Booting Up: Zuck's First Website Was Just as Embarrassing as Yours - <AUTHOR> http://betabeat.com/2013/04/booting-up-zucks-first-website-was-just-as-embarrassing-as-yours/

<comment><USER2> The Beatbeat link is just a series of links -- this is the actual story: <http://gizmodo.com/5993535>

<comment><USER3> Thank you for the link, this one actually has a worth. However, I think it is too derisive.

I found "the Web" page interesting. 4 years before "The Facebook", it seems like the idea of showing real-life people connections was already vivid in his mind.

Direct link to Mark's website: <http://www.angelfire.com/ny/mez51/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wasn't so bad, it's just bad if you didn't live through that era of angelfire/tripod/geocities.

Seeing a site like this would be quite a relief for me. No crazy frames, or bad graphics, clean, functional, to the point.

<comment><USER5> The logo, or what it seems, to me is a really 'bad' graphic.

<comment><USER4> Yes but I suspect the mismatched gray is from a lack of background color and use of a different browser.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If he created those various Java applets, then no, his first website was not just as embarrassing as mine.

</comment><comment><USER7> I cut my teeth on Geocities in 1996. Frustrated by the limitations of their in-browser editor, I decided to go hard-core and do all my HTML in Notepad :-) I graduated to HotDog Pro and Homesite in short order. Of course, I had the requisite star field background, animated gifs, and requisite <blink> tags.

However, is this a typical path? Today I'd guess many build "sites" using Tumblr, Blogger, or Wordpress before picking up development skills. Even those stumbling through Rails or the like can drop in Twitter Bootstrap with little fanfare and have a pretty decent looking first effort.

</comment><comment><USER8> News flash! Successful people are just like everybody else. Zuckerberg was not born a hacker wizard.

</comment><comment><USER9> Originally found on Hacker news:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5486014>

</comment><comment><USER10> Hmm... so many thoughts.

Mainly though - Here is the legacy of everything remembered forever. Anyone that gets big or rich or famous from now onwards will have had some sort of footprint on the web, and people will find it.

The big question is whether we start judging people harshly based on this (as we do with politicians already) or if we as a society can finally mature, move on, and allow people to have a past.

</comment><comment><USER11> With the exception of the banner it's quite a usable website.

A lot of websites in the late 90s looked like this, Web 2.0 huge buttons was not a thing yet (neither was CSS for the most part) and a huge background image would have taken days to load.

</comment><comment><USER12> Am I the only one who thinks this isn't embarrassing at all? Title is retarded.

People are forgetting that technology 15 years ago wasn't like today. Oh and he was a kid. To me this site is cool, and it brings good memories of old web.

</comment><comment><USER13> And I bet that almost none of the companies who've just posted in the _Who's Hiring?_ thread would have hired a young Mr. Zuckerberg on the basis of his coding chops (let alone his personality) either.

</comment><comment><USER14> Who do you think I should report bugs to for this site? Do you think email@example.com still goes to Mr. Zuck? I found a few IE8 bugs.... :)

</comment><comment><USER15> A few years earlier, and the only copy of this stuff would have been on a 3.5" floppy.

</comment><comment><USER16> I miss Brendan Eich's satire homepage. Brendan is on here. Whatever happened to that?

</comment><comment><USER17> err whatsup with the freemason-like one eye</comment>


SSH Examples, Tips and Tunnels - <AUTHOR> https://hackertarget.com/ssh-examples-tunnels/ <comment><USER2> If you liked this article, PLEASE, PLEASE just take 10 minutes to look at the manpages for ssh(1) and ssh_config(5). SSH options are nothing we need to research about, we humans made it and we wrote documentation for it. The manpages are also exhaustive, definitive, and valid for the exact version you have installed.

Please, instead of making more 'how to use SSH'-articles popular, read the manpages yourself.

Reading the datasheets and documentation of the stuff you work with is an important characteristic of an capable engineer.

<comment><USER3> My usage of manpages would increase by orders of magnitude if I knew there were examples of actual working commands in the first page. Most of the time I am not looking for an obscure parameter, but my brain just has failed to take a note of the basic syntax of the command. So why not start ssh manpage with two _simple_ examples, how to connect to a host with username and ssh key:

ssh email@example.com

ssh -i ~/.ssh/id_rsa firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER4> This is how every man page starts, with a "SYNOPSIS" of invocation. For example the ssh man page starts:

        ssh [-46AaCfGgKkMNnqsTtVvXxYy] [-B bind_interface] [-b bind_address] [-c cipher_spec] ...

If there are several incompatible ways to invoke an operation several cases are given, e.g.

        netstat [-AaLlnW] [-f address_family | -p protocol]
        netstat [-gilns] [-v] [-f address_family] [-I interface]
        ...

Typically there are examples in the EXAMPLES or USAGE section which you can jump straight to via /^U or /^E

In the case of ssh there are several such sections so just jump to them via /^[^ ]

<comment><USER5>
          > ssh [-46AaCfGgKkMNnqsTtVvXxYy] [-B bind_interface] [-b bind_address] [-c cipher_spec] ...

That's exactly the kind of "SYNOPSIS" would make me want to stomp on puppies when looking at a man page because I forgot some basic usage.

But actually, thanks for the key-combo tip on jumping straight to examples.

<comment><USER6> I find many manpages to be pretty obtuse. They could do a lot to help those of us who need a bit more hand holding.

I like cheat.sh. You can curl it directly from your terminal and it offers the quick examples I often need to get back to work.

Here is their ssh page: [http://cheat.sh/ssh](http://cheat.sh/ssh)

Also I am a huge fan of Matlab's Documentation, at least up to the more recent versions that became less usable. They give a clear description of the function, list syntax options, give several examples and provide a see also section with similar or related functions (greatly helping discoverability). They usually include academic references at the end.

[https://uk.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/atand.html?s_tid=do...](https://uk.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/atand.html?s_tid=doc_ta)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > localhost:~$ ssh remoteserver "cat /var/log/nginx/access.log" | grep > badstuff.php

It would be much more traffic (and execution time) friendly, if you put pipe and grep to "" as well, so grep would be executed on remote server and ssh won't have to send the entire log to your machine.

And I'd like to highlight the overwhelming awesomeness of ~/.ssh/config file. If you haven't heard about it or use shell alias instead please please read about it. It supports autocomplete, dynamic paths to key files and many other cool things which can make your ssh client experience simply great.

<comment><USER8> The article does touch on that optimization:

 _In this example the grep is being performed on the local system after the log file has been pushed across the ssh session. If the file is large it would be more efficient to run the grep on the remote side simply by enclosing the pipe and grep in the double quotes._

<comment><USER9> While I myself am not a purist, some people would consider this an instance of UUOC: [http://porkmail.org/era/unix/award.html](http://porkmail.org/era/unix/award.html)

> localhost:~$ ssh remoteserver "grep badstuff.php /var/log/nginx/access.log"

<comment><USER10> The only reason I (and probably many other people) prefer cat | grep instead of just using grep is because it is much easier to change the search term this way. With cat, it's only a ctrl-W away from using a different term. If I only used grep, i would have to move my cursor which can get pretty annoying with a long file path.

That being said, only using grep is my preferred approach (if I don't forget it) in script and "compact lines" (I.e ssh, watch, and everything that expects the command as a string).

If you are grepping a file multiple times, I would recommend to connect to the server anyways (because it is much faster). That being said, if this is a single occurrence, and saves you from the pitfalls of using the local grep instead of the remote one, your approach is preferable in that case.

<comment><USER11> > If I only used grep, i would have to move my cursor which can get pretty > annoying with a long file path.

You can also do it like this:

        < myfile grep mypattern

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is a windows program named sshfs-win[1] that allows mounting of remote SSH location as local folders and SiriKali[2] is currently its only GUI frontend. SiriKali also supports sshfs on Linux.

[1] [https://github.com/billziss-gh/sshfs-win](https://github.com/billziss- gh/sshfs-win)

[2] [https://mhogomchungu.github.io/sirikali](https://mhogomchungu.github.io/sirikali)

</comment><comment><USER13> As an additional tip, I've seen people complain about scp's handling of spaces and other special characters, causing one to use 2 layers of quoting. For example:

      scp machine:'"file with spaces"' .

What people don't tend to realize is that this is because scp allows you to specify the remote-side files with remote shell code. For example, to get all pdfs in the remote home directory:

      scp machine:'*.pdf' .

To get file.xml and file.pdf from the remote:

      scp machine:'file.{xml,pdf}' .

To get the newest file (asumming that it has no whitespace or glob characters):

      scp machine:'$(ls -t | head -1)' .

The same, but handling spaces and other characters, but not newlines:

      scp machine:'"$(ls -t | head -1)"' .

If you use zsh on the remote machine with extended globs, this is the safest way:

      scp machine:'*(oc[1])' .

</comment><comment><USER14> Is the first "Using a Configuration File" example a bit misleading? The example is:

... Host remoteserver HostName remoteserver.thematrix.io User neo Port 2112 IdentityFile /home/test/.ssh/remoteserver.pub

IdentityFile typically (always?) specifies a file with a private key, right?

