Learning Elm has gotten me confused about static vs. dynamic typing - <AUTHOR> http://rundis.github.io/blog/2016/type_confused.html <comment><USER3> > _It's hard to describe the experience of doing a major refactoring, having a > really helpful and friendly compiler guide you along step by step and when > finally everything compiles it just works._

A truly large refactoring is one that you want to try long before getting everything to compile.

"Hmm, I have 75 operations involving data structure A. I want it to be B. Let's try it with five operations; I know that such and such features of the program only use those. Let's build the inconsistent program and try it out with with the B structure to the extent that it is possible."

The dynamic world lets us have inconsistent code that partially works, rather than forcing us to follow up on all the places reached by the ripple effect of a change. Maybe the change turns out to be a bad idea in the end; then it was a waste of effort.

Psychologically, having to deal with a big ripple effect is discouraging; it creates an "activation potential barrier" which opposes change.

<comment><USER4> This is why Haskell recently got a flag to turn type errors into warnings: now you came make a change, get a bunch of type errors (as warnings!) and fix them one at a time, loading and testing each part as you change it. You don't have to update everything to play around with your module.

This isn't dynamic typing though: if you tried to use an expression that did not typecheck, you will get a runtime value immediately. It's the moral equivalent of automatically replacing the broken expression with an `undefined` exception.

<comment><USER5> That's very, very nice. Is this exclusive to Haskell?

<comment><USER6> Well, Haskell got it from Agda [1], but Agda is even farther in the direction of Haskell than Haskell relative to mainstream programming languages, and beyond the "currently practical" language horizon.

[1]: [https://wiki.haskell.org/GHC/Typed_holes](https://wiki.haskell.org/GHC/Typed_holes)

<comment><USER7> Typed holes are quite a different thing than deferred type errors. Does Agda actually have something like the latter? (Results seem negative from the tiny bit of searching I've just done, but that's awfully low confidence...)

<comment><USER6> Whoops, you're right! I was too hasty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Does this mean I'm a static typing zealot now ?

That part made me chuckle, because it made me realize that a typing zealot is exactly what I've become! I used to be a huge fan of Ruby and I was using it for everything, and now 10 years later I'm a huge fan of Haskell instead, I give talks about how JavaScript is horribly error-prone and how Elm is so much better because not only is it statically-typed, it's also purely-functional, and yadi-yadi-ya.

The transition occurred so smoothly that I didn't notice it. Beware! You might not be a zealot now, but if you continue on this path, you might unintentionally become one too :)

<comment><USER9> Whatever Scala devotees may believe, I think FP and OOP are irreconcilable opposites which means if you really get into FP you're going to hate doing what the industry demands of you in your day job, ie. OOP. Maybe FP will one day become the dominant paradigm but until then treat it like alcohol - <USER2> much and you cease to function in the "real" world. I exposed myself to Rich Hickey's Sermons From The Hammock a few years ago and Clojure just blew my mind. Since then I get a churning feeling in the stomach when I have to dealt with OOP, ie. Ruby, PHP, Python. The effects are irreversible so beware - immutable data mixed with pure functions is a potent drug.

<comment><USER10> FP and OOP are totally not irreconcilable. Most modern languages offer both, including the most highly used dynamic languages. Javascript really cracked this nut with its function expressions. Scala's main contribution here is applying static typing to that mixture in a largely coherent way.

<comment><USER9> As soon as you create a class you're binding data and methods inside a black box. It's the very antithesis of FP. Of course you can freeze and fiddle with your class to make it "more functional" but it doesn't wash because in FP functions are supposed to be "free", ie. unboxed.

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. Many functional programmers actually prefer some of the advantages of black boxes. Even methods as a calling interface vs functions are more a stylistic difference (when you aren't factoring in subtype polymorphism). OO languages tend to have the convention of not keeping effectful operations in methods referentially transparent (with effectful values), but there's nothing inherent to the idea of OO that says this must be the case. Scala could just as easily have something like haskell's IORefs instead of vars and make use of an IO monad to achieve a similar effect.

I'd argue the bigger difference between the two styles is with methods of polymorphism, but even functional programmers in different camps probably don't agree on the reasons for why they prefer not to have subtype polymorphism.

Your opinions about encapsulation probably have more to do with your preferences wrt typing discipline. Functional programmers who prefer static types often view black boxes as an asset. In fact black boxes form the basis of the free theorems, which can provide some nice assurances about the behavior of code that has few assumptions about the data it receives: [https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/09/22/parametricity- money-f...](https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/09/22/parametricity-money-for- nothing-and-theorems-for-free/)

Similarly, data without exposed constructors can be used to enforce strong invariants about code using techniques like smart constructors: [https://wiki.haskell.org/Smart_constructors](https://wiki.haskell.org/Smart_constructors)

Black boxed data also conveys advantages for library maintainers. It makes it much easier to change implementation details, because you're only required to preserve the semantics of functions operating over data rather than its exact innards. Not doing this for the String data type in haskell is arguably the largest reason why it won't be phased out to the superior Text type: [http://dev.stephendiehl.com/hask/#string](http://dev.stephendiehl.com/hask/#string)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > It's hard to describe the experience of doing a major refactoring, having a > really helpful and friendly compiler guide you along step by step and when > finally everything compiles it just works.

This is my experience in a nutshell, my "home language" has been Python since high school after trying to learn C/C++ and persisted through learning Java in college. It was easy to use and get started with, and didn't require a ton of extraneous typing in Vim or looking up class types and returns every time you tried to use something.

For simple projects as a beginner dynamic/implicit typing is wonderful because you need fewer references. Having gone the way of the IDE, however, having good autocomplete, safe refactoring, error flagging before compilation/runtime, and an easy reference for your libraries has made me incredibly efficient in explicitly typed languages. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be using Python as my home language...

<comment><USER13> To be fair, at least good autocomplete + easy reference is quite possible in an IDE with dynamic languages.

I have it for Common Lisp in emacs for example(it requires running a live repl and having the editor connect to it).

Pre compilation errors are harder, and I personally don't feel safe refactoring in any language unless there are good automated tests. Static typing makes it better, but nowhere near full proof.

<comment><USER12> It is, but it has a lot harder time deciding what type of object I'm working with in a function vs. being able to specify the object's class in the function arguments. You can get that with docstrings but it's not as straightforward as just saying "def frobozinator(FooBar thing):"

<comment><USER14> Either it's your code, in which case why don't you know what type of object you are passing, or it's a documented part of a framework or something.

With polymorphism and inheritance in the mainstream languages, the method signature still doesn't exactly tell you what you are going to get, so you have all of the pain of micromanaging type annotations and you still don't really get an invariant.

Also, Python has function annotations if your purpose is to document the signature without using docstrings. I'm unsure why you don't mention these because they are exactly analogous to what you say is straightforward.

<comment><USER15> > With polymorphism and inheritance in the mainstream languages, the method > signature still doesn't exactly tell you what you are going to get, so you > have all of the pain of micromanaging type annotations and you still don't > really get an invariant.

This is exactly what is addressed by the Liskov substitution principle [0] -- the "L" in SOLID [1]. If your subtype does not have the same semantics as the type it extends, then it fails this criteria. It is violating the (implicit) contract of the type it is extending.

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

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_%28object- oriented_desig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_%28object- oriented_design%29)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > I'm convinced that functional programming vs imperative programming is a > much more important concern...

Except that you can be functional _and_ imperative, like Clojure, Erlang and even OCaml. Those are functional-imperative languages (you can even be _pure_ and imperative yet not functional, like Esterel and maybe Céu).</comment>


An Ad Upstart Forces Google to Open Up a Little - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/business/media/26adco.html?ex=1330146000&en=90f49a17f2ed1e45&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss <comment><USER2> Could provide a small counterpoint to pg's post-Kiko claim that, "The best solution for most startup founders would probably be to stay out of Google's way." (<http://paulgraham.infogami.com/blog/kiko>)

Interesting that where Google proves to be kind of soft is the product that actually creates all their revenue. Complacency as the market leader? Just a blip like the Google rep suggested?

</comment><comment><USER3> This article gave me a lot of encouragement and heart, because they are based in New York and because they are out-hacking large, established players.

I agree with what Paul et al have written about the importance of being in a startup hub, but this article makes me think that if you are targeting a particular industry (like advertising), you might be able to find success by locating yourself wherever those industries are concentrated. Not as good as being in a hub, but an option for people who find themselves elsewhere.

