Chris Wanstrath on The Setup - <AUTHOR> http://chris.wanstrath.usesthis.com/ <comment><USER2> Regular Cocoa Emacs, probably better than Aquamacs for most people: <http://emacsforosx.com/>

And if, instead of Things, you want an awesome todo feature in emacs, check out org-mode, and its partner iPhone app, MobileOrg. (The MobileOrg icon is hideous, though.)

<comment><USER3> I like standard Emacs better than Aquamacs, too. I can see the appeal of Aquamacs to people who were Mac users first, and Emacs users later, but I'm the other way round. For my tastes, Aquamacs is trying a bit too hard to be Mac-like, and is just different enough from Emacs to be maddening to use. I used it for about a year and half before I switched to standard Emacs, and I'm much happier since. Bundling a bunch of apparently randomly-selected extra modes was the thing I liked least about Aquamacs, but there were lots of other irritating features, not to mention various incompatibilities with my familiar Emacs configuration.

For the past few months, I've been running Yamamoto Mitsuharu's experimental "Mac port" of standard Emacs. Probably the only way you'd know about it is if you read the emacs-dev mailing list. Mitsuharu-san has taken some of the best features of the old Carbon Emacs (which many people still run, apparently!), along with a few new ones, and ported them to Emacs 23 to make a hybrid Cocoa/Carbon app. Among the extra features are smoother scrolling, support for gestures on the Magic Trackpad/Magic Mouse, integration with Services on Mac OS X 10.6, and support for Emacs as the default mailer for mailto: links (yes!).

Mitsuharu-san's changes aren't yet integrated into mainline Emacs, but he publishes regular patches against it. He claims it's still an experimental port; however, I've only encountered one bug in the 5 or 6 months I've been using it, which he promptly fixed once I reported it. It's a pain to build, but if you use Homebrew, my emacs-mac-port branch on Github has support for it: just do

      brew install emacs --with-mac

<https://github.com/dhess/homebrew/tree/emacs-mac-port>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> so all he uses is a Macbook Air ? No external monitor ? Hm, dont think its very ergonomic to sit in front of a Laptop all day and the small screen isnt good for productivity either i guess. Other than that, nice list of tools!

<comment><USER5> I think a smaller screen size is better for productivity. It keeps me focused on the task at hand since the screen size constrains what I can have on screen. With larger screens, there's too many other apps that can grab my attention.

In regards to coding, I also prefer the smaller size screen. Writing code on smaller screens forces me to write smaller methods since I don't want to scroll to read a method. Obviously, I could just resize my editor window to fix this, but then this exposes other applications which are distracting.

<comment><USER4> i get that, but still...you dont have to run the apps that distract you in the first place. I think one can hardly have enough screen real estate especially in web dev where you have to fiddle with so many different applications. I like having my IDE on one monitor and the Browser to check results / view documentation on the other one without needing to switch back and forth all the time.</comment></comment></comment>


Comments in code: the more we write, the less we want to highlight - <AUTHOR> http://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-24-18-10-36-soc <comment><USER2> This "two types of comments" idea already exists in a limited form as most editors already display TODO, FIXME and sometimes NOTE in a more visible color.

Extending those could be helpful, this method doesn't break anything in "incompatible" editors and could be implemented via plugins or config files.</comment>


R18n 1.0.0, i18n for Rails/Ruby - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ai/r18n R18n 1.0.0 is out. It is i18n library for Ruby/Rails with some extra features and clean architecture.<p>Unlike Ruby on Rails build-in I18n library, R18n autodetect user locale (for Rails, Sinatra and desktop apps), translate models or any objects, has flexible filters, use better locales architecture, can load translations by any way (files, database, etc) and use nice Ruby-style syntax. <comment><AUTHOR> Unlike Ruby on Rails build-in I18n library, R18n autodetect user locale (for Rails, Sinatra and desktop apps), translate models or any objects, has flexible filters, use better locales architecture, can load translations by any way (files, database, etc) and use nice Ruby-style syntax.