<comment><USER15> Unless you're using something like a smart card as identity with gpg-agent, then you won't have a private key file. Because of that, you can specify a public key file to identify this private key.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been using SSH tunnels for years, this keeps me safe and sane. Also at work where my employer closed almost everything. Including well known web pages with info useful for my work...

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h I would think twice before violating policy like that. YMMV, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Nice post...covers some good use cases. I wrote a book all about SSH tunneling and port redirection use cases in depth...primarily for penetration testers. "The Cyber Plumber's Handbook" ([https://cph.opsdisk.com/](https://cph.opsdisk.com/)) is _free_ (already given away 250+ copies) for students that have an educational/student email address. Simply send an email to email@example.com and I'll send you a discount code to download it for free.

It walks you through the basics of SSH tunneling (both local and remote port forwards), SOCKS proxies, port redirection, and how to utilize them with other tools like proxychains, nmap, Metasploit, and web browsers.

Advanced topics included SSHing through 4 jump boxes, throwing exploits through SSH tunnels, scanning assets using proxychains and Metasploit's Meterpreter, browsing the Internet through a SOCKS proxy, utilizing proxychains and nmap to scan targets, and leveraging Metasploit's Meterpreter portfwd command.

</comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone use OSSEC on their personal workstation or personal server? I have some MacOS machines with public IP addresses with ssh access enabled, and I'm wondering if I should use something like this. Presently I have the MacOS firewall configured but that's it.

<comment><USER19> It's not needed, IMO, if you disable password auth and only allow ssh from white listed IPs. This has eliminated ssh login attempts for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I must admit that I have learned 2 new things from this article, i.e.:

\- -J to jump through multiple hosts (available since 7.3)

\- -R creating a reverse SOCKS proxy (available since 7.6)

New (from a Debian user's perspective) features[1] hide among all the classics.

[1]: [https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html](https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> I would like to propose the author add a section for chroot sftp and ways to replicate rsync-like behavior, thus allowing rapid file transfer without providing a shell. [1] This is useful in situations where automated file transfers and backups are required and minimizing risk of shell access is desired.

[1] - [https://tinyvpn.org/sftp/#lftp](https://tinyvpn.org/sftp/#lftp)

This specific example can be used to set up public semi-anonymous file sharing without providing shell access. there is a working live demo of the sftp server that you can play around with using lftp to replicate rsync like behavior.

</comment><comment><USER22> Great article! One minor comment though, `folder` sounds so wrong in *nix world, I'd suggest you use directory instead.

<comment><USER23> Not the author but I find it easier to type folder than directory on qwerty. Not sure about other layout.

<comment><USER22> I don't think they are really interchangeable terms in this context, one is rigth the other one is wrong

<comment><USER23> I assume Windows and MacOS use the term folder in place of directory, so at this point, I'm assuming it's generally acceptable to use either one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Gah, just yesterday I had this crazy problem with SSH tunnels and psql (Postgres client) crashing the tunnel. What solved it? Changing my interface MTU...

[http://www.snailbook.com/faq/mtu- mismatch.auto.html](http://www.snailbook.com/faq/mtu-mismatch.auto.html)

<comment><USER25> This is interesting. I sometimes have to connect to a VPN that crashes when something provokes a burst of activity (if I cat a file or even ls a large dir). I'll try this, but 576 seems so low; how did you get at this number?

<comment><USER24> This is what I want to know - the article doesn't explain. I guess its a number that particular (old?) routers / particular firewalls won't fragment the packet..?

<comment><USER25> Wikipedia says 576 is the minimum for IPv4. I suppose then that the author just went for the value all hosts should support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is there a way to combine screen/tmux with ssh ? like i always need to do some long running tasks over ssh and forget to put it in a screen session, i would like to open each ssh session in a screen session so that when i connect next i should be able to proceed from where i left

<comment><USER27> Pardon my ignorance. Why are screen/tmux so popular ? I just use a terminal with tabs (i.e. Gnome terminal)

<comment><USER28> screen/tmux persist when you log out. Let's say you have 10 shells open to a remote server in screen session and you reboot you client computer. If you ssh back into the remote and run screen...pow, you have your 10 shells back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Few more tips in [https://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/matching/ssh/c3No/sor...](https://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/matching/ssh/c3No/sort- by-votes)

</comment><comment><USER30> Cool post and another remit that half of the software in this world would not have existed if people bothered to learn Unix(s) tools

</comment><comment><USER31> Very nice article, so many useful things.</comment>


How do you tag a jellyfish? - <AUTHOR> https://futureoftheocean.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/how-do-you-tag-a-jellyfish/ <comment><USER2> Whoever has eaten jellyfish before, will be aware that at least some species aren't as soft and squishy as the word "jelly" may evoke on first thought.

<comment><USER3> I can vouch for that. When I was in China I ate some jellyfish and it was pretty crunch. Somewhats similar to the feeling of biting a cucumber slice.

<comment><USER4> A few questions, just out of interest: Was it raw? What does it taste like? Where in China did you eat it and is it common there?

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure if it was raw but I think so.

It honestly doesn't taste like much. My friend bit into it first and thought it was disgusting but then the people in the restaurant gestured that we have to put soy sauce on it. So I only had it with soy sauce and it basically just tasted like soy sauce.

It was in Shanghai and we were just at a little non-touristy restaurant so I'd guess fairly common.

I actually have a gopro video of us eating it but the quality wasn't too great. Edit: Here's a gif from the video of my friend eating the jellyfish, he really wasn't a fan. [http://imgur.com/a/gAAjW](http://imgur.com/a/gAAjW)

It kinda looked like this: [https://www.foodnut.com/i/Little-Shanghai- Restaurant-San-Mat...](https://www.foodnut.com/i/Little-Shanghai-Restaurant- San-Mateo/Little-Shanghai-Restaurant-Jellyfish.jpg)

Source: [https://www.foodnut.com/383/little-shanghai-restaurant- resta...](https://www.foodnut.com/383/little-shanghai-restaurant-restaurant- review-san-mateo/)

<comment><USER5> I can assure you that jellyfish is a "fairly common" dish around Shanghai.

Besides soy sauce, one can also mix it with some cucumber, black Zhejiang vinegar, fine slices of chili pepper, and sesame. It's a common cold dish.

Source: my mom is Shanghaiese.

<comment><USER6> What are the nutritional benefits of jellyfish?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Here's a bigger picture of the jellyfish tracker shown in the article: [http://goldbogen.stanford.edu/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/m_p...](http://goldbogen.stanford.edu/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/m_plankt_38_6_cover.png)

As it turns out, they actually glued it to the jellyfish.

<comment><USER7> Damn, that tracker is huge! I'm surprised the thing can swim around with it.

<comment><USER8> The beauty of working underwater is that you can get things like this to neutral buoyancy. Most of the effort that we experience when moving an object above water is force exerted against gravity (vertical, compared to horizontal effort).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> using ink tatoos, for example

</comment><comment><USER10> Very carefully.</comment>


Mern: Build JavaScript apps using React and Redux - <AUTHOR> http://mern.io/ <comment><USER2> FRAMEWORK (shitty tragedy in one act)

Dramatis Personae

PROGRAMMER, programmer

HIPSTER, hipster

* * *

ACT I

 _Small room. There are a table with paper stacks, opened "Perrier" bottle, two huge monitors and a programmer sitting behind. Programmer reads papers, looks on first monitor, then on second and typing something. From time to time he says "damn idiots". Number of "damn idiots" is divided equally between papers, first and second monitor._

 _Door opens loudly_

PROGRAMMER: Who's there?

 _Hipster runs into waving his hands_

HIPSTER: Framework! New awesome framework! Just look, it's awesome! Just look!

 _Programmer looks into hipster 's iPad_

      @moccachino.render()
      helloWorld({
        view: "myProject.sample.view.Hello",
        div: "myContainer",
        data: {
          message: "Hello World!"
        }
      });

_then takes a "Perrier" bottle and smashes on hipster's head. Hipster falls on the floor._

PROGRAMMER: Damn idiots.

Exeunt.

(sorry for my English)

<comment><USER3> I don't see the reason why would you apologise for your english when you use the words like 'Exeunt' ... Otherwise good joke.

<comment><USER4> Probably because the author was compelled to choose his words wisely to comply with forum policies. In essence "damn idiots" is a toned down version of something far more expressive.

<comment><USER5> We don't give a shit if you swear. We care about how people treat each other.

<comment><USER6> Really? Several times I thought I saw threads mysteriously being ranked downwards, only to find out they contained a formal (or other) discussion of swear words, so I always concluded that there's some sort of "shitstorm detector" at play. But maybe I'm just imagining things...

<comment><USER5> Your observations were probably real but you might have misinterpreted them. We do penalize subthreads for being shitstorms, flamewars, or off-topic. (Tediously off-topic, that is. Whimsmical offtopicness is fine.) And profanity is more common when people are upset, so one would expect a correlation. But profanity isn't a moderation concern per se.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So this is a repo that is being cloned on your computer [1]. I have a couple of questions :

1\. Why not just creating yeoman generator?

2\. Don't you think it is too opinionated and inflexible to be useful?

