magazines ([https://archive.org/details/computermagazines](https://archive.org/details/computermagazines)) fit the bill. (There's also a pretty big library of classic computer books).

3) It's backed up with an extensive collection of old computer software. [https://archive.org/details/software](https://archive.org/details/software)

4) An awesome video archive with everything from archived old computer shows like the computer chronicles [https://archive.org/details/computerchronicles](https://archive.org/details/computerchronicles) to a few thousand old movies, many of which are still worth watching [https://archive.org/details/feature_films](https://archive.org/details/feature_films) including "Plan 9 from outer space" [https://archive.org/details/Plan9FromOuterSpace_811](https://archive.org/details/Plan9FromOuterSpace_811) and even the impressive (if incomplete) Chrontendo [https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22chrontendo...](https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22chrontendo%22)

Though I wish it was a bit better organized, browsing around archive.org, and hitting upon pockets full of awesome like the 5 above remind me of being a kid and going to the central library for the day and browsing the periodical and reference sections and coming across all sorts of great stuff. I haven't been this excited to use the internet in a long time and in many ways it seems like Archive.org fulfills much of the promise of the internet as a repository of all human knowledge.

Sorry if this sounds like a commercial, but it really is _that_ great of a resource.

<comment><USER15> With all due to respect to Internet Archive efforts, I would be a bit cynical here. I once downloaded Code rush documentry and the quality was so bad with heavy lost frames and flickering that it was impossible to watch it. At another instance, I downloaded mp3 of a classical piece, "william tell overture" and it was nothing like what I have heard it in its best.

I might be talking about only specific cases that happened with me but quality wise I didn't had much luck with it. Albeit, I do realize the project itself is huge and have been fan of the Internet Time Machine.

<comment><USER14> Quality is definitely all over the place, likely due to the volunteer nature of the effort. I've also found several copies of the same item, each of different qualities from time to time.

But the important part is that I found a copy at all. It literally didn't exist anywhere else on the internet.

 _edit_ Here's a pretty good video of "Code Rush"

[https://archive.org/details/CodeRush_616](https://archive.org/details/CodeRush_616)

and another not as good [https://archive.org/details/CodeRush](https://archive.org/details/CodeRush)

BTW, here's some copies of the Overture (the familiar fun bit is about 9minutes in)

[https://archive.org/details/WilliamTellOverture_894](https://archive.org/details/WilliamTellOverture_894) (an old 1910 recording)

[https://archive.org/details/RossiniWilliamTell- Overture](https://archive.org/details/RossiniWilliamTell-Overture) (a 1940s era)

[https://archive.org/details/ReinerWilliamTellOverture](https://archive.org/details/ReinerWilliamTellOverture) (a much better stereo modern recording)

Here's a piano octet arrangement of the piece in 2011 ([https://archive.org/details/Marioajero- WilliamTellOvertureBy...](https://archive.org/details/Marioajero- WilliamTellOvertureByRossini4Pianos16Hands309-3))

and tons more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Thank you whoever is providing the match, no brainier donation for me.

Anyone know why the library of congress doesn't combine forces?

Maybe the NSA could help restore/collect :)

</comment><comment><USER17> I am going to check in with my employer, and then make it happen. I have given them some money in the past, but I know they are in it for the long haul and are always a quick search away to help me find something long gone.

As far as I am concerned, they are great examples of what the ethos of the internet should be about.

</comment><comment><USER18> Donated and got my company to do a 2:1 match.

Anyone know how often they update the total? I didn't see it go up.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is this a charitable donation in Canada?

<comment><USER20> According to this article only if you make money in the US, and therefore fall under the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty ( [http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol3iss3/ig_2.htm](http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol3iss3/ig_2.htm) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hopefully they had fire insurance.

</comment><comment><USER22> Just donated!</comment>


Ask PG: Is there going to be a startup school 2012? - <AUTHOR>

If so when do the applications open? <comment><USER2> Yes; after we get done with Demo Day.

<comment><USER3> Can you live stream it this year?

<comment><USER4> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4366354></comment></comment></comment>


Mysterious government spy cameras collecting data at post offices - <AUTHOR> http://kdvr.com/2015/03/11/mysterious-spy-cameras-collecting-data-at-post-offices/ <comment><USER2> Advice from Bruce Schneier's latest book:

Notice Surveillance. This is the first step. Lots of surveillance is hidden, but not completely invisible. The cameras might be small, but you can still see most of them if you look. There are sites online that identify surveillance cameras. The more you know, the more you'll understand what's going on.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is the dumbest thing any news agency could ever do. What the camera was put there for was to gather evidence of people tampering or trying to steal mail.

Now if who ever was doing this saw the news they will stop and go un punished.

This happened at my local post office. Someone would drive up to the mail boxes with a vacuum cleaner and suck the mail out.

Eventually they caught the guy red handed with a cameras just like this.

Shame on the journalists for blowing this sting operation.

<comment><USER4> And here is one of the many problems with government surveillance: prior to the Snowden papers, I would be completely open-minded about the legitimacy of these actions.

But knowing what we know now about the scope of extra-judicial surveillance, I am incredibly grateful that the journalists blew the whistle.

The US government and all of its actors have lost the presumption of good faith, and it's a useful thing to possess.

<comment><USER5> Serious question: Why? All we really know is that the US is dragnetting as much data as they possibly can. Have there been any solid exposures as far as actual misuse of the data? Not just hypotheticals (as realistically scary as they are), but real abuses which have already occurred?

<comment><USER6> Last year someone was fired by GCHQ for wrongful access of data.

[http://stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/11850150.MPs_to_repor...](http://stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/11850150.MPs_to_report_on__snooping__laws/)

> In a long-awaited report on privacy and security, the Intelligence and > Security Committee (ISC) reveals MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have disciplined or in > some cases dismissed staff for inappropriately accessing personal > information obtained through bulk data collection.