</comment><comment><USER2> Like it)</comment>


13 Open Source Hardware Companies Making $1 Million or More (video) - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2010/05/10/13-open-source-hardware-companies-making-1-million-or-more-video/

<comment><USER2> headline is a little misleading, because each company is in the $1Million range with total of $50M according to presentation. Interesting part is the forward looking statement of a $1B revenue expectation on open source. Would like to see how they got there.</comment>


Ask YC: Thinking of Launching Coworking in Silicon Valley, with a twist  - <AUTHOR>

Myself (ustream) + Roommate (Publictivity) are thinking of starting a coworking space using extra space in our house (it's a three story townhouse) in Palo Alto. We're thinking of turning the living area + garage into a coworking space for hackers, entrepreneurs,etc. in the next month. Thoughts?<p>a) it's our place, so different than most coworking. b) we've never done this before. what are the downfalls? c) what would make it interesting to you? <comment><USER2> I've been to both Citizen space and Hat Factory in SF. Hat Factory is too inconvenient for me, and Citizen Space is too expensive ($350/m). You can get a real, private office in a cool space in San Francisco for $400 if you know the right people (artists). Paying money to go to someone's house with a bunch of other people I don't know doesn't appeal to me. It could potentially appeal to me if I lived in Palo Alto and it was really cheap, like $30/m or less. It seems like you'd have to have some additional benefit, because I don't see the advantage over simply going to work at a friend's house, which is free. Maybe it would appeal to people with no friends? If you're trying to make some extra money you might be better off just renting out the garage. If you are trying to meet more nerds, hosting a "super happy dev house" type event once a month might have the same effect. You could make money with that idea too, by charging $5 at the door for beer.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ive seen the space, I like it. Very nice, it's relatively big (~ 15 ppl max) its within walking distance (across the street) of one of the best places for breakfast in the area, and on the route of 2 frequent bus lines.

About security (of the owner): It's not like you would not know who everyone there is (think LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter), plus you could set in place some basic common sense safeguards (lock doors to your rooms, add those nifty security cables to laptops)

Security of tenants: Same as above, lock door(s) to office entrance, perhaps some CCTV at the door (cheap remote hosted)

Overall, I think it's a good idea, and I think you should do it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hi,

Why would you do that? Actually I did something similar in my garage, but with a very high selection threshold, and very short term stays. If you are recommended by someone I trust and needed a place to stay for a specific purpose, then I would host you.

In that particular instance, I believed in quality vs. quantity.

Now, for the good news: it's a great way to meet amazing people and you'll be glad you have done it, 5 years from now. In the short term, you won't be so glad. It just takes a very long time for these things (karma) to come back to you, but it's great.

Alain - fairsoftware.net

<comment><USER5> I didn't gather from their explanation that it's charity. I could be wrong, but my impression's that they're "selling the sawdust," or making the most on every piece of their businesses (in this case by creatively subsidizing their housing expenses).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> a) Should I prefer working in your house to a traditional coworking space?

b) It's been said by noodle, but 1) security, and 2) liability. There's also the risk that more people = more distractions, but that's a risk in any coworking environment.

c) Is it priced competitively with other coworking options? Is is in walking distance to good food, bars? How big is your place (which is to ask, is there plenty of space for every person/group you invite?)? Will you include an application to assure the quality of those in the space? Will you give a break to YC-funded companies? What's the length of stay... is it plenty of time to start a company?

Lots of questions, but it's an interesting idea.

</comment><comment><USER6> _"... b) we've never done this before. what are the downfalls? ..."_

Everyone steals your stuff. There is probably a "trust" issue you would want to address. Maybe some reference checks, a bond? What I'd try is finding an existing startup that you can get some "symbiosis" with. It might also be a way to find extra founders? What ever you do write it up and post the results. I'm sure there are some interesting outcomes.

Of course maybe you are an optimist. What are do you have to offer? Broadband, wifi, couches, smart hackers? Startup rentals by hackers is a new idea, wonder if it takes off?

</comment><comment><USER7> the obvious answer to the downfall question is security and liability. unless you know and trust everyone as a friend, you're going to be taking on a serious risk both personally and financially.

</comment><comment><USER8> c. If it was free!</comment>


Ask HN: What are the most prestigious jobs in software? - <AUTHOR>

Thinking of prestige as something separate but often linked with income. <comment><USER2> Try to be this kind of engineer.

[https://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-jobs-do-software- engineer...](https://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-jobs-do-software-engineers- who-earn-500k-per-year-do)

</comment><comment><USER3> Must be Rockstar Developer or Ninja.

<comment><USER4> I of course assume you mean a developer at Rockstar... The creator of GTA and thus conclude that 'game developer' is the answer to the question?

Also being a ninja by night and developer by day would rank pretty high in the 'being cool' charts. Though I believe 'prestige' would come from things such as creating a product that is then acquired by Google or Facebook.