It's also a perfect example of a small (comparatively tiny Quigo) company flying under large behemoths (Google and Yahoo) by being open, agile, and transparent.</comment>


Ask HN: What service do you prefer for incorporating? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I've never used a service, but even if you do, I recommend "How to Form Your Own California Corporation" ([http://www.nolo.com/products/how-to-form-your- own-california...](http://www.nolo.com/products/how-to-form-your-own- california-corporation-ccor.html)) from Nolo for a good overview of the process if you're incorporating in California. It's not really very hard to do all the required filings yourself.

If you're planning to look for venture funding, you need guidance beyond what's covered in this book, but it's still a good intro.

<comment><USER3> I second that! Nolo has some wonderful resources available, both online and in print. If you wanna thumb through the book mentioned above there's usually a copy laying around your local Barnes and Nobles. I'd recommend reading it _even if_ you plan on using a service later on. It's great info to have, and a very accessible read.

Only sidenote, in California the Secretary of State's rules, timelines and fees change all the time. Always double check anything you read on the SOS website [http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/be/](http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/be/)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just came across [http://www.clerky.com](http://www.clerky.com) which seems to be a preferred method but lots of startups. Anyone used them?

<comment><USER4> I haven't used it myself, but I've had close friends use Clerky and speak highly of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1\. Harvard Business Services - delawareinc.com

2\. Ryan Roberts at [http://robertsfoster.com/](http://robertsfoster.com/)

Used them both and happy with them.

</comment><comment><USER6> [http://www.incfile.com](http://www.incfile.com) is decent, but it's cheaper to just do it yourself. Most times it's not hard, you just need to submit a few forms.

</comment><comment><USER7> Attorney.</comment>


CodeCombat (YC W14) Wants You To Learn To Code By Playing Games - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/19/yc-backed-codecombat-wants-you-to-learn-to-code-by-playing-games/ <comment><USER2> I think there are a lot of services that are trying to put their own unique spin on how to teach code. My problem is that a lot of them seem to miss the point. What this is teaching is basic syntax and how to understand sequential execution. But being able to write code is not the same thing as being able to program, in much that same way that being able to write English is not the same thing as storytelling.

The game looks like fun and I'm sure it'll be able to spark the interest of a bunch of young people. Once they get out of this, hopefully they'll look to other sources to learn more in-depth skills. But IMHO services like this need to stop advertising themselves as "Learn to code", and instead admit what they are, which is something to pique the curiosity of a newbie and get them started on their own path. That's a noble goal in itself, but passing off the absolute basics as knowing how to "program" could be dangerous.

<comment><USER3> Question from a naive person trying really hard to get into programming: what are good resources/where should I start, etc?

I've done quite a bit on Codecademy, and I _get_ it, but there are still a lot of things I am just ignorant of, like _where_ you actually type code (what's a good source code editor?) and so on.

<comment><USER4> That's the problem with a lot of these sites like codeacademy, they walk you through coding, but they hide a lot of the process.

To answer your question, the editor, etc. depends on what language you're programming in.

For HTML, all you need is a simple text editor, notepad on windows, textedit on mac, gedit on windows. Sublime if you want syntax highlighting.

Type in a few lines of code, save it with a .html extension and double click the file. The offline webpage should open up on your browser.

Javascript is pretty similar, just save the file with a .js extension. You'll have to make sure the JS file is linked to your HTML file.

I think the best resources are still books if you want to learn to program. They generally recommend software to use as you work through the book.

<comment><USER5> > they walk you through coding, but they hide a lot of the process.

That's what they should be doing. Having been trying to teach myself this stuff since photo.net and Ars Digita were hot, I can tell you, I spent 10 years stuck in Windows not knowing where to turn. Then I spent ten years learning all about everything _around_ programming: editors, OSes, managing remote servers, languages, what those languages are for, algorithms, half- adders, little-endian vs big-endian, blah, blah, blah.

And only in the last few years have I really gotten a handle on actually writing code that _does stuff_.

Now I'm at the point I realize I'm way behind the curve on data structures but I have to say, I really wish I had been learning about data structures instead of how Bill Joy developed vi to cope with a slow modem.

Sure, picking up Perl now, I can grab Padre and the Llama book and within a few exercises branch off on my own and add rewrite them with recursive functions and pretty interface elements, but I wish I'd been learning about advanced parsers instead.

<comment><USER6> > Sure, picking up Perl now... but I wish I'd been learning about advanced > parsers instead.

Fwiw:

Perl 5 is no slouch in the parsing department (via CPAN modules, including partial backports of some Perl 6 technologies).

Perl 6 directly delivers a powerful but relatively easy-to-use parsing environment with its composable grammars and rules ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_6_rules](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_6_rules)).

<comment><USER5> Not sure why someone downvoted you, but no worries. Thanks for the reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congrats on this article, guys. I hope the YC experience is going well. I got to watch your office hours at Startup School and was totally inspired. Glad to see you still killing it!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks bnzelenar, we have really appreciated everyone's support and hope to continue making lots of forward progress!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Weren't they the ones that got picked up during startup school office hours?

<comment><USER9> Yep: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syoqjYLDs48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syoqjYLDs48)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review our startup's landing page - <AUTHOR>

Although we're pretty good coders at our startup, we have almost no marketing experience.  Pretty much everything we're picking up through HN, and this landing page is a direct result of what we've learned.
http://pocketcafegame.com/
Any advice or thoughts?  Is there anything we're missing or should change?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> _Pocket Cafe is the best casual restaurant iPhone game. Created by an award- winning iPhone development team, the game is already more than one year in the making._

This is you, you, you. Talk about me, me, me. In particular, "my" love of time management games.

Casual games is largely sold on the basis of art style (more photos!) and appeal to the customer's desire to live through the main character. You might want to consider naming that mascot of yours. I'd be thinking female names that wouldn't sound out of place at a PTA meeting in Kansas. (Look at your competitors: they all do this, for a reason.)

There is no reason to not have the call to action be instantly visible, above the fold.

</comment><comment><USER3> My suggestion, move image to left or right, and put some of the text at the top next to it. I don't want to scroll down to sign up.

Complete Suggestion: Huge Text next to image: The Best Restaurant iPhone Game Underneath: Coming soon... We'll tell you when it's ready Underneath: Email: [________] [Submit]

You can also keep that other information underneath where it is now, but I think you need to get to the point for casual visitors so they know if they should sign up or not.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm gonna give you props for "Ever wish you could create a world more alive than a farm where nothing happens?" jumping out in bold.

Nice touch, perfectly targeted at your best audience.

<comment><USER5> I agree, nice way to phrase it. However it seems a little long? Do some A/B testing, see what works

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> FWIW, where it says "Already featuring _several hundred_ items, new content will be added regularly.", the underlining gave me an instinctive urge to click on it, expecting some sort of impressive showcase of the items.

Also, the graphic at the top seems a tad blurry, especially the words. It would be a lot more powerful if the edges and lines were crisper.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone for the advice! I've updated the landing page with everyone's comments.

\- Moved the call to action to above the fold

\- Changed the copy to focus on the player, not the game

\- Added another image (more on the way)

<http://pocketcafegame.com/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Direct link: <http://pocketcafegame.com/></comment>


Nvidia "RTX Voice" noise cancellation works just fine on older GTX cards - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/04/you-can-get-nvidias-rtx-voice-noise-filtering-without-a-pricey-rtx-card/ <comment><USER2> This is great news. I am going to give it a shot. I know of Krisp as well. Krisp works great but I'm curious to see how this compares.</comment>


Loupe: Logging and Monitoring for .NET - <AUTHOR> https://onloupe.com/ <comment><USER2> I highly recommend Loupe. It was a great one-stop logging shop for my severely understaffed line-of-business system team in Indiana. If Kendall's reading this, he should know how truly top-of-the-line customer service was, to the point of debugging a runtime error with me over the phone!</comment>


Mono Relicensed as MIT - <AUTHOR> http://www.mono-project.com/news/2016/03/31/mono-relicensed-mit/ <comment><USER3> With Oracle's Java lawsuits wondering if Microsoft has a chance to make a move and try to displace Java. It won't happen completely because it is the new COBOL but if they can deliver on performance and stability on Linux and other platform there might be a chance.

Go is making progress there, but those that want a more mature type system will probably appreciate C# more.

<comment><USER4> Java is far far from the next COBOL. It is still my first choice when I want to choose a technology that will run for the next 20 years with minimal amount of code maintenance.

<comment><USER5> Is that a joke? I can easily imagine that having been said about COBOL at some point. It's an honest instance of Poe's law.

<comment><USER6> Actually, while unorthodox, I _think_ one could read that sentence so that _it_ refers to COBOL; as in "COBOL is still my first choice..." \-- implying java will never be as good/stable... ;-) (No, I do not think that's what gp meant -- unless you're right and it's meant as irony).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This should be good news for Unity3d, didn't they hold back on upgrading to modern mono versions for some sort of licensing issue?