<comment><USER5> Ah, very solid example. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It looks like it is pretty firmly positioned, enclosed and wired to be a temporary criminal investigation case. It looks like it is there to stay.

> "Employees of the Postal Inspection Service are sworn to uphold the United > States Constitution, including protecting the privacy of the American > public" phrase.

It is like the when I caught my kid sneaking a cookie, and asked them what are they doing, the reply was "I am not sneaking a cookie".

<comment><USER8>
      It looks like it is there to stay.

The reporter claims they were ripped out hours after he asked the USPS LE arm about them.

<comment><USER7> Right but it was only after the reporters starting asking questions. The solid enclosure looked like it could be there permanently.

<comment><USER9> That doesn't look like a solid enclosure to me at all. Sure it's somewhat tamper-proof and meant to look like some phone/electric company component, but it really doesn't look permanent to me at all.

I suspect it was an investigative agency like the FBI or DEA or even DHS doing surveillance for a somewhat specific reason. It could be drug trade, it could be domestic militants, it could be threats against the president

<comment><USER10> could be. what else could it be?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A smarter news reporter would have put their own camera hidden (outside of the PO property) to watch the camera and THEN ask about. Imagine the horror to the PO of the video on youtube :-)

</comment><comment><USER12> Most logical explanation: trying to find people mailing marijuana out of state.

<comment><USER13> Out of state license plate and visiting a post office in Colorado? I'd bet that whatever you mailed to your home address would have a great chance of being intercepted en route.

<comment><USER14> We can all create conspiracies here, but that wouldn't fly over the fourth admenment.

However the US post office uses an automatic scanner system to read packages. I cannot imagine the NSA, with its insane desire for meta data hasn't tapped into it yet.

<comment><USER15> They may have added the functionality by now, but when I worked on the system, it only encoded the destination address.

They don't take pictures of the mail for fun or for tracking, it's purely for sorting. You want all the mail in a letter carriers truck to go into the truck in the order it's going to be delivered in for efficiency.

So the system was in one of two modes, destination address coding or return address coding. Which mode it was in was determined by the mail processing plant itself.

Also, it only photographed letters that did not have a presorted barcode printed on them. If it already had a barcode it just got sorted immediately.

I'm not sure what there really is to tap into here.

<comment><USER16> What about this?

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail- mai...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html)

<comment><USER17> The stamp machines surreptitously took portraits of users in 2004, it's likely the self-service package kiosks do too.

[https://epic.org/privacy/postal/](https://epic.org/privacy/postal/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> They should have put another camera to see who comes for it. Watching the watchers ;). Or just casually put a recycle bin before it.

<comment><USER19> Unless it's a clever ruse, and the _real_ camera is somewhere else, to watch the watchers watching the watchers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Dumb question: why is this such a big deal? Is there something about a camera at a post office that is worse than e.g. the cameras my local police department has mounted on certain street corners?

<comment><USER21> Presumably it's to tie an individual to a piece of mail they sent. I assume people worry because its a way to bypass getting a warrant to directly open up mail.

<comment><USER22> So the problem is more about the subversion rather than the surveillance. I would agree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been to the post office twice this week to check a po box, and both times I didn't notice any security cameras in the lobby. I'm surprised there aren't any, and it'd be perfectly normal and natural to have them installed without people thinking anything suspicious. Most people would just assume they are there for security. To me that seems a lot better and less likely to arouse suspicion than some secret camera nonsense.

<comment><USER23> I agree, cameras are so commonplace that if they wanted to monitor people inside the post office, no one would blink an eye at a big fat camera pointing at the counter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I experience paranoia as a result of my Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder; at times the paranoia is quiet severe, requiring that I admit myself to a psychiatric inpatient unit.

The prevalence of security cameras and other surveillance devices makes my paranoia worse. I must take more medicine as a result, but even so my medicine is not completely effective.

It is difficult for me - it really is - just to exist in modern society without going crazy.

<comment><USER9> Sorry to hear that. I don't know if it really helps, but you might want to try an internalize that as much surveillance as exists, they aren't interested in regular people not involved in crimes they or their superiors and corporate masters deem major.

<comment><USER25> I.e. if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

But even people who have nothing to hide have a lot to worry about, because merely coming to the attention of the government can be disastrous.

Say you're caught on camera at the post office or the corner gas station. There's an ongoing investigation, and the government observed that the subject of the investigation passed that camera yesterday. They decide to capture all other passers by within N hours of that event. You fall within that window.

The investigators do this with every other camera available to them.

Since you and the subject are going about your business at one location, there's a fair chance that you both have gone about your business in other nearby locations. Say you pass that filter.

There's a fair chance that you both were at some location at the same time, maybe even within eye sight of each other. Now you're a person of interest, and your name appears in the investigation.

Now remember that any law enforcement agency is fundamentally a bureaucracy. Almost no one actually knows how to manage; some are accidentally good managers, but most have been "Peter principled" up into management. Since we're enlightened enough to know by now that almost no one knows how to manage, we've tried to bring some fairness into the employee evaluation process, by using metrics.

"That which gets measured gets done." Any rational employee is going to pay attention to what he gets evaluated on. Number of tickets written. Number of suspects questioned. Number of arrests. Number of convictions resulting from arrests.

The investigation is going slowly. The investigator hasn't been out of the office for a week. His boss has been glaring at him lately. The investigator picks you to get himself out of the office. He visits you at work because you both work days and it's more intimidating to a subject to be embarrassed and nervous in view of co-workers. You've just suffered a minor injury to your reputation.

Surveillance shows that you both visit some location often, and often at the same time. Church. Store. Post Office. Or maybe you have an acquaintance in common, even if you don't know each other.