Then again, what is 'prestige' and why would you want it? The whole question implies that validation from others is the best thing you can achieve. While it is nice to be valued by your peers, why not aim for personal happiness and being a valuable parent, family member, friend, etc?

Just do what you want to do and don't worry if people think you have a 'prestigious' job title at a 'prestigious' company.

Edit: then again I realise that it might make you happy to be able to call yourself 'prestigious' so then the question is perfectly valid.</comment></comment>


Pentagon study declares American Empire is 'collapsing' - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/pentagon-study-declares-american-empire-is-collapsing-746754cdaebf <comment><USER2> _and the authority of governments everywhere is crumbling._

Good.

 _potentially undermining trust in incumbent governments for the foreseeable future_

Even better. Trusting government is a fool's errand.

 _But, the document says, this should not be seen as defeatism, but rather a "wakeup call". If nothing is done to adapt to this "post-primacy" environment, the complexity and speed of world events will "increasingly defy [DoD's] current strategy, planning, and risk assessment conventions and biases."_

IOW, it's not the Department of _Defense_ at all. It's more like the Department of World Domination.

<comment><USER3> Then who do you trust no one? computers? corporations? religious leaders? scientists?

How do you run society without trust?

<comment><USER2> Wait, what?? Where did I say anything remotely like "trust no one"?

Trusting governments has worked out _so_ well historically though. That got us many wars, untold numbers of people killed, incarcerated and/or experimented on. It got us untold numbers of people inhibited from creating wealth and a better future for themselves, so the existing elite power base could preserve itself. It got us civil asset forfeiture, the "War on Drugs" (aka, war on civil liberties), horrible nutritional advice promulgated by the USDA and their ilk, which has ruined people's health (hey, eat lots of carbs, fat is evil!). It's got us entrenched systems which promote the morality of one religious group (Christians, in the US) regardless of one's personal beliefs. It's got us MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, Room 641a, etc., etc.

<comment><USER4> Are you suggesting any alternate ideas here, or just ranting about "muh gubment"?

<comment><USER5> All they're suggesting is that trusting the government is a silly idea, and then provided examples of it. I don't think they're suggesting necessarily that we need a brand new kind of government - just that we should for good reason be wary of the one we currently have.

<comment><USER6> "Government" is governance of humans by humans. It has never been "good" because the past is so dismal and because humans collectively have not come to make it good.

The challenge for those who critize government generically is that they design a good governance ... whether we call some part of it government or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good. Here's how things should go:

1\. First America stops being world police.

2\. America plays ball with rest of world (adopts metric system, becomes a leader in climate, shares control of internet, turns concern toward to real issues like asteroids, population growth, health issues, cyber security)

3\. Citizens acknowledge that war is a tool for siphoning tax money into the coffers of people with connections/government-contracts, and move towards a post-war-era.

4\. Citizens start to move to a post-nation era, where we acknowledge have more in common with each other than our own politicians who drive us apart for financial gain.

5\. We move toward universalizing language, so we hit a point that declaring war with Iraq seems as absurd as declaring war with Canada.

6\. The very concept of "superiority" and "class" becomes meaningless as we move into an era of excess due to automation.

[Link to Pentagon's study: [https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/download.cfm?q=1358](https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/download.cfm?q=1358)]

<comment><USER8> That's a good way of becoming weak. Your enemies will be very glad to watch you try this.

<comment><USER9> "The Americans have brought their armed forces back home, adopted sensible foreign and domestic policies, and are starting to see eye-to-eye with people whom they once found too foreign to relate to. Now is the perfect time to strike!"

<comment><USER10> Our global hegemony ensures stability of trade for the entire world, and that stability is the reason that other countries eagerly trade and generally deal business with the US. Unfortunately, if we back away from our role as world police, the resulting power vacuum will see some other country take up the role at best, and at worst we could see another large scale conflict as emerging powers compete for dominance.

Our current foreign policy is far from ideal, but there is a delicate global balance which would be dangerously upset if we ceased global operations and "world policing." The GP is niave to think that such rosy, utopian intentions would not be taken advantage of by other global players. Look, for instance, at the current posturing by China in the Pacific. Imagine the scaling of their operations if there was no one in our position to apply pressure against them.