<comment><USER8> Yes, they rather spend developer salaries implementing IL2CPP, which is still work in progress, instead of paying for new licenses.

I do wonder if $developer_salaries < $Xamarin_licenses, specially taken into account most of the team is on Danish salaries.

<comment> iso-8859-1 Are you sure they are on Danish salaries? Isn't the most of the company in San Francisco?

<comment><USER8> Might be, the point I was trying to make was that the cost per month for IL2CPP development isn't insignificant.

Being US salaries in SF doesn't change that much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hm? Wasn't it already dual-licensed MIT and GPLv2? I guess they just got rid of the GPL option? What's the point if it was already dual-licensed?

edit: Oh, I see. They used to sell LGPL exceptions for the library and GPL exceptions for the tools. I guess they have decided to stop selling exceptions and just give everyone an exception:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20150718093635/http://www.mono-p...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150718093635/http://www.mono- project.com/docs/faq/licensing/)

Seeing how they were already able to sell exceptions, they must have been sole copyright holders, so they should have no problem changing the license of everything.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was dual-licensed LGPL and commercial

Edit: The class libraries where in fact always MIT. The runtime however was not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think (L)GPL has reached a point where in most cases it is self-defeating. It does not encourage adaption in the same way for example MIT does. This means that copy-left becomes a moot point. Open-source is happening (just look at Microsoft for example). But it's happening not so much thanks to GPL, but rather despite it, out of the realization that we all have something to gain by sharing. IMHO GPL hinders sharing because it puts a lawyer between the developer and the code.

<comment><USER11> GPL doesn't hinder sharing. GPL hinders proprietary software. Now, if you don't believe in the morals behind the free software movement, then you might decide that hindering proprietary software is hindering "sharing with companies". It's a very odd kind of sharing to give something to a company and they make it proprietary so they don't give anything back and end up also mistreating their users.

<comment><USER10> A bit late maybe, but GPL does not _only_ hinder proprietary software, it also prevents the use of a more permissive license, such as MIT. Personally I would never GPL any of my code because of this. I prefer a more permissive license (such as MIT or similar) but that also means I cannot put GPL code inside my code. So whenever I see GPL:ed code, whether for private (open-source) purposes or business (proprietary, closed-source), I steer clear. So if I'm not able to use the code for any purpose, does that not mean that sharing is hindered?

Btw, I never said I don't believe in the morals of the free software movement, I just said I don't believe GPL is the way forward. GPL is idealistic but not very pragmatic. Open-source is the future and (ironically) a lot of big (traditionally closed-source) companies are paving the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> MIT is a more business-friendly license, but it also reduces the risk of lawsuits tremendously for companies who might decide to become part of the ecosystem for a project.

Consider that Apple is still using the oldest GPLv2 version of bash on OSX.

While this is a blow to Stallman's goal, I think it's a step in the right direction for broad corporate acceptance of the benefits of open source.

<comment><USER13> Forget Stallman. It's basic human decency. If I benefit from someone else's work, the least I can do is let others benefit from my work as well.

<comment><USER14> It being basic human decency is actually an argument against the GPL. One of the worst things you can do is make basic human decency a legal obligation. If every time someone did something nice for me, I was worried about now having a legal obligation to do something, the world would be a much worse place. Basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal obligations. Let karma decide about basic human decency, not the courts.

<comment><USER15> That is a common argument on why copyright should not exist. Every time someone do something nice and want to share their favorite song or movie to me, I am told by society that they are doing something wrong and I have a legal obligation to decline. Its crazy, basic human decency should be freely given and freely received with no legal limitations. The courts should not be involved.

<comment><USER14> This is not an analogous situation. With open source or basic human decency, I am sharing something that I have a right to (either code I created, or my time/energy). It is not basic human decency for me to give your money away without your consent to someone else.

<comment><USER15> If you consider that copyright is equal to someones money, you should really respect their choice in what situation they are consenting to have it getting shared!

But why did you say that the world would be a worse place if every time someone did something nice to you, you would have to care about the legal obligation of that act? You either respect that authors has copyright, or you don't. I could never respect someones opinion if they thought that only _their_ copyright is valid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Do they not need permission from the nearly 500 contributors to do this?

<comment><USER17> Not if they requested the contributors to sign the Contribution License Agreement (CLA) before accepting their changes.

Or, the other way ( _although I can 't guarantee that this is true_) would be to choose a compatible license with the one they were using before. Compatible license scenario basically means that the license changes are small enough so that they don't have to request from people to agree with the change.

<comment><USER18> And they do. I've seen their pull request bot block a merge many a time because of a lack of a signed CLA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So the plan is hopefully to eventually converge and leave just a couple few feature differences with the open CLR, right?

<comment><USER20> Correct, there are many areas where we can converge, and we have been working on that for the last year and a half.

<comment><USER19> Off-topic, but knowing that Nat and you met (from what I recall) while interviewing for a position in Redmond and then went off to create GNU's COM (GNUNetworkObjectModelEnvironment) which became a desktop, what is it like landing at Microsoft after all those years? Final destination?

<comment><USER20> Nat and myself knew each other for a couple of years before that. It is only that we first met in person for the first time when he was an intern, and I was interview for a position on the IE team at the time.

We are joining a new Microsoft, with a team that is highly energized to give developers the tools they need and in particular, we are happy to be joining forces in their development efforts for .NET. With .NET Core about to be launched, there has never been a better time to get into C# and F#.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Did this cause any problems for third party contributions to mono? Did everyone agree to have their work relicensed? There's well over 400 contributors to mono.

<comment><USER20> Mono was always designed to be dual-licensed, because we needed a way of monetizing the investment.

Because of this, the LGPL and GPL portions of the code required either copyright assignments, relicensing rights, or the contribution to be made under the MIT license.

This is how we built a business that allowed us to dual license the runtime for many years.

<comment><USER21> Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What's the advantage of MIT vs CC Zero? Someone told me that I should use CC0 instead of MIT.

[https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)

<comment><USER23> They are completely different licenses. Read the text and decide on the license if you like it. CC0 is effectively the closest we have to international public domain.

<comment><USER17> I would argue that WTFPL[0] is also fairly close to being a public domain, right there next to CC0. Even FSF recognizes it as a valid (but not a recommended) license[1].

[0] [http://www.wtfpl.net/](http://www.wtfpl.net/)

[1] [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license- list.html#WTFPL](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#WTFPL)

<comment><USER24> No, it isn't. It's so far from CC0 it's ridiculous.

It has no explicit right grant at all, no disclaimer of warranties, blah blah blah blah blah.

(i've been through all the issues before on hacker news)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Does this include Moonlight project ?

I would love to try to hack on that to try to get a cross platform GUI toolkit that's similar to WPF.

Silverlight was a great peace of tech with a ton of stuff developed for it (widgets, testing tools, libraries, etc.) having that as a cross platform GUI framework that works on windows/linux/mac and ios/android/wp would be amazing and is doable - for simplicity you could strip out the codec parts, DRM and stuff like that, implement rendering on top of OpenGL ES and do platform specific input handling.

LGPL kind of makes phones a no-go so I would like to see if it's also covered in this switch before spending time on it.

<comment><USER20> It does not include Moonlight, we do not have the rights to relicense that. The rights for Moonlight stayed at Novell.

<comment><USER25> A shame :(

I wonder what your thougts are on this - personally ofc. - you probably thought about it at some point given your work on moonlight and xamarin. Even the MS implementation was ported to osx, you could strip codec/DRM stuff - <USER2> could get a fully featured GUI toolkit native to .NET - a _lot_ of work went in to that before Microsoft pulled the plug - now that it's laying dead and new MS OSS trend it doesn't seem that far fetched that they could OSS it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> anyone care to explain the difference/relation between mono and the open source .net core are they the same thing / do they complete each other / do they overlap

<comment><USER27> .NET is a run time much like Java.

.NET largely only exists for Windows/OSX, or at least Microsoft Supported Platforms.

Mono was started by Novell, later Ximian starting working on. The goal was to build a C# compiler and compatible runtime for _all_ platforms (PS3, Xbox360, wii, Linux(SPARC/IA-64/x86_64/x86/PPC/MIPS/ARM), Mac, FreeBSD, Solaris, Android, and iOS).

dotNETcore is the _Microsoft_ implementation of .NET which supports OSX, Windows, Linux. dotNETcore vs Mono is more or the less same as OracleJVM vs OpenJVM (except they're both owned by the company). They use different JIT's. Microsoft built their own. Mono uses LLVM

<comment><USER28> Mono was not started by Novell. Miguel originally worked on his own with volunteers on a purely open source project. Miguel later pulled the mono dev team into Novell and started a commercial development side with SuseLinux. When that partnership was desolved, Novell gave everything to Miguel and he created Xamarin.