1: [https://github.com/Hashnode/mern- cli/blob/master/lib/main.js](https://github.com/Hashnode/mern- cli/blob/master/lib/main.js)

<comment><USER8> I much rather clone than use yeoman. What is the benefit?

<comment><USER9> Well yeoman can be configured to ask you questions about the setup you want. Think "less or sass?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This was a really bad time to post this framework, the disillusionment for javascript is at an all time high right now.

That being said why Mongodb? NoSql are advantageous for write speeds, which as far as I know isn't particularly important for new applications. I understand that you want "javascript everywhere" but is that really worth the cost of losing the speedy and convenient join statements? I think postgres might have been a better choice.

<comment><USER11> I can't say if they considered other databases, but "MERN" is a play on "MEAN" (Mongo, Express, _Angular_ , Node) -- I imagine they were aiming for a React- centric version of the popular MEAN stack.

<comment><USER12> Waiting for the NERD stack.

Node, Express, React, $DataBase.

<comment><USER13> There's no need to wait: [https://github.com/Xantier/nerd- stack](https://github.com/Xantier/nerd-stack)

<comment><USER12> Crikey... What a world we're living in!

<comment><USER2> Could be a drinking game: pick random word, add "js" and google for it. If google finds something related, take the shot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> q-base Not that it has any practical implications, but I grew up next to a tiny tiny town in Denmark that was called exactly Mern. Famous for being full of people who wanted to fight.

</comment><comment><USER14> FWIW 'isomorphic javascript' was pretty much supplanted by 'universal javascript' last year per this medium post [1]. You might consider changing the copy.

Edit: At the very least Dan Abramov (Redux creator) is ok with universal [2]

[1] [https://medium.com/@mjackson/universal- javascript-4761051b7a...](https://medium.com/@mjackson/universal- javascript-4761051b7ae9)

[2] [https://github.com/gaearon/react-redux-universal-hot- example](https://github.com/gaearon/react-redux-universal-hot-example)

<comment><USER15> Lets not get caught in 'war of words'. There is no standard to it and I don't think it matters as long as you understand what it means.

<comment><USER16> > There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and > naming things.

> \-- Phil Karlton

<comment><USER17> I like the self referential version:

"There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Your demo needs fixing, it's open to XSS and that has been tried and tested, as expected for this crowd. :)

<comment><USER19> As a curious noob, could u explain what is the source of the XSS vulnerability in this case? Is it simply that the site isn't being served over tls/ssl?

<comment><USER20> Not sanitizing input, by either scrubbing out any <script> tags, or escaping those characterst to html entities.

<comment><USER21> Please don't "sanitize" input, just escape accordingly.

"<script>" might be a legitimate input.

<comment><USER22> You need both. Sometimes the legit input is HTML such as from rich text editors. In those cases if someone types a bold <script> then the form should submit the escaped <b><script><b> but also needs to sanitise to make sure that other HTML element types are not present.

If you escape one step further you'll lose formatting or the message, so sanitisation is important too, it is reductive to say "always escape never sanitise".

<comment><USER23> I think your first problem is whitelisting HTML entities. Unless you're composing HTML-formatted email, it's usually better to use a different markup syntax like a minimal markdown or asciidoc that can safely be escaped.

<comment><USER22> I agree, although for non-technical users, the better wysiwyg editors are still HTML based, unless you have a recommendation for an in-browser wysiwyg editor that returns/exports markdown?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The page keeps mentioning 'isomorphic apps' but I have no idea what those are.

From googling, they appear to be JS code that can run client and server-side? Not what I would have guessed!

<comment><USER25> It's one of those instances where developers went looking for a word that perfectly articulates what it's doing, but is so esoteric as to be useless.

> being of identical or similar form, shape, or structure

I call it fronty-backy-samey-samey and everyone knows what I'm talking about.

<comment><USER26> It's not really esoteric... it just kind of has the wrong connotations, because it's used rigorously in mathematics, and here it just means "portable between different JavaScript runtimes," pretty much.

To me the word makes me imagine a web application that can parse its own rendered HTML and get back the application state. Which sounds kind of interesting...

<comment><USER27> _it just kind of has the wrong connotations, because it 's used rigorously in mathematics_

And the original use was in Philology[0]. Just because a word has two different meanings in two different contexts doesn't means it's wrong. I'm certainly glad the linguists didn't get up in arms when the mathematicians gave the 'wrong connotation' to isomorphism.

[0] - [https://books.google.com/books?id=hZpeAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA711&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=hZpeAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA711&lpg=PA711&dq="Elements+of+Comparative+Philology"+"isomorphic")

<comment><USER26> Well, I didn't mean to claim it's prescriptively wrong, just that to my mind, maybe because I've been around a lot of mathematicians and coded a lot of Haskell, the usage jumps out as kind of weird... and anecdotally, I've mostly heard "isomorphic JavaScript" used kind of ironically, with a wink bordering on a cringe.

By the way, for the broader point about language mutation, and prescriptivism vs descriptivism, I think there's a common stance against prescriptivism that also seems to rule out any negative opinion about language change—to which I say, hey, negative opinions are part of the whole mess too, even from a descriptivist standpoint. But this is a derail already; sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Ok, here's some helpful criticism (not that all of this is unhelpful):

Overall the presentation of your system is great. However, the documentation needs work, particularly on how to create a complete mini-MVP. Examples, even if dinky, help a lot. Many developers will just download an example and start messing around and see how it feels.

An important note on app structure:

I noticed how the approach you take involves maintaining lot of file structure, all reflecting the underlying conceptual framework. IMO, even when generated, complex file structures draw away from our developer productivity. Think about "flattening" some of that. Think about organizing the system around the aspects of the implementation, even if it is at the cost of (for lack of a better word) consistency.

The framework should serve the primary concerns in the mind of the developer: user, group, post, item, etc. rather than the primary concerns in the mind of the framework maker :)

Hope this helps, and good luck in Dodge City!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_City_(1939_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_City_\(1939_film\))

<comment><USER29> Great response. I read the one page presentation and looked at the source files and it feels like one of the hundreds of skeleton repos for React. Why is this different, why should we use this one instead of another?

The whole point is to make it easy to work with this full stack framework, so, that means to have excellent docs and StackOverflow support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> From what I can see, this is a boilerplate project with a fancy command line installer. So if you don't plan on using their exact stack, remember there are hundreds of other boilerplates you could use that are no more difficult to install.

</comment><comment> nullified-vga I just don't understand the motivation for the cli. Isn't it much easier to just clone the mern boilerplate repo, rather than npm installing some cli, then running a command. If there are no options, what's the point? Admittedly, I might be missing something.

<comment><USER31> I think a cli tool is usually easier because you don't have to rm -rf .git in order to set up your own repo.

<comment><USER32> You can use the following git command to move everything except for the .git files to a new location [1]

        git checkout-index -f -a --prefix=/path/to/folder/

[1] [http://www.tekkie.ro/methodology/use-git-checkout-index- init...](http://www.tekkie.ro/methodology/use-git-checkout-index-initialise- project-from-boilerplate-repository/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think it's a great idea to try and bring some of RoR's developer happiness to JS. Universal React + Redux is a great stack but I could see why beginners, unfamiliar with starter repos, could get overwelmed reading the respective docs. This project is a good attempt at lowering entry.

My 2 cents, I've been enjoying using websockets and redis with this stack. And +1 for considering the term Universal in the tagline.

<comment><USER34> > I think it's a great idea to try and bring some of RoR's developer happiness > to JS.

That's been around for a while: [http://ember-cli.com/user-guide/#using-ember- cli](http://ember-cli.com/user-guide/#using-ember-cli)

<comment><USER33> Yep! Love Ember. I think it's good that this project it trying to bring some of the RoR and Ember ideas to the React Redux stack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why MongoDB?

<comment><USER36> Mongo is often quick to get people started and simple to work with. No migrations, or joins, etc. etc.

It's not for every project, but quite nice for prototyping.

<comment><USER37> Not only prototyping. If the final product will have a moderate amount of users generating a moderate amount of data, there is really no drawbacks with mongoDB. The real cost is development time.

<comment><USER36> Of the mongoDB projects I've been involved with, I've always wanted to do large complex joins and filters which was just didn't perform as well as relational databases, and there is no support (as far as I know) for geo-coded data.

That's why I suggest it's good for prototyping, maybe it will work for some projects long-term, but I don't think it's the norm as mongoDb would suggest.

However, most prototypes don't end up as successes, so that's where I figure it's worth the switching cost once a go-nogo decision is made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> So mean.io with React instead of Angular.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm not sure I like the trend of tethering an application to a specific backend, especially regarding databases. I think it would be more interesting to, if we're looking to be isomorphic, generate a front-end template and an API _gateway_ . I say this because often when you're not working in tiny startups, your backend is handled by a different team and is loosely coupled.

</comment><comment><USER39> Are there any isomorphic frameworks or examples that aren't tightly coupled?

I can't understand how to get a development team starting with something like this to something like a microservices API without a complete/major rewrite or painful decoupling/transition sprint(s). Or am I missing something here?

<comment><USER40> I think what you're missing is that this is the opposite of having decoupled microservices by design. Their point is no configuration, seems like they're trying out the "monolithic" convention-based architecture with the modularity of react components, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> How do you handle sessions and user auth?