Someday, sure. But, globally, humans are still viciously tribal, and some form of enforcement keeps everything running smoothly for everyone. And while Americans foot much of the bill, there is no denying that our benefit is of larger proportion as well.

<comment><USER11> I feel like a lot of people have a lot of trouble appreciating the wars that _didn't_ happen under American hegemony. I don't believe we're perfect in anyway, but under our influence the world has been more peaceful and interconnected than at any other time in world history.

<comment><USER12> Similar to the violence that was quelled under Saddam. It's difficult to appreciate and measure that which is absent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This was a top post in r/geopolitics a couple of days back. I can't find the link anymore, probably because it was removed. A lot of them commented that this sounded like DoD propaganda to get increased funding, especially when you consider that this study was funded by DoD.

Anyway, it is truly scary if they think they need to massively expand the already unparalleled American military dominance.

</comment><comment><USER14> One thing I find particularly funny about the whole Trump-Russia connection and the possibility of Putin & Co. meddling with American Elections, is the disconnect of those that are so blindly outraged about it all.

Trump of course should resign if the intervention is proven as deliberate and facilitated by his side, but shall we make a list of all the foreign elections the US have been meddling with in the last 50 years?

The real solution? American friends, as much as I love you (and I do, mostly), you should just stop being so way up your own ass all the time. About everything. There's a world out there, across the borders and the two ponds.

<comment><USER15> The techniques used in the 2016 US election were developed by western governments to interfere in 3rd world countries' elections. Heck the same subcontractors were used. Classic example of a weapon being turned on the maker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Maybe they should consider exactly how badly they used their post-Cold War dominance. Things like the Iraq war leeched their dominance, by showing them as unprepared, by showing them as an occupying power and by splitting them with most of Europe.

It wasn't the only decision that had this effect, either. The report might as well say "We used to be rich, but we spent it all on fast cars and drink."

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if this is what the Soviets proposed right before their collapse. I guess when you're a hammer (Pentagon) you only know how to hit things (war). We may or may not be about to collapse as an empire, but I'm certain that if we follow the plan outlined here, we will collapse as a society. We've already been heading there for quite awhile now. Let's spend more on military while our citizens are jobless, homeless, and dying of sickness, then use propaganda to tell them they're living the high life. There are, unfortunately, enough stupid people in this country to keep such a charade going. The current leadership, both political and military, is just a reflection of that.

</comment><comment><USER18> Theres a easy cure that will be the norm in 100 or 200 years, whenever we get sick of capitalism. You're right capitalism is not currently recognized as a form of government, but in reality it is the dominant form of government in the west.

The cure is, get this, transparency. It'll take some effort to get to a true transparent government and im calling this new form Transparentism.

</comment><comment><USER19> Edit: "...has collapsed."</comment>


Ask HN: Examples of viral hits - <AUTHOR>

Do you guys have any examples of websites that went viral recently? <comment><USER2> [https://www.robinhood.com/](https://www.robinhood.com/)</comment>


Uber data reveals motoring slower than walking in many cities - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/22/uber-data-reveals-motoring-slower-than-walking-in-many-cities/ <comment><USER3> This is a well-known principle of urban transport. If driving is faster than the alternative transport mode (whether that's public transport, if any, or walking), then at the margins people will switch to driving, but that means more traffic on the road, more congestion, and slower driving speeds. Conversely, if driving is slower than the alternative, then at the margins people will switch away from driving, reducing traffic and increasing driving speeds. So in places where road space is the bottleneck, we expect driving speed to be similar to the speed of the alternative mode. In central London, for example, travel speed has been roughly the same whether you drive or take the Underground, for more than a century.

Update since some commenters seem to be having trouble: this process depends on the travellers "at the margin", that is, the people who are most willing to switch modes to reduce their journey time. Thinking in terms of the average or typical traveller is misleading.

<comment><USER4> This doesn't mean driving is useless. Cars are generally air conditioned, and have a greater capacity to carry luggage than walking.

...so cars should this be _slower_ than cars, given these benefits

<comment><USER5> The average commuter won't carry huge luggage around. But they might spend the time reading or working out they are sitting in a train/metro compartment. And they exercise when using the bicycle, meaning they will be healthier and have reduced health issues and cost. Bicycles are also much less costly and environmentally friendly, don't pollute, are less likely to have accidents (except with cars), ... But infrastructure is much cheaper and easier to maintain then that for cars. Cars on the other hand block the roads not just for each other, but also for public transport, trucks, emergency vehicles, ... They produce co2 and microparticles, take up valuable space when parked, etc. Overall cars have huge externalities.