<comment><USER29> Mono was started by Miguel at Ximian, and most of the Mono code was owned by Ximian. Ximian was bought by Novell and with it, all the Ximian-owned Mono code. (I don't remember if a CLA was required before or after Novell bought Ximian.)

The Novell-owned IP was either sold or licensed to Xamarin later.

<comment><USER20> Joe is correct, the code was always owned by Ximian.

And we did require copyright assignment or relicensing rights from the start to support a dual-licensing business. It was the One Blessed Business Model endorsed by Richard Stallman at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Too little to late?

Maybe when mono first hit, using a 2 clause BSD would have helped them win share. But now? I don't see anyone switching now because they switched to a free'er license. You either liked using it before because of the lgpl or you smelled the lgpl and ran away to use something else.

At this point in the game I don't think it matters much.

<comment><USER31> C# is one of the most commonly used programming languages, I'm not sure where you're getting this "too little, too late" narrative from.

<comment><USER30> That is what everyone says about their preferred language.

<comment><USER31> It's not my preferred language, and you can see C# in the top 5 languages listed on the TIOBE site:

[http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=index](http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index?page=index)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think this is great, I wonder if this means Microsoft is going to (I'm not sure if they already do and have) contribute directly into Mono itself, which would be really fantastic to finally see Mono support more of .NET's core features. I would love to see the day where I could compile a C# (or potentially VB.NET / C++/CLR) application on any OS with Mono available to it, just as I can on any machine with Visual Studio / .NET available to it. Then we could see a serious competitor for Java. .NET already has things like NuGET which would be amazing to see all those projects just run on Linux without effort.

</comment><comment><USER33> Neat. C# looks more attractive day by day. Is there a decent non-commercial AOT compiler for it (I know that Mono has one, but not sure whether it's any better than GCJ was)?

</comment><comment><USER34> Stallman cries a single tear

<comment><USER11> I actually sent him an email about this and asked for his opinion (as well as ask a few questions about CLAs in general). I'll post the response here if it's interesting.

<comment><USER11> His response was fairly short. However, I learnt something I didn't know -- the FSF CLA actually requires that the FSF will always maintain your contributions under a copyleft license. They also provide recommendations on how to make contributions to projects that require CLAs (such as negotiating similar terms for the project).

Here's the complete contents of his email:

\---

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]

[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]

[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

This doesn't change my views on the general issue of assigning copyright to free software projects, which I stated in [http://gnu.org/philosophy/assigning- copyright.html](http://gnu.org/philosophy/assigning-copyright.html). There are sometimes good reasons for license changes.

\---

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Is this an attempt by Mono to battle Microsoft's open source Roslyn compiler and upcoming cross platform '.net core' I wonder? Those two technologies could make Mono irrelevant in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not very likely since Mono is developed by Xamarin which was recently acquired by Microsoft ;)

<comment><USER36> I was worried they'd lock the stuff up more. This is a really, pleasant surprise.</comment></comment></comment>


Google made €50 million copyright offer, French publishers want €100 million - <AUTHOR> http://paidcontent.org/2013/01/21/report-google-made-e50-million-copyright-offer-french-publishers-want-e100-million/

<comment><USER2> It's almost as stupid as the recent new wave of rules the French government wants to impose taxes on Facebook, Google and other big social media companies for invasion of privacy. Honestly, I think these websites should either block french users or start subscriptions for users in this specific country. Even with the high rate of taxes in France, the french government is still greedy to get a slice of everything!

</comment><comment><USER3> You always ask for more in bargaining. Google's going to lowball what the value is to them - if they're smart that is, and I think that can be assumed ...

<comment><USER4> I'm french and I still don't understand why google should pay them, but meh ...

<comment><USER5> This reminds me (I'm in Canada) of the tax that we have on blank media, like CDs. Anyone who purchases the blank media (doesn't matter why they bought it) is made to pay this tax, which is then distributed to whoever is deemed worthy: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy>

<comment><USER6> We have the same in Sweden, and the tax is on all storage media (HDDs, DVDs, USB-sticks etc)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Activities to do with my 2 year old daughter - <AUTHOR>

My daughter is now turning two and she is past the stage of playing peekaboo. What games or activities I can do with her to increase her curiosity and learning? What things are appropriate at her age?
If it helps, I'm a software engineer in the south bay.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> That's a great age and you live in a great place for kids.

Some places to go:

\- Coyote Point

\- Happy Hollow

\- City of Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo

\- Ride the train or light rail

\- Ride a bus

\- The ocean (Santa Cruz, the boardwalk)

\- Farmers markets

\- San Francisco is full of great places, playgrounds, etc.

\- Vasona Park in Los Gatos, great playgrounds and a train ride

\- Stulsaft Park in Redwood City, for water play

Gymboree is great, although they start younger than two.. not sure when they grow out of that, you may be close.

Talk to her a lot. Explain everything you're doing constantly in full sentences as you go around the house doing even the most mundane stuff. Not using baby talk, just matter of fact talk, and not in two-year-old language, just normal language.

And get her to explain stuff to you, too. This is really fun, hearing what they have to say about things. You could do little interviews with her on tape every six months, and make an archive of her perspective on things. Have fun!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your detailed response.

We have tried Gymboree at 1.5, but she had already grown out of it. We will try the Vasona Park, Sutlsaft park and other activities you have mentioned.

Many thanks.

<comment><USER3> My daughter is 5 now but when she was 2 we went on many hikes and did a lot of outdoors activities.

Walking on trails and going to parks and long scenic drives were the regular for us.

If you can get her outdoors and in nature all the more better, it opens the door for a lot of bonding and communication.

Find something you can do that gets her talking and asking questions.

Somebody else noted to keep away from the baby talk and I agree, talk to her like you would anybody else and most of all listen to her. My daughter likes going on walks because we can have our "conversation" time.

On days you can't go out I find that most kids Love boxes and if you give them a few that will entertain them for along time. You can build forts, robots or whatever else she can imagine.

Music is also good all children like to dance and you could have a "dance off" or a karaoke competition.</comment></comment></comment>


How do big companies stay afloat hiring whoever's left? - <AUTHOR> https://www.echowaves.com/blog/how-do-big-companies-stay-afloat-hiring-whoever-s-left <comment><USER2> These companies have their own often quite robust recruiting pipelines, which are far more effective and predictable than posting an opening on their jobs page.

Think about it this way: your task is to have an inflow of X engineers / year. You can: a) pay recruiters to do whatever they do to bring you candidates that match a certain spec. b) build relationships with local campuses and recruit smart new grads, train them, and turn them into very capable engineers in a few years. c) host various tech events and do the "come work for us" speech every now and then. d) post a job on the jobs page.

In a long run (and they operate with this perspective in mind) you have way more control over your outcomes with options a-c. If you want more people on the output - you commit more money, effort, etc to each pipeline, and you will get your increased quantity. With the jobs page - all you can do is post and hope.

So it is no surprise to me that jobs pages get stale sometimes. Don't let that discourage you from applying to large companies. Instead, learn to play by their rules. Reach out to recruiters at those companies. Often those guys can be way more helpful than your friend engineer. Go to the talks they host, eat free pizza, socialize :)

That being said, there are some big companies out there that outsource their recruiting entirely, so it is really hard to find a recruiter that would help you. There are also big companies that don't host any talks or meetups. So if that's the case - don't waste your time and skip em - its their loss.

Cheers :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand the pipeline idea, though I think it does not work when the goal is to bring A+ players. A+ players are already employed most of the times. Rarely an event like a layoff happens, that's when they come on a market briefly. They are not going to sit and wait to be processed by the pipelines. And only the B's and the C's ever get through the pipeline to the end. The pipeline idea may have worked during financial crisis, when it was not easy to find a job. But in a current market -- wake up, if you are serious about innovation at a big companies, you are not getting the talent you need for that to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> At very big companies we have an endless supply of applicants so we can be picky. However in the Boston area we are always on the look out for great talent...we have more interesting problems, crazy scale technical challenges, and we get to move bytes that move atoms. [https://www.autodesk.com/build- space](https://www.autodesk.com/build-space) [https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case- studies/autodesk/](https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/autodesk/) [https://www.linkedin.com/in/lloydtaylor](https://www.linkedin.com/in/lloydtaylor)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure what you mean that you are on a look out for talent, if there is no easy and efficient way to get through to you. You may want to think that you get what you need, but believe it or not -- best of the best almost never end up at the big companies.</comment></comment>


Preview for GitHub Markup - need some feedback - <AUTHOR> http://dfilimonov.com/github-markup-preview/

<comment><USER2> Wow, I really, really like it. Provide options to open (upload), save and 'export as html' (with embedded CSS or at least a proper link to a stylesheet hosted somewhere) and I think you have a winner.