"We'd like you to wear a wire and contact the subject." Nah, I don't want to do that.

"It looks bad for you that you come into contact with this subject often. I'd hate for you to be investigated yourself." No really, this is not my thing.

"Remember that thing you thought was innocent and legal? It actually wasn't, and we're prepared to offer you a plea deal." Um ... OK

Totally made up but plausible scenario, and probably played out with different details daily. But at least the investigator is still in the running for an upgrade to his GS rating.

<comment><USER26> And the corruption; police who search your house randomly to find ot you use drugs which were placed there by police to fill their quotas, or your car. Or judges who were working with private jails. Or police officer who shoots you because you get out of your car. Or you were killed by police becouse your neigberhoods thought that you were Muslims making bomb, in fact you were watching Conan lights closed. Or you know that you are innocent but the hearing is once per 3 months and that makes your life suck. You are that taxi driver, you carry that killer, well fuck you, will question evry detail for 12 hours and we'll make you talk about him...

<comment><USER25> Yes, all that. Corruption is everywhere. It's one thing to be a victim of a corrupt gas station clerk, and quite another to be a victim of a corrupt law enforcement officer who is literally given benefit of the doubt in legal procedings. Or as the cops say, you may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> God damn it.

I am SICK and TIRED of governments behaving badly, and even more so that we can't stop it. It pisses me off.</comment>


Robin Milner obituary, from a computer science colleague - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/robin-milner-pioneering-computer-scientist-1943933.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I doubt this will receive much attention since it is now a few weeks since his death, but someone commented on how a fragment of the first obituary posted would have been much better served by a fellow computer scientist.

This is that tribute, and it beautifully captures both the breadth and impact of his work, and his character.</comment>


Twitter Finds Itself Between A Facebook And A Google - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/09/twitter-finds-itself-between-a-facebook-and-a-google/ <comment><USER2> That's a hell of a catchy title.

How about "Twitter Finds Itself Between A Facebook And A Google, Deserves A Microsoft Fate But Will Finally Become Stronger Like Apple Did Or Face A Buyout Like Palm Has Been"?

</comment><comment><USER3> It'd be neat if Google bought Twitter, but I have a reason they'd put a kibosh on Buzz if that happened... Like Google Video after they bought YouTube. =(

I mean I like and use Twitter, it's just that Buzz is a lot better.

<comment><USER4> What do you miss about Google Video that is not available on YouTube?

<comment><USER5> YouTube had a 10 minute time limit (now raised to 15) for videos.

Google Video was great for watching long-form documentaries and the like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> andrewl-hn-ncp Can Microsoft be a good buyer? E.g. getting Twitter data as an exclusive for realtime search on Bing might be a way to get ahead of Google. I'm not sure whether it worths the price though.

</comment><comment> wh-uws Facebook no longer needs Twitter (although I remember the stories of Zuck being enamored of it and seeking to buy it a few years ago) and Twitter would never sell to Google for the same reason Evan Williams and co left in the first place.

 _They don't get social._

First they missed it entirely... (wait that isn't true I almost forgot about Orkut) Flat out year over year Google proves they just can't do it right and don't get it.

<comment><USER6> The didn't miss it (as you have pointed out). The just did Orkut really bad - and wasted the opportunity and the first-mover advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Twitter is worth more than $50 billion.

<comment><USER8> pg2?</comment></comment>


Interesting CSS3 clock - <AUTHOR> http://scott-christopherson.com/entry/3/ <comment><USER2> Should be we worried what happens after year 2019?</comment>


Fifteen Minutes of Unwanted Fame: Detecting and Characterizing Doxing [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.uic.edu/~psnyder/static/papers/fifteen-minutes.pdf <comment><USER2> > We find that doxing victims in our data set are overwhelmingly male, have an > average age in their 20s, and a significant number are part of gamer > communities (or maintain accounts with multiple video-game related > websites). We also find that most doxes include highly identifying > information of the victim and family members, such as full legal names, > phone numbers and online social networking accounts.

I hope someone uses this research as a starting point for an investigation of _why_ gamers are so heavily doxed. Might help us predict and prevent more doxing in the future.

<comment><USER3> Gamers are particularly bad about it, but I think it can apply to anybody who spends an inordinate amount of time attached to a computer or phone.

My theory is that they spend so much time playing games or screwing around, performing repetitive activities that have no consequence, that other activities they perform via virtual means just become an extension of their gaming mindset.

I think the same goes for Dread Pirate Roberts, the guy who wrote Mirai, perpetrators of cyberbullying and others-- they spend so much time wrapped up in a digital world where they get to play God with no consequence that the real-world implications of their digital lives start to become blurred.

* You can tell your parents you love them with the push of a button.

* You can have food brought to you with the push of a button.

* You can take a picture of your cat doing something stupid with the push of a button.

* You can send it to millions of people with the push of a button.

* You can buy clothes, household supplies or a car with the push of a button.

* You can conduct business with the push of a button.

* You can build and explore virtual worlds with the push of a button.

* You can create virtual life with the push of a button.

* You can destroy virtual life with the push of a button.

* You can tell someone they're ugly with the push of a button.

* You can distribute naked pictures of someone who trusted you with the push of a button.

* You can buy something expensive and make someone else pay for it with the push of a button.

* You can cripple the internet with the push of a button.

* You can put out a hit on someone with the push of a button.

You press buttons all day long for fun or for work, with no negative feedback. What's one more button?

<comment><USER4> I don't get what most of your comment has to do with getting doxxed. Are you saying that gamers spend a lot of time on the internet, and doxxing is a thing that happens on the internet, so they get doxxed more frequently?

<comment><USER5> >Are you saying that gamers spend a lot of time on the internet, and doxxing is a thing that happens on the internet, so they get doxxed more frequently?