So no, cars are not the best means of transport just because you can carry lots of stuff which you usually don't carry...

<comment><USER6> > But they might spend the time reading or working out they are sitting in a > train/metro compartment.

That's a big "might" that is conditioned on having a seat and space in which to do these things, none if which is a given.

> Bicycles ... are less likely to have accidents (except with cars)

After three years as a pedestrian in NYC I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.

> But infrastructure is much cheaper and easier to maintain then that for > cars.

How do you figure? Paved streets are still needed, arguably maintained to slightly higher standards than they are for cars. Signalling is still needed, unless you want a free-for-all of bike traffic (which I don't).

In general, you seem to be comparing the happy cases of bicycles and public transit to the negatives of cars. It's and unfair and disingenuous comparison.

<comment><USER7> >After three years as a pedestrian in NYC I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.

Perception, meet reality:

[http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot- pedestrian-...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian- fatalities-by-bike-motor-vehicle.pdf)

Summary: From 2002-2016 there were 2355 pedestrians killed by bicycle or car in NYC. 2345 of those fatal collisions were car-pedestrian, and only 10 were bicycle-pedestrian.

<comment><USER8> NYC has open crash data too: [https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public- Safety/NYPD-Motor-Vehic...](https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYPD- Motor-Vehicle-Collisions/h9gi-nx95)

From mid 2012 to mid 2019, there were 940 reports of a crash with a bike as the primary vehicle and 1+ pedestrians injured. In the same time period, there were 69776 reports of a crash without bicycle as primary vehicle injuring 1+ pedestrians.

<comment><USER6> Now _that_ is an interesting dataset that demonstrates my experience thus far is an outlier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We live in a town in Germany with roughly 250.000 inhabitants, but I grew up in a small village. I always get weird looks from relatives when I tell them that we do not own a car. For some of them, not owning a car is literally equivalent to "cannot leave the house", because buses only serve their village every 2 hours or so, and the service stops at around 8pm.

We use car sharing, but only if we have to buy something that really cannot be transported via bike or public transport, like furniture, or for trips to remote places that are very complicated to reach via public transportation. I tried driving to work a few times (~8 km across town), but it takes me roughly 35 minutes by car, compared to 25 minutes by bike, and is much, much more stressful than using my bike. If the weather is very bad, I take the tram. For groceries, we usually walk to the nearest supermarket.

Truth is, at least in Europe, I cannot think of any reason why you should own a car in a town with an average public transportation network and some form of car sharing.

<comment><USER10> (I assume the massive downvotes are from the people that have never lived in the Midwest and/or have never lived anywhere other than 'downtown' in a major city, or ancient city that was built before locomotion, and are wholly unfamiliar with suburbs)

>I cannot think of any reason why you should own a car in a town with an average public transportation network and some form of car sharing.

Because you don't want to waste an hour or more every day standing around waiting on a train/bus? Would like to regularly visit friends and family on the other side of town? Would like to not have to plan your life around transportation schedules?

I could maybe see getting by in Europe, I've one friend in Germany that is quite happy taking the train a half mile or so from his apartment for most stuff but even he still owns a car for getting to work, doing groceries, going to his postal box, bringing home stuff for art, going to the woods etc.

I cannot fathom life without a car. I'd say my closest friend is 10 miles away, two I go to see fairly regularly are 50 miles away. If I want to go see a movie it's 3-20 miles depending on which theater I want to go to, work is about 10~ miles from my apartment with my two gyms between me and work that I'm at 4x a day each and at another a 5th day. All of the performing arts theaters around Indianapolis are downtown, on the east side or north of Indy in Carmel - all of which are a 20-40 minute drive for me probably 15-25 miles.

I can go to these places above in 5-60 minutes in my car, public transportation would require multiple transfers and probably 4-5 hours, with some of them running fairly infrequently, for some of them and a couple of them I simply could not get to with public transportation.

Without a car I'd also have no way to get to the meetinghouse of my Church, or to singles firesides at a meetinghouse on the other side of town.

Without a car in the spring and summer I'd show up to dates, or to hang out with friends, sweaty and smelly. It will be 86F with the humidity reaching a high of 87% today.