You'd be on par with tools like 'Marked', that have the annoying habit of being Lion+ apps for no apparent good reason.

Edit: BTW, I think you are doing your app a diservice by calling it "Github Markup preview". It's actually way more than that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! Good ideas, I will think about it.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've been writing a README file for GitHub lately and I found out that there is no markup preview for *.rdoc files. So I've made this one. It supports most popular markups and looks the same as on github. I would appreciate any feedback or advices.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it would be cool if it hits google top 10 for a query like 'github markup preview'. Please share this link so people can find it quickly. Thank You!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like it. I was looking already for something like that. That is really a use full tool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for a feedback. Yeah, I was looking too, and there are several alternatives, but they all are not so useful and only support one or two markups.

<comment><USER4> Github own Gollum [1] maybe?

[1]:<https://github.com/github/gollum/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Very useful tool, didn't know about it. Thank you. But it is a little bit complex. I mean, if I am writing a brief description for my repo, I would google for something where I can do it instantly, I don't want to install any gems.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Trump to sign executive order on social media Thursday - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/policy/technology/499847-trump-to-sign-executive-order-on-social-media-thursday <comment><USER2> This comment thread is full of people who A) decide not to say anything, probably because they are not sure and B) very vocal people who are extremely sure that the other side is completely corrupt.

I feel like the polarization is harmful.

Interested to hear any background like why he would say the mail in is full of fraud or something and why people are so sure it is not.

<comment><USER3> West Virginia mail carrier charged with attempted absentee ballot application fraud [1]

1\. [https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pendleton-County-mail- carr...](https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Pendleton-County-mail-carrier- charged-with-altering-absentee-ballot-requests-570777221.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It was recently affirmed in court that the first amendment applies to the government, not corporations. See PragerU v Youtube. I'm curious what he thinks he's going to do though. Any guesses?

<comment><USER5> Your guess is as good as mine. Personally, I think the free speech issue is an albatross. What's much more concerning to me is Twitter arbitrarily "fact checking" Trump's tweets, but nobody else's. More generally, the systemic bias tends to lean against conservative voices far more often than liberal voices. There are numerous examples of double standards in terms of who is banned or censored from platforms, or even who/what shows up in the search results.

Search "Joe Biden creepy" on google, and then search the same thing on Bing. Why are the results so different?

Try sending a private message on Facebook containing the string "joebiden.info." Why won't it send?

<comment><USER6> Google invests more in making sure that it has quality search results, and the algorithms are just different. Not really that complicated.

The NY Post is a low quality tabloid that is just a step above the Enquirer, for example.

<comment><USER5> I have a hard time believing that the results page for "Joe Biden creepy" is not at least semi-manually curated. For example, none of the "creepy" videos that show up are the most comprehensive versions of the clips someone would want to watch to inform themselves of what somebody is referring to when calling him creepy. It's also not hard for me to believe Google would take such action, given the political makeup of their employees, and the fact that they have been recorded suggesting their commitment to making Trump a "blip" in history.

It's also worth noting that was only one example I cited. It doesn't change the fact that Twitter has only ever "fact checked" Trump (by linking to CNN), and that Facebook prohibits you from sending links to JoeBiden.info in _private_ messages. Are these not clear examples of bias?

You can make the argument that these companies have the right to as much bias as they want on their own platforms. But you cannot in good faith make the argument that such bias does not exist, or that it's some conspiracy theory to suggest that it does.

<comment><USER7> Here's the thing: most of us here don't really care about left or right. We care about good and bad ideas. And for the most part, the Republicans espouse really bad ideas, so bad in fact, that reasonable people vocally call them out on these bad ideas. You and others misperceive this attention as "bias". Why? It's simple.

Studies of conservatives show that they prefer authoritarianism and unquestioning loyalty over competency and expertise. When their loyalty to an idea, a leader, or a political ideology is questioned, it undermines their worldview. So the "bias" you are really describing, is just good old fashioned critical thinking, which by its very design, confronts and questions authority, and upholds values of openness, tolerance, and free inquiry—the bane of conservatism.

All you have to do is come up with good ideas. It's that simple.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for telling me what I prefer.

Critical thinking is great. We should all do it. Just because I agree with that doesn't mean I want or need some company to do the "critical thinking" _for me_.

In fact, the things you're defending tend to _get in the way_ of critical thinking. It's hard to apply critical thought with incomplete information, which is what tends to be available when news agencies apply selection bias to which stories they report, or search engines remove results they deem derogatory, or social media platforms forbid sending links in private messages.

<comment><USER7> Are you arguing that the factchecking and verification filters Facebook, and now Twitter, are currently using, somehow impede free inquiry? We should be tolerant, but we should not tolerate intolerance. More to the point, we should not tolerate false news, hoaxes, or conspiracy theories intended to mislead or cause harm. Sadly, conservatives have come to /depend/ on that kind of "fact suppression" to sway people over to their side. We saw it with the rise of birtherism, with the hate-fueled advent of the Tea Party, and in the tribal nativism that led to the election of Trump.

You raise the "incomplete information" tactic, which denialists on both the left and the right depend upon. Climate denialists say we shouldn't mitigate because we don't have enough data or they argue that the data is suspect. We know, and we have consensus. Do we need more information about the 18,000 lies Trump has spread already?

Facebook and Twitter are already on record (and off record per the WSJ article yesterday) showing that they gave the benefit of the doubt to conservatives because algorithms were consistently selecting their rhetoric as problematic. Twitter wouldn't filter out the Nazis, for example, because it also targeted Republican politicians.

<comment><USER5> I'm not arguing whether the bias should or shouldn't exist. I'm arguing that it _does_ exist, which you seem to be refuting for some reason. And I'm certainly going to argue that if platforms try to claim neutrality, they better show evidence of it, or else stop claiming to be neutral.

Are you okay with Facebook banning links in _private messages_? Why can't I link to JoeBiden.info, a clearly marked parody website full of factual information, in a private message to a friend? What possible reason could there be for this, other than bias?

Are you okay with Twitter editorializing the president's tweets, but not doing the same for those of Adam Schiff or Joe Biden? Both of them have promoted baseless conspiracy theories on Twitter, like suggesting Trump is a Russian agent. Yet they've never been "fact checked." Are you okay with the idea that the person in charge of the fact checking initiative at Twitter has a history of publicly calling Trump a "Nazi" and a "racist tangerine?" Does this seem like an arrangement that will result in anything but biased "fact checks?"

I'm having a hard time seeing how this is _good_ for critical thought, as you seem to be suggesting. Telling people what to think is not the basis upon which critical thought develops. If anything, such editorializing will only further polarize people and increase their emotional attachment to pre- existing beliefs.

<comment><USER8> I don't Twitter and I don't follow Trump, so I don't know the answer. Does Twitter fact check every Trump tweet? Does it ever find any to be factual? If Trump tweeted that he loves the Jets, would that get fact checked? If he tweeted that FEMA has done a superb job in guiding the WHO through this whole pandemic, would that get fact checked? Or do only some tweets get the treatment?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is news to say news is coming the rest is speculation.

<comment><USER10> Social media are publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they're going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.

<comment><USER9> My comment was posted when the article linked here said, Trump was going to sign "something pertaining to social media" on Thursday. We had no details. The article could have been 1 paragraph. That was my point. I didn't have any of the context from today 5/28\. No one had it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Social media platforms' legal right as private companies to delete or > otherwise regulate speech – or, in this case, tweets – is well established.

I'm curious how this will work out for tweets by the USA president.

Twitter will easily delete anything the Chinese, French, or German government deems "unacceptable" speech. They've never deleted anything that the USA government has requested (the USA government has never requested anything to be deleted).

What's the difference here? What's the double-standard?

<comment><USER12> It has deleted things in accordance with local law (and it absolutely does delete things illegal in the US). What things were you thinking the US government should ask it to delete? Under what law?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Related discussions: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317286) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322112](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322112)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A alleged draft of the order has been leaked: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333496](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23333496)

</comment><comment><USER13> Yeah well the first amendment applies here, I think. And quite likely an illegal order.

</comment><comment><USER10> Social media should be considered publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they're going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER10> Social media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they're going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER14> An Executive Wish. It's meaningless.

</comment><comment><USER15> POTUS got "personally attacked" by Twitter and is now attacking back. The US is now a dictatorship?

How many citizens have lost any faith in the US government? Trump has created long-lasting damaged in the US democracy.