<comment><USER15> This is just a boilerplate, you can add auth on top of it like any other app. Anyway, soon we will add another example which uses auth and handles sessions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> What happened to yeoman? Wasn't it supposed to do exactly this and even more?

</comment><comment><USER43> does anyone else think the whole LAMP/MEAN... and now MERN is a bit contrived. Why do we need acronyms for everything? Why can't technologies be used independently of one another when they are useful. Why do need to cargo-cult tech trends?!

</comment><comment><USER44> how does this work with existing tools like webpack? how does this work with es6?

<comment><USER15> It uses Webpack along with Babel to compile ES6.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Nelly came up with that already.

</comment><comment><USER46> window.__INITIAL_STATE__ immediately made me think about __VIEWSTATE

</comment><comment><USER47> demo page seems broken

<comment><USER48> Looks like some folks have fun with XSS

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

</comment><comment><USER50> Could I suggest the title is changed to something like "MERN: Build isomorphic JavaScript apps using React and Redux" which is the page title, rather than just the domain which tells us nothing.

<comment><USER5> Sure.

Edit: I forgot that isomorphic is a trigger word. Took that out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I don't think _isomorphic_ means what you think it means.

<comment><USER52> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription)

vs

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

You might dislike it but it's become common usage in the js community so by any reasonable non-prescriptive definition of 'means' it 'means' what this author says.

<comment><USER53> Right! One of my favorite instructors (a computational linguist) in one of my favorite classes (linguistics) always used to say "We as linguists do not prescribe language, we describe language".</comment></comment></comment>


Tesla has created a battery that could last one million miles - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tesla-batteries-electric-vehicles <comment><USER2> Clickbaiting... They haven't MADE the battery, it's still theoretical.

<comment><USER3> >Up to three years of testing have been completed for some of the tests. Tests include long-term charge-discharge cycling at 20, 40, and 55°C, long-term storage at 20, 40, and 55°C, and high precision coulometry at 40°C. Several different electrolytes are considered in this LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2/graphite chemistry, including those that can promote fast charging.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sound amazing but the real question is what the price of this battery will be and if it will be approachable for the average joe (I mean a joe with a Tesla ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> Discussed 8 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20911534](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20911534)</comment>


First primate cloned via nuclear transfer - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=02LGJEWSSI44LQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/earth/2007/11/12/sciclone112.xml

<comment><AUTHOR> This is huge step forward in human therapeutic cloning. However it's still incredibly inefficient and could lead to the stem cells having a higher probability of becoming cancerous. Nuclear transfer doesn't usually work in mammals because the DNA from the male and female differ, unlike in other animals. For the clone to be successful, the DNA needs to be rapidly "reprogrammed" by the egg (ie the methylation patterns changed) which could lead to genes being misexpressed and causing uncontrolled proliferation.

</comment><comment><USER2> Yes! I'm one step closer to having my very own Christina Ricci.</comment>


Pee, Not Chlorine, Causes Red Eyes from Swimming Pools: CDC (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/pee-chlorine-red-eyes-swimming-pools-cdc-1.3127865 <comment><USER2> Chlorine reacts with pretty much any organic compound (hair, sweat, skin, urine) to produce chloramine. And yes, while this is the thing that irritates your eyes, it's not to say that chlorine is harmless either. There is evidence for respiratory and organ damage from extended exposure to chlorinated pools.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4351252/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4351252/)

<comment><USER3> > "Unfortunately, one of the rats accidentally drowned during swimming > training; therefore, the final animal number of the [experimental group] was > 17."

Damn, poor guy.

> "When training, a screw nut approximately 3% of their mean body weight was > tied to the top end of the tail of each rat, and all rats were kept in the > special pools with water of 60 cm depth (water temperature 25–30°C, pH > 6.5–7.0) until fatigued (submerged below the surface for five seconds > twice). The fatigued rats ceased training immediately, were removed from the > water for a short break, showered with running water and then dried with > hair dryers."

So, systematically drowning rats until they aspirate water, every day for twelve weeks. And they showed negative respiratory effects. Huh.

<comment><USER4> This gives me an idea of an online gambling site where people bet crypto on which rat will drown first. I will call it thunderpool. 2 rats enter, 1 rat leaves.

<comment><USER5> Place your bets if this cat in this box will be dead or alive when the box is opened at Schroedinger's online casino!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article's full of problems.

The first reason chloramine gets to be a problem is users don't shower before entering the pool. The amount of urine a swimmer can introduce into the water is small compared to the amount of urea coming off their unwashed body. Icelandic people religiously shower before entering their shared baths, and look on non-showering the way we might look at people not bothering to wiping their backside.

And the other two big misconceptions are that time will take care of the problem (chlorine evaporates, amines don't) and that you can just dump in chlorine or other chemicals to get rid of the problem. It uses far less energy and wastes less water to simply dump and replace the pool water (chlorine tablets require ridiculous amounts of water and energy in their manufacture).

<comment><USER7> "The amount of urine a swimmer can introduce into the water is small compared to the amount of urea coming off their unwashed body" \- really? how much urea does a normal human have on their body, assumed they wash at all e.g. if they showered this morning, and go to pool after work ? Assuming they don't spend the day pissing on themselves, do we just secrete urea?

<comment><USER8> Also remember the number of people getting in the pool is likely much larger then the number of people peeing in it.

<comment><USER4> That's weird, because the only reason to go to a public pool is so you could pee in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've always wanted a product that you could add to the swimming pool water that reacts to human urine by coloring the water immediately surrounding the pee-er. Say a neon orange or red. Over time, the colored water gets diluted and disappears. Maybe pee-shaming is what's required to stop people from doing it.

<comment><USER10> Gosh this is not gonna go well with the public. I know several kids who just can't hold pee in the pool. They'll just let it out. Also its not like the toilets are right there. You often have to get out of the pool, walk like 100 yards or down a flight of stairs. It's a PITA. Even Michael Phelps once said in an interview that very rarely competitive swimmers get out of the pool to pee.

<comment><USER11> I'm constantly shocked and disgusted that people actually pee in pools and that it's not some joke someone made up somewhere.

<comment><USER12> I mean, what about all the other body fluids/debris that are in pools? Saliva, sweat, earwax, belly button lint, bird shit, insects, band-aids, small animal carcasses that get trapped in the filters but are removed before the pool opens?

There's no avoiding other peoples/animals grossness, frankly whether your in a pool or just out and about.

Urine may be gross, but it's sterile, and at least for me, there are grosser things in pools.

<comment><USER13> What was it W.C. Fields used to say about drinking water?

<comment><USER14> Fish chlorinate it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> tj-teej I see a lot of comments in these threads regarding the old idea of a red cloud to indicate someone has peed in the pool. This idea never dies and I think I know where it started...

When I was a lifeguard, we had to test the pH levels of the pool water every few hours. This entailed taking a sample of water, adding a few drops from a dropper and noting the shade of red the sample turned.

We would tell the kids that we were checking that the "pee detector" was working. I really think this is what has fueled the notion that it's possible to turn pool water red to catch pool pee-ers.

PS - I cannot recommend a summer job lifeguarding to anyone teenager, it was honestly one of the best jobs I ever had.

<comment><USER15> I think you mean "I can recommend a summer job lifeguarding" :)

I also was a lifeguard all during high school, and if it was financially viable at this stage in my life I would do it again.

<comment> tj-teej You are very correct! Unfortunately it's too late to edit now..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Approximately 58 per cent of Canadians admitted to peeing in the pool at least once in a recent survey of 9,500 people conducted by Travelocity." Never looking a Canadians the same ever again.

<comment><USER17> To paraphrase a HaHaOnlySerious joke about diving:

"There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who have peed in a pool. And those who lie about it."

<comment><USER18> Everyone as a kid who has gone into a pool is probably right, but I doubt all adults who've been in a pool have done so.

<comment><USER17> A HaHaOnlySerious joke is not meant to represent absolute truth, but to be truthful enough to provoke reflection on the subject.

In this case, I am suggesting that if you survey some large group of Canadians, and 58% admit to peeing in a pool, there is also some non-trivial number of Canadians surveyed who have peed in a pool, but will not admit it to you.

Maybe not 42%, but also maybe not 2%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This has been well-known by swimmers for a long time: chlorine itself is pretty much fine for you. It's the chemical reaction of chlorine with waste products, including human waste, that produces toxic byproducts and the concomitant "pool smell."

If you swim in a well-maintained pool (e.g. one of my university's competition swimming pools), there's no "pool smell."

<comment><USER19> Are you sure your University isn't using bromine instead of chlorine? Bromine is more expensive but then you don't get the "pool smell". It's what they use at Disney parks.

<comment><USER20> I think you're thinking of bromine, not boron.

<comment><USER19> Yes. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "People who swim while they have diarrhea and unleash even very tiny amounts of germs like Cryptosporidium (or 'crypto' for short)"

<comment><USER22> "are evil"

<comment><USER23> "are shitbags"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've been in pools that I'm 100% certain no one had peed in, and still got red eyes.

I'm certain because I was the only one who swam in it (a backyard pool) and I know I never did.