Without a car, I couldn't go shooting if I wanted... I can't get on a bus with long arms and a few bricks of ammunition and be like "hey, I know that isn't a stop up there, but can you drop me in front of that range... this stuff is heavy". I couldn't go hunting, I couldn't go fishing, I couldn't go mushroom hunting in the spring, I couldn't go hiking because buses don't go to the woods.

<comment><USER9> I agree, it may not work everywhere, and this is why I mentioned the precondition of having an average public transportation network and some form of car sharing. You are forgetting that time spent driving is essentially dead time, while you can do all sort of things in a train, and with a bike you get exercise for free. So you cannot compare the travel times directly. For example, my work place is roughly the same distance from our apartment as yours. As I have mentioned, it saves me roughly 10 minutes driving there by bike, and I do not have to go to the gym, because I ride the bike for 20 miles daily.

I'll give you a few other examples:

* If I want to go see a movie in town, I can take the tram (20 minutes, runs every 5 minutes) or the bike (10 minutes), or car sharing (5 minutes walk to nearest station, 10 minute drive, 10 minutes searching for a parking spot in a garage, 10 minutes walking from said garage to the cinema.)

* If I want to visit my parents, it is a 2.5h car drive or a 3.5h tram/train/bus ride with 3 changes. Time lost in car: 2.5 hours. Time lost with PT: at most 30 minutes waiting at stations, the 3 hours in the train can be used for reading or working.

* If we want to visit the parents of my wife, it is a 50 minute car drive or a 80 minutes tram/train/bus ride. Time lost on car: 50 minutes, time lost with PT: roughly 10 minutes.

* If I want to visit someone in a remote village, or take a leisure trip to some remote place, or go hikin, I walk 5 minutes to the nearest car sharing station and take a car from there.

<comment><USER11> You can certainly listen to audiobooks, music or podcasts in a car. You can also have a private conversation with the passenger. Driving is by no means "lost time" for many people.

<comment><USER12> Eh. Driving time isn't completely lost, but it is pretty low capacity if you want to study or be entertained. I used my metro commute for 3 years to learn programming languages, take college courses, read stacks of books, nap, learn to cook with cooking shows, and solve technical problems for work. I used my car commute for 3 years to...listen to some light entertainment and music. I managed to get a speeding ticket while listening to a podcast because I wasn't focused enough on driving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Random anecdotes:

When I'm traveling, if I ask the hotel staff to recommend any restaurants "within walking distance", they'll grimace and say there aren't really any, even while Yelp informs me that there are six within a kilometer.

Yesterday I ended up spending about 15 minutes waiting for a bus that was late. Someone else spent about the same amount of time as me waiting on that normal street corner, and then got back off the bus about 5 blocks later. So, that makes ~15 minutes standing around waiting for the bus and $2.25 spent on a fare, in order to save a 5 minute walk. I assume they're at least as able- bodied as I am, because, unlike me, they didn't opt to sit on the bench during the wait.

I just don't think the US has a culture that considers feet to be a valid mode of transportation.

<comment><USER14> _I just don 't think the US has a culture that considers feet to be a valid mode of transportation._

In some cases, I've found that to literally be true. I used to live a few miles from a large suburban mall (well, Castleton Square Mall is/was technically within the city limits of Indianapolis). I decided to walk to the mall one day, what the hell, good exercise. There were no crosswalks or signals to cross either the N/S nor E/W roads. No sidewalks. I recall no bike racks once you got there. It was as if (and I imagine literally true) there was no consideration given to any other means of transportation but a car. Other examples abound, but that one particularly stands out in my mind.

<comment><USER15> The irony of motorists' outrage on small towns banning car parking in the city and creating pedestrian only zones, is that they don't produce enough economic activity to let them park.

There's a reason why the most coveted retail real estate is in pedestrian accessible areas... not parking only strip malls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Perhaps we should ban cars from cities altogether.

[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/madrid- spain-...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/madrid-spain-car- ban-city-center/561155/)

<comment><USER17> There are certain reasons cars are needed: goods transport and people with disabilities for example. I wonder if you could do a general ban with enough exceptions to be okay.

There's be a fraud problem though, and it could make it difficult for disabled people in practice (they may not be able to easily get the right badge, or be believed when they do, they wouldn't be able to benefit from car infrastructure…)

<comment><USER13> I'm really fond of the areas I've been where the only cars allowed on many streets are things like delivery and service vehicles.