<comment><USER16> democracy has been going downhill across the globe since the popularization of the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would love if HN banned anything that had to do with Trump by default in all the postings. Most of the discussions around it are a waste of time imo

<comment><USER18> Have faith in HN. If you believe it will be crummy, you'll probably find comments that justify that belief. But believing the opposite usually yields the opposite.

(You can also yield the opposite directly, by writing good comments.)

<comment><USER10> I have zero faith in HN, it operates in the same fantastical bubble that all of Silicon Valley operates in.

<comment><USER18> I went through periods of losing faith too. But ultimately, HN = programmers, writers, and so on. What are the chances of any random programmer/writer being interesting? Much higher than the general population, for some definitions of interesting.

You get what you put in. It often doesn't feel like it, but in the long run it seems to work out that way.

You have to remember that HN is so massive now that it's hard to comprehend just how many people read the top comments. All the world is a stage, but HN particularly so. And personally, I think it's cool you can influence the situation by skill alone – a good top comment can salvage an otherwise hopeless situation.

<comment><USER10> HN is still just mostly overpaid white guys that are immune from most of societal problems. It's like the rich saying "we're all in this together." Sounds good but deep down you know it's a lie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Oh man, if Trump got upset over that tweet, I can only imagine what would happen if they put something like "Confirmed/Believed to be false by these sources...." on his other tweets that have been confirmed to be false/incorrect/lies.

Interesting times. We'll see what happens.

</comment><comment><USER20> I hope twitter decides they can't comply with whatever is in the executive order, and simply bans his account instead.

In other news, after a certain threshold, when someone lies on TV, there is an FCC mandate that the broadcaster adds a disclaimer saying the person is spreading false information. There was a lawsuit over this, because stations were broadcasting Trump speeches without adding the disclaimer, and the executive branch isn't enforcing the rule.

<comment><USER10> Social media should be considered publications. A company can not say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune to libel or censorship if they're going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It will be very interesting to see if this method of finger in the scales by Twitter stands up. I'm glad to see that they have been forced to apply the same treatment to China, But section 230 simply has to go.

</comment><comment><USER21> If this is what we think it is and it passes, I am not sure why CCP is worse than US-style democracy that just steals rights.

<comment><USER22> When I left China 9 years ago, I used to think the internet with social media is a great democratizing power. It opens information to common Chinese to the extent that the government cannot control all the narratives anymore, especially with social medias like Twitter.

Now after staying in US for 9 years, I'm not sure if the internet is such a positive power any more. It might actually just be the opposite. With internet and social media, it enables information bubble to form. It enables people to live in totally isolated worlds. And it is almost impossible to penetrate through the bubbles to reach the other side. In US, it fueled the ever growing polarization in the society, essentially created 2 or more totally different US'. While in China, the government creates its narrative bubble through its propaganda machine and censorship. Rather than the liberation of people's mind we hoped to see, we actually seeing people's opinion more converged to the official narrative.

I'm afraid, even someday CCP loosens it's iron grip of censorship, we still won't see the information freedom we hoped for. But rather bubbles like US, just with one giant bubble of official narrative, and many tiny bubbles of other opinions, which can never penetrate the giant bubble.

<comment><USER23> The world in general is more bubbled than the web, and most people spend their whole lives not having substantive experience with people from other countries. And where does a gay individual find alternative stories in a world without the web? The world before the web was a terrible fishbowl for anyone who didn't have money or access.

The web gives people choice where before you either had the money to live a "broad" lifestyle or you didn't. That some people choose to stay within little boundaries is the way the world has always worked, but at least they have a choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In normal times I'd have faith in our institutions to block this blatantly unconstitutional abuse of power. But 2 of the seats in the Supreme Court were filled by the administration itself.

<comment><USER25> How can you say it's blatantly unconstitutional if the executive order hasn't even been released?

It wouldn't exactly be out of character for him to spend a couple days whipping people into a frenzy then announce the reinterpretation of something that sounds impressive but has no actual meaning and declare it to be a massive victory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Social media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they're going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.</comment>


PC cooling specialist Zalman goes bankrupt due to fraud - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/chips/pc-cooling-specialist-zalman-goes-bankrupt-due-to-fraud-1608736/ <comment><USER2> Wow, this isn't some penny-ante thing. From the article:

       [Zalman executives] have apparently spent the
       last five years producing fraudulent documentation
       ... inflated sales figures ...
       By increasing sales and exports Park and his
       associates were able to secure bank loans
       totaling $2.98 billion

Who knew that building CPU cooling products could be so lucrative? Why does a company like that need to borrow even 1/10 that amount of money? Don't bankers do "due diligence" any more? There's probably a lot more to this story.</comment>


Towards a new test of general relativity? - <AUTHOR> http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

<comment><USER2> _the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts_

That's a factor of 10^20. Such a huge discrepancy with GR beggars belief, so I'd bet there's something else (and probably more banal) going on. On the other hand, if their measurements and interpretation are right, this smells like a Prize.

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe this is the home page of one of the researchers: <http://www.ilsb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar/>

Link to a pertinent paper: <http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033v1>

</comment><comment><USER4> Is this legit? could we use it to make a warp drive?

<comment><USER5> Maybe. No.

<comment><USER4> Why not a warp drive?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting that this involves a rotating superconductor. There have been a lot of predictions from various theoretical camps that quickly-rotating superconductors would have measurably-strange effects. Most of these camps have been on the fringes. I wonder if the measured deviance marries up with any of the predictions.

</comment><comment><USER7> assuming the detected effect is real, which might be proven with subsequent experiments, could someone broadly detail what possible applications could result?

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting. It is a little unclear to me from this article the nature of the discrepancy between the predicted strength of the gravitomagnetic field from general relativity and what the researchers claim to be observing. Whence the increase in strength in the gravitomagnetic field from predictions? Is it an effect from quantum theory? Maybe the article just doesn't go into detail enough, but seems to me either there needs to be a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy, or, what they are observing is not the gravitomagnetic field.</comment>


Network Solutions nightmare - <AUTHOR> Back in 1999 when I purchased my domain name there really wasn't many choices for registering.
Short story to a long battle with them: Network Solutions made it extremely difficult to transfer my domain name out.
1. They tried to upsell me with each call/or support email
2. They explained that I could lose my domain if I transfer out.. How does that happen?
3. They took 6+ days to release, when others I've used released in less than 24hrs. And it wasn't until I..
Took to Twitter for them to listen, and that worked.  I am now free from the nightmare that is Network Solutions. <comment><USER2> I had an issue leaving a hosting company called Arvixe last year. It was a horrible experience and took a week to leave. No upsell but much 'its not our problem' bs.

In theory, they were within allowed timeframes. In comparison to other switches I've made that took minutes to a few hours, it was pathetic and confirmed my belief that moving was the right choice.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have the same problem, my domain name from 1994 or something -- they make it unbelievably hard to transfer, and have charged me a little fortune in 'fees' for 'late renewals' and other completely bogus claims.

Bunch of crooks. Scrapping the barrel -- with me.

The twitter trick is a good one, I'm going to try to escape from their grasp using it...</comment>


Microsoft Teams Together Mode - <AUTHOR> https://news.microsoft.com/innovation-stories/microsoft-teams-together-mode/ <comment><USER2> I'm glad there is some more movement to go beyond the grid (which arguably was already an improvement)</comment>


New "Terrorist Content" Regulations: A Grim Day for Digital Rights in Europe - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/new-copyright-powers-new-terrorist-content-regulations-grim-day-digital-rights <comment><AUTHOR> Silly question: so, terrorist regimes often do everything possible to censor the Internet and forms of speech that can be critical of their actions...

Would reporting news of said new regulations be considered "terrorist content", as it is identical to what terrorists do to victims?

<comment><USER3> with a filtering infrastructure in place its definitly a posibility. first it was only for copyright, not they want to filter "terrorist content". next we know, a political leader is censoring the opposition.

<comment><USER4> Who defines what "terrorist content" is? Maybe if the incumbent party is getting "terrorised" in the polls in a run-up to an election, their challengers may suddenly find themselves guilty of producing "terrorist" content? I can definitely see something like that happening.

<comment><USER5> > Maybe if the incumbent party is getting "terrorised" in the polls in a run- > up to an election, their challengers may suddenly find themselves guilty of > producing "terrorist" content?

... because no one who interprets laws does so with any regard to their purpose and therefore all laws which govern speech will be enforced arbitrarily and inevitably lead down the slippery slope towards maximum tyranny and censorship?

>I can definitely see something like that happening.

I can definitely see that _not_ happening, or at least not succeeding when it's attempted, because it could happen now with hate speech laws, yet politicians haven't successfully had their opponents arrested merely by declaring their opponents' speech to be hateful.