Well, in some ways that make sense... Someone that rarely goes to the ocean is far less likely to get bit by a shark than a person that operates a saltwater fishing service.

So not only are most of their lives available in digital form and most of the human interactions they have in digital form, there is also a competitive angle to this. John beats Bob at $game, or John says Bob sucks at $game. Bob in an attempt to defend his honor can use conventional retorts, but they are less useful on the internet. Threats of physical violence are generally thwarted by long distances between actors. Bob attempting to turn the crowd against John to save face may be difficult, especially if John is actually better at the game. This leaves Bob with the thermonuclear option, Doxxing. It is likely highly effective in communities like this too. John in his attempt to deal with the fallout from the doxxing will likely have less time to commit to said gaming, and will have to deal with the stressful real life issues this causes.

<comment><USER3> There's also botting and the true nuclear option, swatting.

Thanks for clarifying. I couldn't phrase it any better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This story ties in eerily to the swatting death story ( [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16030838](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16030838) ). If someone gets doxxed they can get swatted.

I sometimes hear people complain on political message boards with the common refrain "Why aren't people out in the streets protesting <insert controversial political thing>?" On the other hand, when people mess with the gaming community, such as what happened with the infamous GamerGate and the recent swatting business, their outrage and aggression is ridiculously large considering it's just gaming. Weird world we live in.

<comment><USER7> Do note the swatting death victim was _not_ doxxed. The intended victim provided a different address where someone else died.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Has anyone setup a doxxing honeypot for themselves? Ie running some websites that use your online identity keywords, ensuring they get indexed and trying to monitor patterns of access to determine if someone is trying to identify you?</comment>


Fliggo (YC S08) launches TwitVid - the TwitPic of video - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/21/twitvid-wants-to-be-the-twitpic-of-video-sharing-on-twitter/

<comment><USER2> I don't fully understand...why not just post your video to Youtube and then tweet the URL?

<comment><USER3> I suppose the only real reason to use Twitpic or TwitVid over Flickr & YouTube would be for the Twitter-specific features. For TwitVid, I guess that's easy access to retweet, favorite, or reply to a video. For Twitpic, I suppose that would be the reply chains that appear below the pictures. I'm still surprised that's enough to make people want to use these services over the more popular/mainstream ones.

<comment><USER4> Within certain demographics, twitpic _is_ more popular than flickr. It may not even be that hard to find people who use twitpic and don't even know what flickr is.

Another advantage: if you're using twitter, it's easier to get started with twitpic than with flickr, since you don't need a new account. Obviously this does not apply if you were using flickr already.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It looks like the .com (<http://twitvid.com>) belongs to someone else, does anyone else see this as a pretty big hurdle to adoption?

<comment><USER6> It seems like it's not the end of the world. Dropbox doesn't have dropbox.com, and they're doing well. It's a constant annoyance, but it doesn't kill you. What kills you is making something users don't like. As long as you make something users like, you can survive domain name problems.

<comment><USER7> But its a constant annoyance which is going to stay for ever. Why not choose a different name? (Or buy the domain, _before_ launching, its going to cost more, the more successful you become.)

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I heard about this one guy who dropped out of Harvard to run a company even though he didn't own the companyname.com:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20050318022700/http://facebook.co...](http://web.archive.org/web/20050318022700/http://facebook.com/\(from) when the company had just raised $13M).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Really well done, really well executed. The .com version might be dangerous, as people tend to type the .com intuitively, but these guys got the advantage of an early release...

</comment><comment><USER10> Another one like this thats been live for a couple of weeks now.. <http://tinyvid.io> \- much the same thing.</comment>


Facebook's long road to "mobile best": HTML5, native apps, and now Home - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2013/04/07/facebooks-long-road-to-mobile-best-html5-native-apps-and-now-home/?fromcat=all

<comment><USER2> They are getting better for sure!

<comment><AUTHOR> But maybe the wrong approach</comment></comment>


An argument for open global immigration - <AUTHOR> http://reprints.longform.org/homelands-deca <comment><USER2> Just skimmed it. His "argument" seems to be an emotional appeal that poor people in poor countries can improve their lives by moving to Western countries. This is probably true, but it's absolutely true that it not the responsibility of people in Western countries to help the billions of poor in this world by importing them. That's called the "White Man's Burden" and it's exactly what he's arguing for.

Poor countries are almost always poor because of the populations contained within--and if it's from some other cause, such as communism in China, then the resolution to poverty does not require migration, and in fact suggesting migration as a solution is plainly foolish in such cases.

<comment><USER3> The other point the article seems to completely miss is that it's natural for parents to pass on the fruits of their labor to children. Societies place limits on inheritance to help balance the wealth accumulation, but in general, this ability is see as integral to a health society with strong incentives for building a better future.

The fact that children in the well off countries benefit enormously from the work of previous generations is a very natural and positive fact. Unfortunately, the flip side of this is that other countries are plagued by the missteps of their previous generations. These are hardly questions of fairness, as a misstep could be having a weaker army in the face of an aggressor, but it is a fact of life.

Being an immigrant myself, I cherish the opportunity I have to make a better life for my family and work to make the most of it, but I will never dispute the right of the people of a given country to protect what their fathers and mothers have built for them.

<comment><USER4> > other countries are plagued by the missteps of their previous generations

Plenty of poor countries are plagued by the legacy of crimes committed against them by rich countries (and in some cases, ongoing exploitation today).

It's pretty glib to write that off as "oh well, natural state of affairs"

<comment><USER3> If you look back far enough, those same rich countries look no different than those who suffer today. What I'm not talking about is not social justice or fairness. It's the results of ones life and choices made that affect both people making those choices and those that come after them.

Arguably the greatest of the past empires, who probably fits your profile, is the British Empire. Look back far enough and Britain has been colonized itself several times. The populations there suffered.