I would expect that that kind of environment is actually a net improvement to accessibility for people with disabilities. It's probably _quite_ annoying for people who use wheelchairs to get around a lot of places without a car, simply because the sidewalks are so frequently blocked off by people who've parked their cars across the sidewalk. There's one man in my neighborhood who frequently has to go out in the street to get around those sorts of obstructions, and is then stuck out in the middle of the road until he can get to the next wheelchair ramp in order to get back on the sidewalk. Limiting private car usage would admittedly only remove a portion of the sources of obstruction, but it would get rid of essentially all of the safety hazard that he has to take on in order to get around them.

And, especially now that cars are going electric and getting quieter and quieter, I would guess that restricting unnecessary car usage could be a big boon for blind people who want to be able to leave the house without a chaperone. I had one acquaintance who would essentially Uber everywhere - <USER2> great expense to herself - because she just didn't feel safe even trying to cross the street.

(Heck, I'm sighted, and sometimes _I_ don't feel safe trying to cross the street, especially later in the evening when a sizable portion of drivers are intoxicated and really are not watching for pedestrians.)

<comment><USER18> A lot of university campuses are like this. Very limited car access on certain roads, but maintenance etc. gets free reign to drive on the walkways even during heavy foot traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My (completely anecdotal) experience of London, was that having a car anywhere near the city center was close to pointless, as you could easily outpace it on a bike. It's also nice to see a gradual shift towards making the city public- transport- and bike- friendly (e.g. super-highways, but also ultra-low emission zones), but there's a lot more to be done!

<comment><USER20> Rain, luggage, bike theft, having a driver so you can work from the back etc.

Also depends on time of day. In the early hours a car is definitely faster than a bike in 95% of the city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I would love Uber to use this data to propose me options for taking a short walk to cut total travel time.

In some places walking a few hundred meters puts you in a much better position for pick-up. Same thing in destination, propose a location that minimizes total travel time.

<comment><USER20> The number of tourists in London getting the underground distances that are less than the distance down to the train and back up...

<comment><USER22> Sure, the underground is an experience in itself. And walking around a foreign city can be very confusing for a lot of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The example of Trafalgar Square is quite comical.

On a bicycle you have options when the traffic is slow, including getting off to walk. But the place would be that densely packed with buses, motorbikes, taxis and actual cars that this was neigh on impossible. If you did walk then you would be waiting for lights, at least by bicycle you have the Highway Code on your side.

Before the top bit of Trafalgar Square was pedestrianised it took 27 lane changes to go from the Whitehall side to the Charing Cross road exit, by bicycle using the bus lane shortcuts.

Even though you could see where you were heading you could emerge from the hell of Trafalgar Square to make it onto easier roads to then see a clock, e.g. Big Ben. Only then would you realise that navigating the square had taken twenty minutes as half an hour had gone by since leaving work.

The other vehicles would take considerably longer. But that is motoring, there is no expectation of forward movement, sitting in traffic spewing fumes and blaming the world for the predicament is par for the course. If you are on a bus you can just dibble with your phone so it doesn't matter. People put up with it.

</comment><comment><USER24> It would be a waste of time and money to take an Uber to get from one end of Trafalgar Square to the other. But if your destination is several miles away and your route just happens to take you through a busy block, driving will still be faster than walking because the car can reach higher speeds in less congested parts of the route.

Many people who drive around in urban centers aren't really trying to get from one part of the urban center to another; they just happen to be in the same car they just drove in from the suburbs. That trip as a whole tends to be much faster than walking, and it takes quite a bit of time to park somewhere other than your destination. So if you're optimizing for speed, it can still be rational to drive all the way to your destination.

<comment><USER25> That's true in a lot of places. Do I get in a car to go 5 blocks if I'm already in a city? Of course not barring special circumstances (injury, heavy packages, etc.)

But if I'm driving in from where I live for dinner and theater in the evening, yes I drive, including through congested areas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> >Uber's Speeds dataset also shows that exceeding the speed limit on some roads is endemic, but the company says its data is anonymized and cannot be used to track–and sanction–individual speeding drivers.

Yeah, bullshit. Maybe that's true of this particular "anonymized" dataset, but Uber did the anonymizing. They absolutely have the data to track and sanction speeding drivers. They just don't care to. Why would they?

<comment> jon-wood Their driver app shows your current speed, and pops up a warning when you exceed the posted limit for the road you're on. Are they seriously trying to tell us they couldn't fire off an API call to report the driver is over the limit at the same time?

<comment><USER27> There is a difference between can and should.