<comment><USER25> Probably peed in by wildlife

<comment><USER26> Ambient pee if you will. Or background pee from the hose used to fill the pool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> They talk about dichloramine and trichloramine which are the products of chlorine reaction with ammonia, but also any amino acid - which means it can come as well from reactions with any part of our body it gets in contact with, like almost 2 sq. meters of our skin. How did they rule out all those other sources?

</comment><comment><USER28> And this is why I prefer pools that are athletic-focused, rather than pools that are entertainment-focused. They really ought to be considered as separate facilities.

<comment><USER29> [https://youtu.be/0iKAyfaPqKM](https://youtu.be/0iKAyfaPqKM)

<comment><USER30> And now YT thinks I'm into pee clips. Thx!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If my memory serves me well, it is not chlorine, but the product from hypochloric acid[1] and urea/urea-derivatives that that make eyes hurt. Although, I don't know if they use Cl2 as reagent here.

[1] Hypochloric acid is generated in a disproportionation reaction: Cl2 + H2o --> HCl + HOCl

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm not sold. We had a pool when I was growing up and since I was the youngest child, there was a several year stretch in high school where I was taking care of the chemicals in the pool and really the only person ever swimming in it.

If the pool was looking a little green, I dumped some chlorine in and guess what, the increased chlorine created increased irritation to my eyes. And no, I wasn't the kind to pee in my own pool - not that the amount of pee I could generate would cause the requisite chlorine-pee interaction that makes the pool such an irritant.

</comment><comment><USER33> There exist more articulate writings on this subject. Chloramines are formed when urea (pee and sweat) meets chlorine [1,2]. It contributes to athlete asthma [3,4,5,6,7]. It is an identified occupational health issue [8]. Chloramines are a concern with aquatic facility operation [9,10]. One way to help is to use UV filtering [11,12]. I believe the solution is just better aquatic center ventilation [13] especially moving air across the water surface [14].

[1] [https://nextgws.com/chloramine-simplified-chemistry- lesson/](https://nextgws.com/chloramine-simplified-chemistry-lesson/) [2] [https://chlorine.americanchemistry.com/Science- Center/Chlori...](https://chlorine.americanchemistry.com/Science- Center/Chlorine-Compound-of-the-Month-Library/Chloramines-Understanding-Pool- Smell/) [3] [https://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20040611/chlorine-pools- br...](https://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20040611/chlorine-pools-breathing- trouble#1) [4] [https://lungdiseasenews.com/2015/04/07/competitive- swimming-...](https://lungdiseasenews.com/2015/04/07/competitive-swimming- linked-to-asthma-in-new-study/) [5] [http://www.jiaci.org/issues/vol21issue3/12.pdf](http://www.jiaci.org/issues/vol21issue3/12.pdf) [6] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-asthma-swimmers- id...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-asthma-swimmers- idUSKBN0MT2I620150402) [7] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4351252/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4351252/) [8] [https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/29/4/690](https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/29/4/690) [9] [https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming/aquatics- professio...](https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming/aquatics- professionals/chloramines.html) [10] [https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/park- ridge/sports/ct-...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/park- ridge/sports/ct-prh-maine-south-high-school-pool-health-concerns- tl-0208-20160208-story.html) [11] [https://www.poolspanews.com/facilities/maintenance/technical...](https://www.poolspanews.com/facilities/maintenance/technical- guide-to-using-uv-sanitation-on-swimming-pools_o) [12] [http://halmapr.com/news/hanovia/2008/07/26/uv-chloramine- red...](http://halmapr.com/news/hanovia/2008/07/26/uv-chloramine-reduction- disinfection-and-water-savings-in-one-neat-package/) [13] [http://aquaticnews.com/2018/04/17/indoor-pool-air-quality- th...](http://aquaticnews.com/2018/04/17/indoor-pool-air-quality-the-ultimate- solution-to-bad-air/) [14] [http://paddockevacuator.com/](http://paddockevacuator.com/)

Disclaimer: I've got no relation or interest in Paddock (the 1st and last 2 links), I just happen to be a swim coach.

</comment><comment><USER34> So how much water do you need before it's socially acceptable? I pee in the lake. What about a large pond or a really huge pool in a water park?

<comment><USER35> I've always been told not to urinate or defecate within 100 feet of water sources in the backcountry because if everyone does it it builds up and then the water is unsafe to drink even when filtered.

The 6 micron filters used to filter giardia from the water will not filter viruses, which are present in your feces.

Please stop doing this.

<comment><USER36> Do you think all the animals that use these water sources follow the same rules?

<comment><USER35> Deer viruses also don't typically infect humans. But human viruses will readily infect other humans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you've ever been lucky enough to swim in a pool that's just been filled up, you know this is true.

</comment><comment><USER38> another shocker. The smell of "Chlorine" in the pools is not caused by "chlorine" but by the urine. Chlorine has no smell when mixed with water. Add urine, and you get the "Chlorine" smell thats typical of pools.

See: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32y9aYEzzo&t=607s&frags=pl%...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32y9aYEzzo&t=607s&frags=pl%2Cwn)

[https://chlorine.americanchemistry.com/Science- Center/Chlori...](https://chlorine.americanchemistry.com/Science- Center/Chlorine-Compound-of-the-Month-Library/Chloramines-Understanding-Pool- Smell/)

<comment><USER39> Kind of a deceptive video, which might make you think that if no one peed in the pool, there would be no pool smell. Urea is what reacts to create trichloramine, which gives off the smell. But urea, as the video acknowledges, also comes from sweat. Yet they go on to talk about chlorine reacting with _urine_ as being the sole cause of the smell.

They should have gone into what percent of the urea comes from sweat vs. urine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I just came back from a swim. Accidentally swallowed a bit as well (it happens, never pleasant). I do use goggles to protect my eyes. Overall it's a good work out but the chlorine is definitely unpleasant.

I've encountered a few pools in Denmark that use salt water rather than chlorine. Much more pleasant to swim in and seems to have the same effect of killing off bacteria. Seems like a nice alternative. Refreshing the water more often is probably costly but could work as well. The pool I go to is always very busy and I suspect they are cutting corners on refreshing the water regularly.

<comment><USER41> 'Salt water' pools are still using chlorine, just via a continuous process that maintains the right level of chlorine (splitting the salt: NaCl). Much easier to maintain. If the system has a super chlorination function (periodically gives a burst of increased chlorine, e.g. overnight) you don't have to shock the pool very often.

Big municipal pools have continous chemistry monitoring so they can achieve the same effect with less electricity. They can also increase the flow rate when there are more people etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Wasn't the pool closed due to aids?

Memes aside, it certainly shows how it's easy to draw an incorrect conclusion. It really makes me second guess how healthy swimming in a pool really is. Lots of people jumping in and out of the same water is an problem waiting to happen.

As children we used to swim and kayak in the sea (to the point where we could no longer see the coast, which in hindsight was very dangerous). I wonder how being in the sea compares to a pool?

</comment><comment><USER43> Why do pools still use chlorine? Is it just because it's really cheap? I've seen non-chlorine pool treatments advertised in the past but haven't been to a single pool in 20+ years that wasn't chlorinated.

[http://www.baquacil.com/](http://www.baquacil.com/)

EDIT: Also, ewww.

<comment><USER44> Some are saline (salt) based instead of chlorine.

<comment><USER45> Salt = NaCl.

<comment><USER46> Chlorine = Cl2. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond#Covalent_bond](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond#Covalent_bond)

<comment><USER47> _Chlorine Gas_ = Cl2, which is generated by electrolysis of NaCl in a saltwater pool setup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Our species has weathered all kinds of terrible waterborne communicable diseases since time began. It's fair to say we wouldn't cover the earth as we do without our sophisticated biome being adapted to all manner of disease from shared bathing.

</comment><comment><USER49> Mark Rober (glitter bomb) did a video on this. He also did a test on the "pool smell" if it really caused by pee reacting with chlorine:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32y9aYEzzo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32y9aYEzzo)

<comment><USER50> Not sure I can trust anything from that dude. He realy did a number on his credibility by not making the glitter bombs, faking the 'prank', and lying about it afterward after being presented with clear evidince of his deception, and his pre-existing knowledge of it. No thanks, people who sell their credibility for views deserve no respect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> > The only solution is to pee in the pool, then at least you think it's your > own.........

This caught my eye in the comments at the bottom of the article. It answers the question that we all asked (sometimes of ourselves): Why would anyone pee in the pool?

</comment><comment><USER52> My Great Aunt is in hospice care at home, I was talking with her yesterday about a sign she had by her pool when I was growing up.

Welcome to my OOL notice there is no P in it and I'd like to keep it that way.

</comment><comment><USER53> Already knew this thanks to Mark Rober!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32y9aYEzzo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S32y9aYEzzo)

</comment><comment><USER54> I've been a swimmer for 15 years and I had to get used to floating boogers and used band aids and I can just imagine how much dingleberry I have swallowed over time!

</comment><comment><USER55> Anecdotal but I was at a hotel on a weekday. Nobody else had been in the pool all day as far as I know when I jumped in the pool. Still got slightly red eyes.