Generations of those people worked to bring a better future and their descendants, as well as many others, enjoy the benefits of that work. Why should they not enjoy the fruits of that labor?

My own home is worse off because the cold war didn't go so well for them. Should I be bitter at the western capitalists for this or should I do what I can to build a better life? My personal view is that the latter is far more productive and is likely to result in better outcomes.

<comment><USER5> Not only that, but if you go back just 60 to 70 years ago[1], there was a lot more parity between countries... For example Mexico rivaled European countries, but they chose different paths.

For a great part, "corruption" did a lot to ensure some countries would do poorly. For the effects of corruption, one need only look at Chile vs Brazil.

I think it's pretty clear economic policy in the last 70 to 80 years had the greatest impact on future growth progress and standing. Look at the standings in 1950. Looked pretty even. You have to remember in 1950 lots of Europe was way underdeveloped, aside from the UK, France and Germany. Less developed than some Latin American countries.

So, I don;t think there is a lot of correlation between history 100 to 200 years ago and their current situation. It's poor governing over the last 50 to 60 years or so.

[1][http://www.nationmaster.com/country- info/stats/Economy/GDP-p...](http://www.nationmaster.com/country- info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950)

<comment><USER3> Venezuela at #4?! Even on a per capita basis, this is very fascinating.

That said, a number of countries seem to be missing. Also, looking at some other years, Austria in 1800s and 1950 are not the same country. I suspect same is true for many others. Still, very interesting data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > So accustomed are we to this game of geographical roulette that we have been > blinded to the fact that it's morally indefensible to divide the people on > Earth into rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged, victims and > survivors according to a criterion that is largely arbitrary and completely > out of their control.

This is a weak argument. We do this for wealth in general: the mechanism is called inheritance. Of course, the author does not want to make this argument directly, because doing so would actually make the counterarguments more obvious, so the focus is instead based on emotion.

The second problem with the "free migration solves everything" hypothesis is that the wealth and health of a nation exist as a direct consequence of the existence of the barriers, both political and cultural, rather then some arbitrary geographic accident. Moving people from poor to rich nations does not do anything to help make the poor nations less poor; it only risks the problems coming over with the people.

<comment><USER7> >The second problem with the "free migration solves everything" hypothesis is that the wealth and health of a nation exist as a direct consequence of the existence of the barriers, both political and cultural, rather then some arbitrary geographic accident.

There is a very nice example in Spain, there are two autonomous regions next to each other (there isn't any kind of border): Cantabria and the Basque Country[1], the former has a GDP per capita of 20,855 euros while the latter one 29,683euros. The same language is spoken in both [2], and the cultural diferences are minimal.

The reason while wealth of nation exists nobody knows, and nobody may ever know.

[1] [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Comunidades_y_ciudades_au...](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Comunidades_y_ciudades_aut%C3%B3nomas_de_Espa%C3%B1a#cite_note-3) [2] While some government jobs may require being able to speak Basque, 2/3 of the Basque Country don't speak Basque, and there isn't any kind of discrimination.

<comment><USER8> In that case, it's not very difficult: Bilbao is a better port than Santander by a significant margin, drastically better communications to Madrid and France, both road and rail, and more natural resources. Santander doesn't have much of a competitive advantage, and as such, does worse. Having a nationalist party in one, while not in the other, also makes a big difference in national investment too. You don't have to pay a lot of attention to see that infrastructure investment goes to different places depending on the government in charge. Cantabria is electorally unimportant, and no big politicians came from there, so good luck getting any investment.

It's also important to know that advantages and disadvantages carry over with time, so a place might be doing much better than another because of semi- arbitrary decisions over the years. Like why does Madrid do better than Toledo? Once the capital moves to Madrid, investment moves towards Madrid, and the one real reason they keep doing better it's this original investment, that brings people, which brings more investment.

Sometimes the differences aren't so arbitrary, but are down to bad bets. In the 1800s, Chicago bet on the power of Rail, St. Louis on the river. The river became less important, while rail became more important, so Chicago got way bigger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have been thinking about this a lot since living in what was then still the Third World (Taiwan, with visits to Hong Kong and to China when China was still very poor) in the 1980s. Today, Taiwan is wealthy, and is on track to be one of the richest countries in the world by 2050.[1] Taiwan is far from having open immigration so far, but it has taken in tens of thousands of guest workers from other, poorer countries in Asia, and is a bit unusual in having a big phenomenon of "foreign brides."[2] Free movement of people into Taiwan doesn't yet match the former rather vigorous movement of people out of Taiwan into the United States, but it is increasing, and all around the world the countries that are especially welcoming to immigrants are largely also countries that gain in prosperity over time.

As the article correctly points out, just more than a century ago in the United States, many people worried that HUGE rates of immigration from non- English-speaking countries would be dangerous to this country. They were wrong. Both my maternal grandparents were born in the United States, but their schooling was conducted entirely in the German language. My paternal grandmother was also born in the United States, and attended school only in English, but she attended church services in the Norwegian language and spoke Norwegian at home. Even the descendants of languages less closely cognate to English than those have grown up to be English-speakers just like me. This is not a problem. The strength of the United States (as the article points out) was established in the era when the United States had essentially no restrictions on immigration. I wouldn't mind bringing back those days. If other countries didn't try the same policy, the United States would just grow faster at their expense.

[1] [http://www.cnbc.com/id/48686889](http://www.cnbc.com/id/48686889)

[2] [http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/15/news/adfg- brides15](http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/15/news/adfg-brides15)

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023041980045751712...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304198004575171232326284928)

<comment><USER10> It's worth remembering that the USA had heavily regulated borders between 1921 and 1965 and it's impossible to know how things would have turned out if they had stayed open. More incidentally, starting during WWI, speaking German in the USA was not encouraged, to say the least.