Corrupt politicians and corruptible laws laws do exist, but outside of a totalitarian regime, obvious misuse and misinterpretation of the law (particularly where free speech and politics are concerned) tends to be challenged by the system, because people within that system have a vested interest in maintaining a balance between societal stability and personal liberty.

<comment><USER6> _politicians haven 't successfully had their opponents arrested merely by declaring their opponents' speech to be hateful_

It happens in Europe quite frequently. Geert Wilders is a popular Dutch politician (popular with voters) and has been arrested and taken to court several times for "hate speech" (i.e. criticising immigration and Islam), being found guilty the last time albeit the court refused to punish him.

Marine Le Pen has also been arrested and taken to court for hate speech, although the court decided she was not guilty.

As for your faith in the fair application of EU law. That is nice. The EU courts are staffed by judges selected for their pro-EU ideology and reliably pro-EU judgements. The ECJ routinely throws out things put in plain English into the treaties themselves or re-interprets apparently straightforward language to mean something entirely non-obvious, always to the benefit of the EU itself.

What sort of people rise to the top of this political project? Here is a selection of quotes by the head of the European Commission, the man who really matters in the EU because only he and his directly selected employees can change the law.

"When it becomes serious, you have to lie."

"I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates."

"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'" (in reference to a referendum on EU policy)

I will say, for all his faults, Juncker is at least willing to tell it like it is when it comes to the motivations and powers of himself and his comrades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The terrorists are winning by just sitting back watching us do it all to ourselves.

<comment><USER8> The terrorist goal was never to have this happen. Terrorist(as long as we're thinking of Osama Bin Laden for example, and not say IRA) goal was to get the people in western countries to think why they are being attacked, look into it, and realize that it's happening because of attrocities commited by their own governments in middle East. Osama Bin Laden has himself admitted that the attacks on America have failed to achieve those goals, because Americans have collectively refused to ask "why" they were being attacked - it was sold as brown people hating freedom , with no deeper context to the whole issue.

<comment><USER9> > it's happening because of attrocities commited by their own governments in > middle East

This narrative again. Specifically which atrocities are you talking about? And where are all the Japanese, German, and Vietnamese terrorists attacking in revenge for the atrocities of WWII and Vietnam?

<comment><USER10> Of course, that narrative is a farce. But it plays on "look at how the western world is evil" and other forms of "white guilt".

No wonder Stockholm Syndrome is a western thing.

Sadists don't need a reason, they just need a "reasoning"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > emptive copyright filter for content-sharing sites, as well as the idea that > news publishers should have the right to sue others for quoting news items > online

I don't understand the justification for this. If you quote them to either point out the news or the errors they can turn on you if they want to and sue you.

> "removal order", which will oblige hosting service providers to remove > content within one hour of being ordered to do so.

Something tells me there is a lobbyist out there for a company which sell automated removal of "infringing" content.

> EU now wants to expand that to defining the limits of political speech too.

That seems scary, I hope EFF is exaggerating. This to me seems like very a authoritarian move. I wouldn't have expected it from EU at least.

<comment><USER6> The EU - as distinct from European countries themselves - has a pretty consistently authoritarian direction of travel. It is after all a project to massively centralise all power in an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels, removing it from the democratically elected politicians in the national governments.

You probably aren't aware of this because the EU gets consistently good press from journalists rather enamoured of the whole project, but there are reasons the UK chose to leave.

</comment></comment><comment> swingline-747 It's likely a first shot among many chilling-effects that will have consequences opposite to those intended. Silencing debunk-able ideological debate volunteers to hand power over Machiavellian criminals.

<comment><USER12> Why do we always assume little people do things for their self benefit with no regard for their 'reasoning/explanations', but when it comes to big guys we instantly assuming their stated reasons have no ulterior motives?

The law is really blatant in it's intention; this was a move against free speech. The 'unintended consequences narrative' is so blatantly false, I'm dumbfounded how it could be seriously quoted by otherwise logical and reasonable people.

<comment><USER13> Faith (in governments) is stronger than logic.

<comment><USER12> I had never thought of it. But with the decline of religion, it seems faith is now directed at authority, mostly of the political but also the 'scientific' kind. Great point, thank you.

<comment><USER13> Yes, it's sad how common it is for people to be extremely critical of individuals or even whole institutions (e.g. Trump, Conservatives, cops, the prison system, the NRA, Google, Comcast), yet still have a strong unspoken belief that behind all that, the government and the law as a whole are Good Things made to care for them and their families.

Took me a long time to realize I was even thinking like that myself.

<comment><USER12> It's like the Gell-man amnesia effect for news, but with authority in general (it doesn't even have to be gov, it could be NGOs, news, religion, expert establishment, etc)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I havent been following this closely but the notion of "speedy shutdown of content by the ISP" sounds strikingly similar to the late [SOPA bill]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act)) in the US (2011). Is this effectively similar to SOPA?

</comment><comment><USER15> Suddenly Brexit doesn't seem to have been such a bad idea after all.

<comment><USER16> The British government's thirst for authoriatarian control of the net is just about the strongest in a democracy; much stronger than that in the EU.

In fact, the EU is currently making the UK's investigatory powers act _less_ extreme, as they've ruled that state-surveillance of the population at that scale, is incompatible with the human right to privacy.

I'm not the biggest fan of the EU, but they are a moderating force on the UK's repressive tendencies.

<comment><USER6> Whilst true that under Theresa May the UK government is rather keen on controlling the internet, as the EU is demonstrating there's no real difference in terms of their desire for power. The relative disinterest by the EU in surveillance is more because they associate fighting terrorism = fighting Muslims = fighting immigrants = borders = bad. Quoting Juncker again,

 _" Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians."_

Doesn't really get clearer than that.

The UK government is unfortunately keen on surveillance partly because people are keen on it, and it is ultimately a democracy. Opinion polls pretty consistently show that terrorism is one of the top two concerns citizens have, across the whole of Europe. The EU ignores these concerns completely; this may seem superficially beneficially democratic but as the cookie law, GDPR, copyright, hate speech, link tax laws etc show, this is not due to lack of desire for control over the internet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How is this different than the censorship people lambast the Chinese for?

</comment><comment><USER18> The internet was always the best tool for us to finally be on equal grounds with our overlords.

\- When religion overpowered us, we were helpless and had to obey.

\- When guns came into play, we were helpless and had to obey.

\- When TV and Radio began, the narrative was controlled and we were brainwashed to obey.

The Internet is like the power of TV and radio in the hands of the people, and the power of the people is beyond guns and religion.

This is too much for those who wish to stifle the power of the people. So they have been passing small laws left and right leading to a slippery slope of laws removing our rights and freedoms (and essentially the power of the people).

Now that we have become desensitized (they proved it with the "internet world control" move known as GDPR that proved they control the internet) they wish to make the final controversial blow.

Make no mistake, this has always been a fight for control of our freedom. The internet and decentralized technologies like it as well as the many built on top of it are the only chance we have to maintain freedom as people and society.

Censorship has always been about maintaining their narrative.

Luckily we no longer have to sit back and get whipped anymore. Now we have tools like cryptography that can allow us to create systems that cannot be controlled by a single person. That said, even with the tools, if we don't use them, then we are "tools."

<comment><USER19> > _The Internet is like the power of TV and radio in the hands of the people, > and the power of the people is beyond guns and religion._

What makes people powerful is coordination.

The public space for conversation on the web are a handful of platforms - <USER2> those can easily be controlled.

The rest can still exist (personal webpages and so on), but they will remain fringe.

> _Censorship has always been about maintaining their narrative._

Well, first they came for Alex Jones, but I didn't do anything, I wasn't a conspiracy nut...

<comment><USER18> It's funny how hard they went on Alex Jones as that can pretty much summarize to us all whether they were afraid of his rhetoric or not.

They were very afraid.

<comment><USER19> People who casually read conspiracy and alternative news (e.g. not hardcore conspiracy theorists who read David Icke), might believe some crazy crap (that doesn't hurt anyone, just discredits themselves), but they are also more prone to questioning the mainstream narratives (and that is very much feared).

Not to mention that a lot of very true shit going on is indeed conspiracies -- it just doesn't involve aliens and illuminati, but established powers (e.g. the white establishment having FBI follow and discredit MLK and other civil rights activists), state agencies, rich private interests buying politicians and forming cartels, powerful elites pushing their agendas, big industries promoting their crap (e.g. big food and big tobacco buying their own "scientific research" and then promoting it in through the magazines they advertise in) and so on...

<comment><USER20> _People who casually read conspiracy and alternative news (e.g. not hardcore conspiracy theorists who read David Icke), might believe some crazy crap (that doesn 't hurt anyone, just discredits themselves)_

Well that is simply not true.