</comment><comment><USER56> Off topic, so feel free to downvote, but I have a possibly related question that may find some answers here.

I generally have a dry scalp, and dry skin around eye brows and beard. I started swimming about five months back and these drastically improved. I cracked a couple of ribs in a cycling accident and had to stop... the problems returned. Back swimming again now and they're gone again.

The only info I can find online is of people complaining that pool swimming _causes_ dry scalp problems but I seem to be experiencing the opposite.

Any reasons why this might be the case?

<comment><USER57> ph?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> As a longtime swimmer and water polo player, my eyes have been absolutely wrecked by harsh pools many, many times.

However, I don't think it's pee. First off, every swimmer pees in the pool.

I have been a part of tens of thousands of man-hours in the pool and seen people get out to pee maybe three times.

I have been in the first games of the day at water polo tournaments and have seen them chlorine shock the water followed by everyone's eyes getting decimated. To me, the devil is unbalanced chlorine coupled with the thick, thick film of sunscreen that develops in the water after a scorching day with hundreds of people jumping in and out.

You get desperate when your eyes get that destroyed. The classic trick is to fill a pair of goggles with milk and just put 'em on for a few minutes.

<comment><USER59> > First off, every swimmer pees in the pool

A friend expressed this to me once when I caught her peeing in the pool and I was honestly skeptical that "everyone does it" as I would have never felt comfortable doing that. Still don't.

<comment><USER58> When you're in the water that much, I think you just end up getting desensitized to it.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Teammates going to a corner and openly declaring "don't come over here I'm peeing." Coaches literally encouraging it, saying it's not worth it to get out and miss a set when you can stay in the water: "your urine is just a tiny, minuscule fraction of the total volume anyways"

When you spend that much time in the water with your teammates, it's no longer an "open secret" that eveyone is doing it. It's simply open.

<comment><USER60> "Everyone does it" does not mean "it's harmless".

If you want to see other examples of ubiquitous practices that were treated as harmless and necessary to be competitive and ultimately shown to be incredibly harmful, I would just refer you to {the entire history of competitive and professional sports}.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> So if the eyes turn red in the pool does it mean there isn't enough Chlorine in it?

</comment><comment><USER62> i get red eyes even from my shower, unless there is pee in the water pouring from the shower head, I dont know what to say.

<comment><USER63> The lack of salt in tap water is likely the cause of eye irritation and redness. The concentration of salt in tap water about 2% of human tears. The concentration in chlorinated pool water is closer to 30% of human tears. Perfectly clean and balanced pool water should be less of an irritant than tap water.

[https://www.aao.org/eye-health/ask-ophthalmologist-q/is- it-o...](https://www.aao.org/eye-health/ask-ophthalmologist-q/is-it-ok-to- wash-your-eyes-out-with-tap-water)

[https://blog.hayward-pool.com/maintenance/how-much-salt- do-y...](https://blog.hayward-pool.com/maintenance/how-much-salt-do-you-add/)

<comment><USER23> If a salt chlorinator is in use then yes salt will tend to be added.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I wonder if there is a technically feasible (and cheap) way of eliminating those substances from the water (apart from the obvious "cycling it" way)

</comment><comment><USER65> This is bullshit. I get red eyes and inflammation from swimming in the chlorinated pool in our backyard if I keep my eyes open under water, and I know for a fact that nobody pees in there, unless evil goblins sneak into our backyard to relieve themselves.

</comment><comment><USER66> This is the reason I never go to pools. You're basically swimming in a solution of pee, sweat, vaginal fluids, and God knows what else.

</comment><comment><USER67> Oh no. Oh no no no.

</comment><comment><USER68> Oh. Well, sorry guys...

</comment><comment><USER69> Damn

</comment><comment> black-tea Why "pee"? The word is urine.

</comment><comment><USER70> A colleague and friend of mine once commented that having open designated smoking areas is like having a designated peeing area in a swimming pool.

</comment><comment><USER71> Umm, pool owner here. This is horseshit.

Come over and I will drain my pool, fill it up with fresh water, stabilize the chemistry and give it just a bit too much chlorine and lets see if your eyes don't get red.

<comment><USER72> Former pool owner here, for reasonable values of "just a bit too much" they won't get red. Eye irritation is a function of pH and unfiltered particulates.

Check out the Trouble Free Pool forum, you might save some money and learn some stuff!

<comment><USER73> That was his point. Public swimming pools crank up the chlorine to counteract the number of people using them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Your pools are still being sanitized with chlorine?

The fact that the 'chlorine' smell stems from urine in the pool is news to you?

This has been common knowledge for decades now and most of the public pools here in Germany have been retrofitted to O2 base sanitization to eliminate the chlorine.

So all the authorities actually do about it is print a warning on paper?

This is odd.

</comment><comment><USER75> I've always avoided swimming because of this. Other people, who may not wipe their bottoms properly, are getting into the same pool as you. Sometimes they pee (and they always excrete saliva) into the pool. It kind of grosses me out, and I've never really understood why it's not more taboo.

In elementary school, I was never a fan of the game "bobbing for apples", because all of the other kids stick their mouths into the same bucket, and I had a basic conceptual understanding of germs and how they spread.

<comment><USER76> On the other hand, what better way to give your immune system a head start?

<comment><USER75> Not washing your hands 20 times a day or profusely applying hand sanitizer is something to avoid. Doesn't mean you should be seeking out bacteria, though.</comment></comment></comment>


Can the quantum state be interpreted statistically? - <AUTHOR> http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-the-quantum-state-be-interpreted-statistically/

<comment><USER2> The book "How the hippies saved physics" has some really interesting historical observations about the shift in academic physics from before WWII into the Cold War era (and largely from Europe to America).

The crux is that a physics of philosophy, heavy on theory, was largely replaced by a physics of "engineers in reserve" to be pumped out by universities as a necessary weapon in order to win the Cold War. Of course the weapon was fairly successful, as we saw physics pave the way for new applied engineering, computer development, and chemistry. But it's also true that the basic tenet of early-20th century theoretical physics---that of questioning the established narrative---largely disappeared in this era.

Now things are changing again, there are enough educated individuals to study every conceivable angle; there are mainstream stories in the press about special relatively potentially facing caveats like never before, etc. All in all it's an exciting time and healthy that debate is more full again.

The long established narrative in (especially American) academic physics that there is no questioning of quantum mechanics, and no use hoping for a deeper theory, is a great example of group think. Sure maybe we'll never have a deeper theory, but we should always try to find one!

<comment><USER3> "The long established narrative in (especially American) academic physics that there is no questioning of quantum mechanics, and no use hoping for a deeper theory,"

Really? The narrative I've heard is that we know Relativity and QM don't go together very well and it's clear that we need something beyond the both of them to figure out how the universe works at all scales. And physicists in general seem pretty excited about any tidbit of data that might contradict one or the other, because they desperately need clues about what the non-QM/non- Relativity answer looks like. Who is out there saying that we must not look for anything beyond QM?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> See also this entry <http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=822> and its comments at Scott Aaronson's blog.

<comment><USER4> for other lay people watching - the original paper was over hyped. There is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that basically thinks that the state of a quantum object is more or less sampled from an underlying reality that we cannot fully capture. This viewpoint is not widely held, even a lay person such as myself found it to not make much intuitive sense - it seemed like another way of sweeping hidden variables under a rug.

Anyways the paper now mathematically refutes this viewpoint. It still leaves untouched another probabilistic view point that the state represents no underlying reality and that quantum mechanics is an extension of bayesian probability theory to a complex space (this is the view I think makes the most sense).

In essence the paper simply solidly codifies what most of the physicists already accepted. So not much changed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This really helped me to understand the thrust of the paper. Much better than Motl's rant.</comment>


Amazon's Futuristic Delivery Method? Prime Air, Delivery by Drone - <AUTHOR> http://www.followletter.com/o/5251/http://allthingsd.com/20131201/amazons-futuristic-delivery-method-prime-air-kindles-delivered-by-drone-video/?mod=atd_daily_email_list#.UpycMI74L0o.hackernews <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6833223](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6833223)

        Amazon to deliver by drone? Don't believe the hype (theguardian.com)
        97 points by bloat 2 hours ago | flag | 79 comments

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6830566](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6830566)

        Amazon Prime Air (amazon.com)
        1080 points by wyclif 13 hours ago | flag | 507 comments</comment>


Unlikely Developer Interviewed About Text Editors - <AUTHOR> http://mac.appstorm.net/general/interviews/interview-meet-michael-petruzzo-the-man-behind-grandview-and-notesdeck/

<comment><AUTHOR> As an outsider I would really dig some feedback from the Hacker News community. (interview is with me)</comment>


Show HN: PhantomJsCloud, Headless Browser SaaS - <AUTHOR> https://PhantomJsCloud.com <comment><AUTHOR> My baby, represents about 2 years of work at this point. I'd love to hear [constructive] feedback!</comment>


Ask HN: Book for learning about the history of operating systems and software? - <AUTHOR> I'm 24, work as a software engineer, and have been programming for about half of my life. While I consider myself reasonably well acquainted with the current state of the operating systems and software, I want to learn about how we arrived at this point.
I'm specifically curious about the development of Unix, popular programming languages, the internet, and Linux. It seems like decisions made decades ago related to each of these still affect my day-to-day work, and I would like to know what these decisions are and how they were made.
Does anyone know of a book (or other resource) that I should read to learn more about these topics? <comment><USER2> There aren't many books about this. Instead there are papers that describe historic systems at particular points in time, or describe (part of) the history of a particular system.