Furthermore, I would argue that the modern US government was _invented_ during the era of closed borders. Consider the New Deal's various incarnations, Social Security, robust regulation of business, the Wagner Act, etc. Continuing on to post war managerialism. Libertarians may want Guilded Age business policy and immigration policy, but a lot of people just want to cherry pick the immigration policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A country can have open borders or a social safety net, not both. If you choose the latter, you're effectively denying the existing population the services they have already paid for, for themselves and their offspring, through their taxes.

So, in an open border society, it would make no sense to pay taxes because they wouldn't give you as a tax payer anything.

For this reason, global corporations who want zero tax rates and the supply of the entire world's population to hire from and effectively pay slave wages, and these "progressives" are united in their wish to dismantle the welfare state.

</comment><comment><USER12> Seems nuts to use South Africa as a case study for the potential success of opening borders, when it's in the grip of massive xenophobia against immigrants from upper Africa (that has already resulted in a number of murders).

[http://www.ibtimes.com/south-africa-xenophobic- attacks-2015-...](http://www.ibtimes.com/south-africa-xenophobic- attacks-2015-china-issues-travel-warning-amid-ongoing-anti-1891845)

<comment><USER13> South Africa has strict immigration laws. Unfortunately widespread corruption in the Department of Home Affairs (especially in the period 1994-2010 ca.) has meant that these laws were not worth the paper they are printed on.

How exactly Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Nigerian and Chinese shopkeepers provide rare skills is a mystery, and it is very hard to justify the presence of unskilled labour from countries like Malawi in South Africa, which has 25% unemployment. There are also many Somali "refugees" who manage to bypass 3 countries in East Africa and end up in South Africa, where they also open up small businessss.

Of course, anyone who asks these questions in South Africa is labelled a "xenophobe" by the media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article, to the extent it makes a valid argument at all, is not an argument for open immigration. It's an argument for removing barriers to adoption of children in poor countries by parents in rich countries. Extending that (valid) point to a claim about open immigration in general is not justified.

Also, I find at least one factual howler in the article: the claim that South Africa after the end of apartheid has been a stable country.

</comment><comment><USER15> Something worth pointing out here: apart from the EU, there isn't even open immigration among rich countries. A Swede, (or Briton or Canadian) can't just decide to pack his things up and come to work in the US (though the visa waiver program for tourists is pretty sweet). There are still visa hoops to jump through, paperwork to be done. It's easier, if you're a rich-country- citizen, to move to another rich country, but by no means a done deal.

It's hard to make a logical argument that immigration controls exist purely for economic reasons; social services and weather apart, Sweden (or the UK or Canada) and the US have comparable standards of living and levels of English proficiency. None of the arguments against allowing unchecked immigration from poor countries to rich (education, overwhelming public services, falling wages etc) apply in this scenario and yet (again, apart from the EU), open immigration between roughly equally developed countries doesn't exist.

</comment><comment><USER16> Liberalization of international investment and trade since WWII have been justified in part to promote peace through economic connection. While the article focuses on human rights and social justice, liberalization of global immigration would arguably have the same impact.

There's another issue that makes open global immigration more attractive to wealthy nations. Free investment and trade move jobs to nations with competent workers who demand less pay, leaving behind industrial decline and unemployment. Open global immigration would ameliorate that.

</comment><comment><USER17> Arguing that citizenship laws are complicated and burdensome so we should get rid of all of them is the left wing equivalent of the right wing argument that taxes are complicated and burdensome so we should get rid of all of them.

</comment><comment><USER18> Open borders will never happen, because it would bankrupt rich countries (sadly, it appears that the recent wave of African refugees in the Med are heading for Northern European welfare states for this reason). Also, there are many people who lack the aptitude and desire to leave their first-world home countries-they will simply be out-competed by migrants (most third world migrants who open little shops tend to employ people from the home country rather than locals).

There are ways to help poor third world countries: 1) focus on ameliorating eradicating the worst forms of preventable suffering. Bill Gates is doing this. Improve childhood nutrition to reduce stunting. 2) Trade with them. While Europe and the U.S. were bailing out their banks, South African corporations have been getting rich selling satellite TV, cellphone services and introducing chain supermarkets to Africans. You see, they want the same things that the rest of us have. Invest in their countries and make a profit. That will help them in the medium-long term.

</comment><comment><USER19> Very good article. His argument definitely makes sense on an individual level. When I was in living in France, I wondered why it was impossible for me to buy a house and live there permanently. It was only because of artificial borders. It didn't make sense.

However, on a population wide basis, it is a different story. The article uses refugees and oppressive governments (exceptions to the rule) in order to make his argument. A tactic I distrust. He does make a good point about the EU, although I think the jury is still out on that one.

I believe we should have more immigration in the US. However, we limit immigration for a reason. And the reason is too many people at once burden the infrastructure. We can only build so many freeways, schools, and hospitals at once. So, a large influx of immigrants will cause traffic, crowded classrooms, and long waits in the emergency rooms. Anyone who lives in LA can tell you this is the case since California has had a rapid population primarily driven by immigrants.

</comment><comment><USER20> The problem with open migration is that then those with the means (even limited ones) get up and leave, leaving the rest even poorer. As a very loose analogy, think of it as evaporative cooling; it results in a net loss for the source.

Instead of short-term fixes (which include distributing food, clothes, etc.) I would hope that Western countries would actually help build up the infrastructure in these poor countries, and let them run their own affairs.

And, for the sake of all that's good and holy, stop propping up dictators all across the world, if that means our gas is $0.05 cheaper or our phones are $.25 cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER21> The title takes on a striking significance about 3/4 of the way through the article. I bet most readers won't see that coming. I sure didn't.