For example, the Sandy Hook harassment brigade caused real harm, eg: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-crime- sandyhook-i...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-crime-sandyhook- idUSKBN18Y2BY)

<comment><USER19> Yeah, a false story can cause such harassment, but that's not unique it conspiracy stories. An actual true fact could cause harassment as well (e.g. people attacking muslims after 9/11, because the perpetrators where muslims, and so on).

I'd say the problem lies more with people that find it acceptable to harass others, whether their actions are based on a true story or a hoax.

<comment><USER20> I'm glad you have conceded that it is harmful.

I agree there are many other things which are also harmful.

<comment><USER19> Rather cheap sarcasm, no? If those "many other things which are also harmful" apply equally to the opposite thing, then it's probably neither the thing nor the opposite that is the actual cause of the harm.

Someone wanting to harass someone else can do it over a true story (person X did X) just as well as over a conspiracy story (aliens made person Y did Z).

The fault lies with the harasser (who is acting badly) not with the reason why they harass.

Or maybe you think that if a story is true then it's OK to harass people over it?

<comment><USER20> _People who casually read conspiracy and alternative news (e.g. not hardcore conspiracy theorists who read David Icke), might believe some crazy crap (that doesn 't hurt anyone, just discredits themselves)_

I think we agree that isn't true.

Both the harasser and the person encouraging it can be at fault.

You can throw in all the strawmen you like.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sending emails with foreign / international accents properly - <AUTHOR> http://arunzrealm.com/?p=15

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you guys think this is the best way to do it?</comment>


The Information Doesn't Want To Be Free - <AUTHOR> https://traffic.piano.io/2017/12/11/the-information-doesnt-want-to-be-free/ <comment><USER2> Can I request a change of title? This is essentially an ad for The Information, a news service. I get it's a clever play on words from the famous internet phrase "information wants to be free" but many people clicking on it probably don't know that. It is pretty close to clickbait.

EDIT: not that it isn't interesting. It would just be beneficial to readers to know what they are getting into.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sidenote: Stewart Brand's full quote is more complex: "Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive...That tension will not go away."

</comment><comment><USER4> Summary: The Information is a subscription-only news publication covering Silicon Valley and the tech business. It has 10,000 subscribers and is a must- read for tech elites.

Its founder, Jessica Lessin, argues that ad revenue promotes high-volume sensationalist noise, whereas subscription revenue promotes deep journalism. Lessin is running an accelerator for subscription-only science and local news: [https://www.theinformation.com/announcing-the-information- ac...](https://www.theinformation.com/announcing-the-information-accelerator)

Others argue that B2B publications are easiest to run subscription-only. The Information provides exclusive business value such as earnings calls and org charts.

<comment><USER4> A minor detail: "To woo [reporters], Lessin offers compensation that consists of their former base salary plus 10 percent."

AB 168 recently banned this practice in California, to make salaries more equitable.

<comment><USER5> Link to the bill: [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB168)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The meta lesson of this article is an example of decent content marketing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Back in the day, we had Esther Dyson's Release 1.0, which similarly had a limited but very influential audience who paid for the rather pricey subscription, and was published in an archaic medium (email is the new paper, I guess).

</comment><comment><USER8> They also have a podcast which covers their biggest stories of the week with interviews of reporters who wrote them. It is free and not very long, so if you like podcasts I would check it out.

<comment><USER9> Name or Link?

<comment><USER10> The Information's 411

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Don't want to give away email to anybody so is the first part of the article the gist of things?

<comment><USER12> [https://outline.com/kngJrL](https://outline.com/kngJrL) if you want to read the entire article

<comment><USER13> Thanks for sharing! Really enjoyed the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So much capital movement in VC circles, don't be surprised that the gossip about it sells too.</comment>


20 Things You Should Know About Strings in Java - <AUTHOR> http://javaconceptoftheday.com/tutorial-examples-strings-in-java/

<comment><USER2> 12 is wrong. You can't access the character array, you just get a copy. Access to the array would bypass immutability.</comment>


Prime Leverage: How Amazon Wields Power in the Technology World - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/technology/amazon-aws-cloud-competition.html <comment><USER2> (Full disclosure: I was interviewed for this article and work with several of the companies mentioned.)

Software startups _should_ be worried about AWS (and "Big Cloud" in general), especially those in the AI/ML, serverless, stream processing, containerization, IoT, data warehousing, and batch processing space. Those are the fastest growing cloud services and AWS knows it.

I wrote about this at length and suggest ways to punch back: [https://www.gkogan.co/blog/big-cloud/](https://www.gkogan.co/blog/big-cloud/)

One retort I've seen from AWS defenders is: If AWS is so bad for startups, name _one_ startup that was killed by AWS?![0]

Two problems with this argument:

1\. Most startups die in a whisper, not a bang. They fail before ever making a name for themselves in the market. And I happen to know that this journalist had no issues finding startups that failed or struggled, but _did_ have issues getting them to speak on the record. Because who wants to be the loser in the story?

(And yes, I _do_ know several companies that were doomed because of the challenges mentioned in my essay.)

2\. The startups that _do_ come to mind easily--the same ones the AWS supporters show as proof that there's a level playing field--only do so because they managed to reach significant market- and mind-share before AWS swooped in. By now they're large enough to be able to chug along a while longer despite the intense (and arguably unfair) competition. Their survival, however, is far from certain.

[0] Example: [https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/amazon-isnt-killing- your-...](https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/amazon-isnt-killing-your- business-you-just-suck-at-it/)

<comment><USER3> There is no possibility to ramp up a new technology from slow to fast. You must go fast and huge out of the gate, or else AWS will drop in after 6 months and take most of your addressable market before you've even got off the ground. You're too slow when Amazon will put a team of 40 against your 5 person startup. And unlike Google/Hooli, they have a good chance of not screwing it up.

Almost every one of the vendors at the AWS reinvent expo this year that have an "advantage" in AI, data insights, etc, will be competing with an AWS service by next year. Snowflake, Datadog, Splunk, etc. All the innovation in the room gets sucked up by the big company and offered at scale. The best you can hope for is to have a better UX and a brand that people will demand.

The ones who will need to worry less are the ones who already have contracts with enterprise businesses. Relationship rather than technology companies.

<comment><USER4> > You're too slow when Amazon will put a team of 40 against your 5 person > startup.

That part is not true.

Amazon/AWS bootstraps new products much as a startup would - with teams of 5-10 max.

I acknowledge the difference in runway availability and radically different risk of failure.

But the actual dev teams are small.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazon's approach to open source software seems fairly simple to me:

        if non-restrictive license
           sell it to customers
        else
           fork the project, rebrand it, and sell it to customers

a very efficient strategy.

</comment><comment><USER6> I understand the difficulty of trying to simplify very nuanced issues for a general audience, but The Times did a particularly poor job here.

Open-source software isn't hard to explain: free software created in the open by many contributors with licenses on how it can be used.

From there: Amazon targets open source projects widely used with licenses that allow it to offer management of the software deployment as a service. This directly competes with some start-up models that rely on an open source license to draw in users, then offering them auxiliary services.

<comment><USER7> It sounds like these companies need to license their product so another company cannot enhance or modify the software and resell it. I don't know the legal framework well enough to know how difficult that is, but it sounds like that's what companies have started doing.

On a side note - the NYT has a piece on any one of the tech companies about every single day. No doubt these companies do questionable things, but I question the Times motives and biases when they're focused so much on one industry or a handful of companies. I spent almost two decades working in oil and gas before shifting my career to software in 2012. I don't recall a time when the the Times was hyper focused on my industry then. Not that it excuses FB or Amazons behavior, but I do believe the Times has a personal interest in seeing these companies fail, as they compete with the Times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Using "copy" as the description of what Amazon did in the opening paragraph sets the tone of what they are trying to do here. Open Source is not even mentioned until most people have stopped reading.

</comment><comment><USER9> Economist here, wondering how to measure the net gain or harm. If more useful open-source ideas used to be generated by companies hoping to profit from ancillary services like product support, and now those innovators have retreated because they expect Amazon to poach their ideas, then that's harm.

But quantifying the generation of useful ideas is hard. Moreover that harm has to be weighed against the benefit Amazon brings to the users of AWS.

</comment><comment><USER10> [http://archive.vn/OyFKv](http://archive.vn/OyFKv)

</comment><comment><USER11> This is ridiculous; so Amazon aren't supposed to use open source software or offer services that compete with startups?!

It's suspect when papers side with accusers and adopt their rhetoric wholesale, this kind of advocacy delegitimizes all their other reports IMO.</comment>