For programming languages, the canonical papers appeared in the three History of Programming Languages (HOPL) conferences:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Programming_Languag...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Programming_Languages)

For Unix and C history, start with Dennis Ritchie's page (scroll down to Unix papers):

[https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/](https://www.bell- labs.com/usr/dmr/www/)

For the Internet, there is this review of classic papers on the Internet and some alternatives:

[http://named-data.net/publications/main/](http://named- data.net/publications/main/)

There are also some popular books on Internet history - a good one is Where Wizards Stay Up Late by Katie Hafner and Mathew Lyon.

You might find something interesting among these links on computing history:

[http://jon-jacky.github.io/home/links.html#history](http://jon- jacky.github.io/home/links.html#history)

and Unix/Linux history (scroll down to Unix heritage society):

[http://jon-jacky.github.io/home/links.html#linux](http://jon- jacky.github.io/home/links.html#linux)

still more here about Unix and other systems:

[http://jon-jacky.github.io/home/links.html#design-examples](http://jon- jacky.github.io/home/links.html#design-examples)

Historical descriptions of a few influential systems and many obscure ones:

[https://github.com/jon- jacky/Piety/blob/master/doc/precursor...](https://github.com/jon- jacky/Piety/blob/master/doc/precursors.md)

</comment><comment><USER3> ESR's "The Art of Unix Programming" includes a longish section on the history of Unix. For the rest of the book, he talks about the Unix programming philosophy, including many examples of real-life software.

I found this a fascinating book to learn about the mindset behind Unix, also to compare what that mindset was like back in the 70s (and why) and how it is today.

Well worth reading!

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's a start: "A Brief History of Computing \- Operating Systems"

[http://trillian.randomstuff.org.uk/~stephen/history/timeline...](http://trillian.randomstuff.org.uk/~stephen/history/timeline- OS.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Based on your question, you might enjoy:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8orjQLacTo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8orjQLacTo)</comment>


Best Laptop for kids - <AUTHOR> I looking for a laptop for my 8 years old daughter, which she would be going to use for her school assignments and learn to program as well. Wondering which one would be a good fit for her. <comment><USER2> This is going to sound odd, but I'd go for a used macbook pro. Apple has awesome parental controls, and you can set things up remotely. I also like the programming environment for my son (7). We started off with scratch a long time ago, now he's moved on to Java (following along with examples), and I even got him a MicroBit that he can program with the MS Scratch-like interface. It was an easy choice for me since I just upgraded to a smaller MB Air for travel, and well...I stepped on his raspberry pi (he loved tux math).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks jcbeard, its was really helpful.</comment></comment>


What I Wish I Knew About Computer Science in High School - <AUTHOR> http://codexjourneys.com/wish-knew-computer-science-high-school/

<comment><USER2> As someone who has transitioned into becoming a developer via 'the computer guy (change ram, install windows ..etc)' -> 'sysadmin' -> 'scripter' -> developer path, these two points resonated well with me:

      > I went back for a technical master's degree but shied away from pure
      > Computer Science because I was afraid. Afraid I couldn't compete with
      > people who'd been coding since they were 12, who majored in CS at college
      > the first time around, who were wizards.

      and

      > I didn't realize that intense difficulty is normal in CS. No one told me
      > that *everyone goes through it*...

IMHO, programming _is_ for everyone -- with the caveat that the person needs to be willing to work at it even if they just want _learn_ it; as opposed to some other skills where one has to work hard only when one wants to _master_ it although learning the basics is relatively simpler, eg: mathematics or playing an instrument.

<comment><USER3> I still believe that programming is not for everyone. There's experimental evidence that programming classes have two bell curves--the ones who think right and can succeed, and the ones who don't. More personally, I've tried to teach CS at various levels, from primary school to university level, and the divide can be very clear. It isn't about ability or intelligence or background, some people simply seem to be unable to think in the right way, like the mental model in their head is trying to match on the wrong criteria for this specific area.

<comment><USER4> > There's experimental evidence that programming classes have two bell curves > --the ones who think right and can succeed, and the ones who don't.

Do you have a link please? Because "Camels and Humps" has been retracted. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8059900](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8059900)</comment></comment></comment>


Why Facebook and Google's Concept of "Real Names" Is Revolutionary - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/why-facebook-and-googles-concept-of-real-names-is-revolutionary/243171/

<comment><USER2> It's worth pointing out that there's a difference between "anonymity" and "not-my-real-name". Most people on the Internet are probably not anonymized by their screennames/handles/nicks/whatever-the-kids-call-them-now because they work hard to integrate that online identity across services. It is a real, tangible identity even though it is completely separate from the physical person.

We shouldn't underestimate the value of that identity, or of stepping outside the identities we have in the working world. Some people would rather be known totally and solely as the guy who posts funny stuff to Reddit and contributes to open source projects, not as the 34 year-old IT worker who gets yelled at every morning by a boss he hates.

<comment><USER3> the important thing about pseudonymity is that it is transient. if, an hour from now, i decide i want to be sex_girl_69, i can do that and you're not going to know that's the same person as me. i can always come back to being notatoad again tomorrow.

you only have one real identity, and it is forever. a pseudonym might be a completely functional identity and just as real as your legal name, but the point is that it has a degree of freedom that you will never have with an identity built around a legal name.

<comment><USER4> On the internet ... yes it will. The freedom is simply there.

Hell, even in the real world you have all this freedom. When I introduce myself as Swizec in real life, nobody questions anymore whether that's my legal real name or not. They just take it that that's what they are supposed to call me.

Pseudonymity is a _much more_ real concept than people are willing to admit to themselves. In fact, at this very instance, everybody in the world is pseudonymous. Most just choose not to exercise this freedom.

<comment><USER5> Why do you suppose more people on the Internet choose to exercise this right then in real-life?

I had never considered that the level of pseudonymity available on the Internet is available in real-life as well. Really the only thing that the real-life has which you can't change would be your DNA.

<comment><USER6> In real life you can maintain pseudymity by just never exposing your identity. This happens all the time, much more often than the Internet (e.g. As I type this under a tree by the road of my uni, no one knows who I am and yet my nick here absolutely identifies me).

<comment><USER5> Because you are being so open about it why do you feel you need to use a nick in real-life?

A lot conversations for this story seem to have focused on the concept of permanence with a nickname. If you use the same nickname across a multitude of services then you've created a "real" identity.

I'm trying to understand peoples reasoning for this. To me there seems to be two prevalent reasons:

1) You want your single identity to be under a name you choose, not have it be forced upon you like you real name was.

2) You want to maintain a multitude of identities each with a specific purpose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In the end, isn't user's choice a compelling factor in deciding such matters? We know what you're trying to do, but you can't force people to be social, at least not without some awkwardness and discontent.

Let us speak clearly: They tell us why it's good for us that we use our real names, and they may be right. But they don't tell us why it's bad for them that we don't. If it's not bad for them, then why restrict user's choice? People socialize in different ways, in my opinion, a good social network would be flexible enough to allow different people socialize in a way that is most comfortable to them.

EDIT: My legal name is not "Ben Beltran". Nonetheless, almost everybody in real life and online knows me this way, few know my actual long name and most think I'm called benjamin. I believe this name attaches my statements to my person more than my legal name does. I consider this my "Real Name"

<comment><USER8> It's bad for them, because it breaks the whole concept. The concept is that if you start with requiring real name, you prime people to give you the "real" things you like, your "real" preferences etc. It sets the tone, you are not longer spontaneous, you are "serious". Of course, it's all scaremongering: social networks don't have real informative comment, most people share jokes, mindless pleasantries and play games.

<comment><USER9> _social networks don't have real informative comment_

I beg to differ. I mostly use facebook to keep in touch with my extended family. Most of it is updates on our children. While that is probably of little significance to anyone outside my extended family, it is important to us.

Others though use social networks to find jobs, talk about their most recent artistic project, discuss research, and keep in touch with business contacts. And those are within my social circles. If we step further out, they have been used as a tool with major political consequences in many places.

<comment><USER8> my bad. I meant "content of significance to the general public"; i assume your family could tell who you are just from your picture, the issue here is whether you should use your identity outside the social network when you create such "content of significance". It's very rare that you find original content inside social networks, they are mostly amplifiers for content found elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The author's example of screaming in the street is moot: most meaningful social interactions happen in a setting with far more information about the people you're interacting with: e.g. a college bar, a tradeshow, a cocktail party, a museum.

You're very rarely interacting with no context at all, and most interactions are among friends, where you have much more information than is contained in a Facebook profile.

<comment><USER2> And more careful selection of who knows it, generally, with less ability for people to verify what they've been told if they stand outside the trusted circle. Moreover, memory isn't permanent in the brain but social network companies seem to be interested in making it very permanent in the data center.