<comment><USER22> I knew where it was going the moment I saw the title. Pity more people don't know about [http://yves-bonnardel.info/en/manifesto-for-the-abolition- of...](http://yves-bonnardel.info/en/manifesto-for-the-abolition-of- international-apartheid)

<comment><USER21> I even knew about that manifesto (from you), and the reference still flew right past me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does it need an argument?

To me, open borders are an obvious thing to strive for.

The only reason not to have them is as a sort of hack to hold together systems that are going to fall apart eventually anyway (e.g. welfare systems that treat people differently based on a bit of land they were born on).

It really seems to me that the only argument against is basically 'I deserve my wealth'.

Can people not see how ridiculous the current scenario is? Westerners are basically superhumans, welcome almost anywhere, with a bunch of money that allows them to basically go colonial if they decide to leave.

Just be honest with yourself. You can be hypocritical and vote against it whilst accepting that it makes sense.

Similar example: meat production, especially battery hens etc. It is mind blowingly obviously a cruel and bad thing to do. You can accept that and still eat meat. You don't have to lie to yourself and others and pretend that you have a 'different opinion' or whatever.

I use and buy leather. I know that it is not morally a nice thing to do. But I am human, I have vices, I am imperfect. What I refuse to do is somehow pretend that it makes sense or is kind or rational or should be done.

</comment><comment><USER24> In the US there are states which would benefit from high immigration as opposed to the more popular coastal states.

I wonder if there is some way to use this as a way to ease some immigration laws.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, the root problem is everybody wants to move where everybody already is. Big cities have large immigrant communities because cities are walkable or transit-able and have, at the edges, cheap housing stock, so you don't need a car or large funds—you can just move in and start your life over. Then, when you move there, more people from where you were will move there and you will help them get acclimated, then those people will help more new people, then before you know it, where you set down roots is now "Little WhereICameFrom."

But, NYC breaks down if another 8 million people move into it. San Francisco is 1/10th the size of NYC and it already can't handle the people it has.

The only way fully open and accepted and world-wide immigration works is under unconscionable "living area restriction" schemes limiting already overly- popular areas. You either pick an "open" area (Idaho! North Dakota!) or slot new people into some pre-allocated catchment areas/states with restricted residency/transit for the first 5-15 years of their relocation? But, that sounds a bit too ghettoy.

China can build new cities in the blink of an eye, even if some of them end up going completely unused. The US can't maintain the cities it has and spends $30 billion to dig a new 2 mile subway ($5 billion towards cost, $25 billion towards corruption). There _are_ solutions to "everybody wants to live in a better place" problems, but it takes organization, time, resources, a vision for a better future, and generosity. The world isn't currently offering those as a packaged deal. Be 70s forward-thinking-by-30-years-ahead California, not 2010s only-plan-for-6-months-later California.

But, that's assuming "aspirational" immigration where 30 million to 300 million people would want to move "to the west" for a chance at a better life. What about "i got mine, i just want to move" immigration? NYC<->London? Sydney<->Chicago? Something between an educated worker visa and an investor visa? We don't have an answer for that. You are just incidental to a combination of where you were born and where your parents had citizenship at the time you started breathing outside the womb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Lets me guess - it's really really good for all the poor people from impoverished, war-stricken countries?

Or if you want a daily dose of extreme left-wing nonsense, subscribe to The Guardian or your country's equivalent.

<comment><USER27> > it's really really good for all the poor people from impoverished, war- > stricken countries?

What part of this argument do you disagree with, and why?

<comment><USER28> It's the equivelent of robbing someone and giving that to charity. Consider is you moved 100,000,000 poor people without English skills into the US just how much chaos that would creat. Now reolise there are several times that many people who would like to live in the US. As a general rule if something is significantly worse for group A and better for group B, but group A makes the choice your argument falls on deaf ears.

Anyway, the other far more obvious solution is to move manufacturing to war torn areas. A billion dollars can creat a _lot_ of jobs, and with reinvestment things can quickly snowball. Sure, setting up sweat shops is not going to give you the same kind of feel good boost, but poverty breeds corruption which breeds poverty.

<comment><USER29> > Consider is you moved 100,000,000 poor people without English skills into > the US just how much chaos that would creat.

From the point of view of the Native Americans, that's roughly what happened already. Only thing different is language this time around, not that all of the original immigrants into America spoke English, and not that all of the current people there do.

<comment><USER30> It should be remembered that this resulted in the nearly complete destruction of Native American civilization.

<comment><USER31> This is the problem I see with mass migration. People don't seem to consider the effects it will have on the society. For example, I want Northern European countries to continue to be secular and open, but what happens if millions of refugees from north Africa & the middle east come? Will they suddenly adopt the same values? That is doubtful, and if they become citizens and voters they can have a real impact in the direction of the country.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Helicopter takes to the skies with the power of thought - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2013-06-helicopter-power-thought-video.html

<comment><USER2> And here is how to make one yourself: [http://www.instructables.com/id/Brain- Controlled-RC-Helicopt...](http://www.instructables.com/id/Brain-Controlled- RC-Helicopter/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome.! Thanks for the link</comment></comment>


Intel in talks with Apple to build iPhone processors - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/30/intel-apple-samsung-chips/

<comment><USER2> Summary: \- Intel fabs ARM cores for iPhone \- Apple agrees to x86 for iPad

This is an absolutely crucial moment for Intel and I'd love to be a fly on the wall on these negotiations. The nuances of the decision making must be absolutely fascinating.

Intel, I feel is making the wrong bet going all-in on mobile. This is somewhat like a "part two" of the Nokia collaboration on MeeGo except they're probably looking for more assurances from Apple.

The problem for Intel is one the one hand their process advantage is slipping (albeit slowly) and third-party fabs are "good enough" processes for mobile, and on the other hand everybody else is going ARM for cloud computing hoping to beat Intel on price.

Apple on the other hand has to consider the pain and cost of another "Rosetta" process for iPad, but it should be much easier since app delivery is constrained to their app store.

Apple definitely has the upper hand in negotiations, but that depends on how constrained they are on the supply side. I'm sure that Tim Cook would have planned accordingly, the question is how good a deal can they wring out of Intel instead of moving to TSMC, or if they get their act together GloFo.

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you mean by Intel is making the wrong bet by going all-in on mobile? By mobile are you talking about smartphone/tablet or laptop? What would you do instead?

<comment><USER2> I feel Intel is going to make the mistake of taking their datacenter advantage for granted. They should be doing everything to cement that advantage instead of an unnecessary focus on mobile, by which I mean the present ARM space of smartphone/tablet.

This goes with any business, but Intel should figure out what its "plus" is. They own perf/watt and perf/thread, and their uarch, x86, is the standard for cloud loads. As the cloud matures and becomes more uarch agnostic, everything being open source, they still have to find a way of differentiating themselves.

The point is 20 years ago the majority of coders were coding x86, directly, then 10 years ago say WinIntel, and now our apis are REST calls. That is to say, the majority of programming has been getting increasingly removed from the underlying hardware. Intel it seems finally clued in to this with MS announcing WinRT.

So in short, Intel should start innovating at the platform level. And hey, the platform isn't just a microprocessor anymore.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can see what you mean to some extent. The top of the line server parts are still Sandy Bridge-E. By the time Ivy-Bridge-E is out Haswell will be available on the traditional PC side.

I would actually make a different argument though. As time goes on the absolute cost of the CPU is not that important. For big data centers lowering costs is about efficiency more than cheaper hardware. So in my mind a lot of what Intel is trying to do on the Mobile side, both laptop and smartphone/tablet, will help them in the data center. If Intel can drive down both peak and idle power consumption while maintaining or even improving both single threaded and multi threaded performance, there's potential to really lower the power needed to run a data center and in turn create a lot of value.

The real question is what's the next big thing going to be? Eventually the current CPU model will give out to something else. Maybe that's something like Psi or Tesla or maybe something completely different.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Charity Watsi (YC W13) is giving away 1000 $10 gift cards through ad campaigns - <AUTHOR> https://watsi.org/gift-cards/campaigns/e6a1fa68c79f

<comment><AUTHOR> The ad runs on reddit - [https://imgur.com/Yg75peI.png](https://imgur.com/Yg75peI.png). I'm not sure where else it runs.

I've never seen a charity run an ad that literally gives you money to give back to them. It's such an interesting strategy that I'm curious if it'll work.</comment>


Analog Devices to acquire Maxim Integrated - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/analog-devices-in-talks-to-buy-maxim-integrated-for-more-than-17-billion-11594593796 <comment><USER2> Best case scenario, Analog eats Maxim and fires their entire management and product teams... or more. Worst case scenario is a Boeing-McDonnell Douglas style merger where Maxim is left running the show. That would essentially remove ADI as a viable product option, so let's hope they're smarter than that.

(Which they were, when ADI bought LTC. That merger has gone about as well as these things can, for customers. The difference between LTC and Maxim, though, is that LTC was best-in-class on every feature save price, whereas Maxim... friends don't let friends design in Maxim. They're no good for you unless you're an Apple or Qualcomm.)

<comment><USER3> > whereas Maxim... friends don't let friends design in Maxim.

I design occasionally as a hobby. My designer friends would tell me the same. What is the reason? I have found their documentation and application notes pretty good and their MAX232 and other convertor ICs are very popular.

<comment><USER2> See sibling comment. Short version: those are their high-volume, low-margin old parts. Their high-margin new parts are the problem.</comment></comment></comment>


Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia <comment><AUTHOR> All UK newspapers are pretty bad, especially the tabloids. But the Daily Fucking Mail is really bad.

[http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates- libe...](http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal- britain)

> In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of > 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to > a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC's intervention. > The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show > 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against > the Guardian. The complaints will serve as a charge sheet against the Mail > and its editor.

> This year, the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the > bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had "targeted" Scotland; that disabled > babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan > asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 > recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming "rather than > face a fresh medical"; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils > water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves > would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by > windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false.

Also, Why the Daily Mail is Evil (about the "all grown up" creepy as fck stuff the DM does): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY)

<comment><USER2> I think The Guardian and FT are not bad at all. I don't intend to start an argument, but I'm curious to know which newspapers (in other countries) in your opinion are good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough, the FT is good and there's lots to like about the Guardian too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Those of us in the UK have always known the Daily Mail is about as reliable as any other rubbish tabloid, i.e. not at all. It's always seemed strange that it has a much higher reputation in other countries. Hopefully that will change.

<comment><USER4> Didn't the mail break the MP expenses scandal?

<comment><USER5> No that was the daily telegraph

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In other news, water is wet, the sun came up this morning, and here's that one secret that doctors don't want you to know... /facepalm

</comment><comment><USER7> Complete with a link to buzzfeed.

<comment><USER8> Buzzfeed does some surprisingly impressive investigative journalism:

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/markschoofs/21-explosive- investigat...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/markschoofs/21-explosive- investigations-we-published-in-2016?utm_term=.tbbqlbOwpe#.tvB1dW5MYG)

The Tennis Racket was one of my favourite reads of the year.

(of course, it still has a clickbait headline)

<comment><USER7> Even a broken clock is right once in a while</comment></comment></comment>


DIY Social Media: A user's Guide - <AUTHOR> http://mediavidea.blogspot.com/2010/04/diy-social-media-users-guide-to.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Re: I wrote the article linked above. Just wanted to share with your all something that was bugging me for quite long. Apologies for the long post and the shameless self-promotion.</comment>