<comment><USER10> True, but let's not conflate the issues of identity vs. verification vs. permanence. People can still lie on their social networking profiles, and anything in the real world can still be recorded. Even if social networking companies didn't push to make their data persistent, any viewer of that data could cache it for all time.

<comment><USER11> >let's not conflate the issues of identity vs. verification vs. permanence

I think that's the entire point of the article - that those issues combine to be a factor on social networks in a way that they very rarely do offline.

To put it another way: on social networks, assuming you use your real name (which is the issue), all three of identity, verification, and permanence are true by default, and false only as exceptions. Offline, you may get one or two, but rarely all three at once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Of course, the revolution actually started back in 1985, with The WELL and the idea that YOYOW (You Own Your Own Words.)

</comment><comment><USER13> This strikes me as less an argument for pseudonyms and more an argument for impermanence. It seems to me that the thought experiment is more like putting a mask on, and then yelling your revolutionary ideas, rather than doing it in public and just hoping to not be recognized.

<comment><USER14> Not really. If I shout something on the street, it's virtually impossible for the people around me to figure out who I am (unless they already know me). With real names attached to everything, even if the statement is impermanent, it's essentially trivial for "bystanders" to track down your identify.

<comment><USER15> If one of the bystanders cares enough, they'll use their phone to take a picture of you. From there it's entirely possible to link that picture of you to other pictures of you online (facial recognition and all that), and then to your identity, if there are any publicly accessible pictures of you online that are linked to your identity. Or they could share it with their social network, hoping that there's some overlap.

Similarly, if I hear someone shout something that interests me, I can begin a conversation with them which may lead to getting details of their identity, unless they're actively concealing those details. Or follow them home, and so forth, as you start moving to less and less ethical options.

Attaching real names to statements online does make the process ridiculously easy, though, and it would probably be useful if social networks had a "do not expose my identity (in comments, etc.) to people who are not already my friends (or friends of friends)." That seems (to me, at least) to be rather more similar to how the real world works.

<comment><USER16> The absolutely massive photo database owned (or at least permanent irrevocably licensed access and storage) by Facebook, combined with the metadata people are more than happy to provide (Tagging their friends bodies & faces) sounds like an absolutely perfect training set for an automated recognition system.

You'll even get all sorts of different angles, lighting conditions, age variations, and just about anything else you might want.

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but there's something about it that makes me at least a little uneasy.

<comment><USER15> Facebook apparently already has a facial recognition system, which startles me a bit. Not surprising in the least, of course, just I'm worried that I hadn't heard of it before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It surprises me how much the argument that those anti-Real Name believe this way because they "don't understand and have never ran their own business" or are old-fashioned. This argument is used around here to explain away anyone that doesn't agree with your favorite startups's angle...

Its so much more complicated than that. The clearcut assumption that those who express this particular ideal are immature and inexperienced is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER18> Revolutionary? Disappointing is the word I would use.

</comment><comment><USER19> Well, if you yelled "down with government" on a street in North Korea you wouldn't be anonymous for long. If you yelled "f*ck the police" in the hearing range of an American cop you'd probably be identified and harassed. What's at stake is a social compact that we respect free speech and privacy. Real name policies violate that from the outset. Of course, it keeps comment sections civil but you don't go to a random bar with a sticker stating your full name and address. But that doesn't make the interactions any less meaningful. It's not so much the anonymity but being able to keep a relaxed distance from being judged for what you say or who you are.

</comment><comment><USER5> The scenario where a person doesn't want to use their real name because they are fleeing an abusive relationship or are they are a rape survivor, etc I don't have a solution for.

But for everyone else god forbid that you have to think twice before posting something on the Internet. I use my real name for basically everything online (save video game networks which is more just out of habit really) and I try to consciously filter myself because I know I am writing in ink.

Short of the extreme edge cases where a person is attempting to hide from someone because they fear for their life, the main argument against using real names always seems to boil down to someone waiting to share something radical and controversial but not having it tied to their physical persona.

Social networks like Facebook and Google+ are more about those close connected relationships that you would get if you lived in a small town (at least that is how I look at them) and if someone wants to spew their ideas anonymously then let them find another saloon in the wild wild west that is the Internet.

<comment><USER9> _Short of the extreme edge cases where a person is attempting to hide from someone because they fear for their life, the main argument against using real names always seems to boil down to someone waiting to share something radical and controversial but not having it tied to their physical persona._

May I point out that those extreme edge cases, while rare, are also extremely important? That person fleeing an abusive relationship is probably far more in need of a swift effective communications medium to get social support, practical advice and even to just plain tell their story than most people are.

And you are forgetting other cases that are just a touch less extreme but still relevant. The young adult struggling with their orientation may be desperate to avoid having certain people discover this fact while equally desperate to find others in a similar situation for that support and advice.

I am the first to say that Google and Facebook are private businesses and how they handle their business is up to them, but if we are going to have a real discussion of the reprecussions of their decisions then we need to remember that these edge cases are real and they are important.

<comment><USER5> You are right. I didn't mean to downplay these edge cases as much as I did.

Is the concern that Facebook and Google's decisions are going to permeate so far it will become common place or that because these two social networks are the big dogs that it is unfair (for lack of a better word) for the edges cases to not be able to participate?

<comment><USER9> I think some of both. Many sites that accept comments now encourage commenters to log in with their facebook accounts, so that can be a major factor. I hve not seen it yet, but I suspect something similar will happen as G+ leaves beta and becomes more established with it.

Also, as I have read in other commenters, a social network is only valuable if your friends are on it, so while alternatives exist it may be hard to find the people you need to find on them.

<comment><USER5> I agree that Google+ will probably get in on some sort of "Login with Google+" thing.

I guess someone could see this as this real name policy then "infecting" the Internet. It would really come down to why are these sites implementing this service. If they are doing it for ease of use, so the user doesn't have to create another account, and there are no alternatives that don't require you to use your real name then that could be bad.

But if these sites also want people to use their real names because they feel it would foster a greater sense of community then that is their prerogative.

There is no one service yet that rules over the Internet and so there will always be alternatives. If a service requires you to use your real name then you can just choose not to use it.

I'd grow more concerned if governments and ISPs attempted to implement a "driver's license" for the Internet. Personally I wouldn't mind this but a lot of people obviously would.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's not just "anonymous" versus "real identity", either. In real life, everyone acts differently with different groups of people; since you're rarely with (e.g.) family and friends at the same time, you essentially have two separate identities, free to develop in slightly different directions. The fact that everyone knows your name doesn't matter if there is no global state associated with a name.

Of course, Circles are Google's attempt to mirror this, although I think they do so poorly: rather than there being a mental "context shift" as in real life, posts from all your circles are mixed together, and you have to decide on a context each time you post. In practice, I share everything publicly because it's the path of least resistance; the result is not much different from Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm actually really interested in the idea of social networks becoming part of physical life and reducing our disconnectedness. When we lived in villages, everyone knew everyone. In a city, nobody knows who you are. But with a physical social network in the picture, suddenly the city is looking like the village again.

Everyone knowing everyone has advantages and disadvantages. Obviously, out- group behaviour can be more easily identified and punished. This is useful for reducing out-group behaviour you disapprove of, e.g. crime, but bad because it discourages out-group behaviour you approve of, e.g. radical political opinions.

One example: I would love to be able to give karma scores to other drivers, and I bet insurance companies would be interested too.

<comment><USER22> Insurance companies already do this with FICO scores, which are scandalously good predictors of risk for just about anything. (Pick your favorite explanation: they correlate with irresponsibility and that correlates with bad outcomes, or they correlate with poverty and bad things happen to poor people.)

Someone is eventually going to take the old "You are the average of your five best friends" adage and create a score (a set of scores, more likely) based on it. That will either be illegalized within a year or make billions. (My cynical rationale on it getting political heat is that it will be probably better than human judgment, like FICO, hit some people hard, like FICO, and strike people as "unearned", unlike the layman's understanding that FICO scores are dominated by your behavior as opposed to the behavior of other people.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder how the US (Chicago, etc) and UK (everywhere) policy of having street cameras everywhere for "security" changes his street-shouting example.

The simple fact remains that "the internet is forever." It is more public and persistent than just about any other place imaginable. That comes with its pros and cons.

<comment><USER24> I doubt it changes it much, unless they make it easily searchable via Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> How did anybody read past paragraph seven of that mess? And I skimmed the opening fluff to get that far.

</comment><comment><USER26> > They are creating tighter links between people's behavior and their > identities than has previously existed in the modern world.

Since the advent of the internet, people are self-publishing at a rate never before experienced in the history of humanity. Everything we do today has always existed, except it was never as easy to record and disseminate, nor as cheaply to publish and store for posterity let alone broadcast it to the entire world.

Before the internet, you had to hire an autobiographer, an editor and a publisher to broadcast your minute thoughts; nowadays any bum can tell what he or she is doing, thinking, planning, rehearsing or not twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.</comment>


Dogs Guided Remotely By Stealth System - <AUTHOR> http://news.discovery.com/tech/dog-remote-guidance-system-110119.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I had to post this because it the title appears to have been taken directly from my linkbait tech headline generator -- although it's a real story.</comment>