Would you want your car to do so completely insensitive to current contexts? Especially if the road data winds up inaccurate in areas. I have had several GPSes tell me that I was "speeding" by going the 45 MPH because it thought it was a 25 road.

There is an expectation of servicing the user - if they did that they would be called Orwellian and lose drivers enmasse. It would also fail to address speeding in general as they would speed without tracking then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This should say "many European cities". This is certainly not true anywhere in Texas, and probably not anywhere else in the U.S.

<comment><USER18> I beat cars all the time on my bike and I'm in the midwest; I go 12-15mph while traffic goes maybe half that averaging for the lights. Splitting lanes means you go the same speed regardless of traffic and therefore I'm always at the front of the intersection at a red and the first to move on green, while that car I passed 200 yards ago has to sit through another light cycle.

<comment><USER28> Title says walking, not biking. In addition, cycling and walking are becoming less safe in the U.S.[1]. Also, enjoy your 20+ mile bike commute in the summers down here in Texas.

[1] [https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/03/us-cities-are-becoming- mor...](https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/03/us-cities-are-becoming-more- dangerous-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I was at Isla Mujeres (island outside of Cancun, Mexico) a couple years ago and I was walking from the dock to the hotel with my baggage when an American stopped on a golf cart of sorts (they were all over the place) and asked if I wanted a ride. I said "thank you, but I'm Norwegian, we walk". The man looked at me for a few seconds then barked "Well I'm American!", then drove off and we both laughed.

The feet are superior everywhere except highways, especially if you are not known in the area and need to get familiar.

I also enjoy walking, when I am at home I take 1-2 hour walking trips in the forest by the house while listening to audio books almost every day.

Since I currently live in the countryside I need a car for large item transportation and things like that, but I have never owned one when living in a city.

<comment><USER30> > I said "thank you, but I'm Norwegian, we walk". The man looked at me for a > few seconds then barked "Well I'm American!", then drove off and we both > laughed.

What a clever, considerate American, making use of energy-efficient transportation and stopping to offer rides to strangers along the way!

> The feet are superior everywhere except highways

Try walking to work in business attire on a few 100 degree (38C) days and then tell me how you feel about that...

<comment><USER29> > What a clever, considerate American, making use of energy-efficient > transportation and stopping to offer rides to strangers along the way!

Yes, he was really nice. Americans usually are from my experience :)

> Try walking to work in business attire on a few 100 degree (38C) days and > then tell me how you feel about that...

I'll concede to this point. I don't have to wear that kind of outfit very often and the temperatures here rarely reach that high luckily.

<comment><USER30> > I don't have to wear that kind of outfit very often and the temperatures > here rarely reach that high luckily.

I usually grin and bear it but I know plenty of older people who don't tolerate heat well. Men especially seem to suffer since they run hotter and they're not allowed to wear skirts and sleeveless shirts to work (or, if they are allowed, it's still not quite culturally acceptable enough yet...). A lot of "professional" workplaces don't even allow men to wear short sleeves, and they _definitely_ don't allow shorts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I can tell you i've taken ubers when I could have easily walked. But there are several reasons why my wife and I did not.

Weather/tempature. We live in FL and sometimes walking more than 5 min outside brings you to a full sweat. Conversely you may want it to take an uber because it is way too cold.

clothes - if you're in high heels or a dress you may not want to walk as far.

</comment><comment><USER32> I know I shouldn't post this here, but the only reason I got a car and stopped using public transport are ppl who don't stay home when they have the flu. I've been sick 2 months each winter because of it, with flu shots. Aren't their ACs which can filter that out?

<comment><USER33> It's a good point, and one of my bugbears of getting on a crowded rush hour Sydney bus or train. Geez the amount of sneezing. That said Sydney generally has journeys that are way to expensive by car (you need to park) so public transport is the only option and conversely journeys that are epic by public transport but quite quick by car. There rarely feels like there is a "hmm what do I fancy today" kind of choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> * On very specific routes in high congestion parts of the city. The article and headline reads as if the data says walking is faster - for 99% of journeys this isn't true!

We really need better journalism than using statistics to make up lies to get clicks...

</comment><comment><USER35> Speed isn't necessarily the reason you take an Uber though. I used to use them a lot more when I worked for a client in London and would have to head back to the railway station after a few days with my suitcase. It wasn't fast, but it did mean I didn't have to drag a suitcase through the London Underground at rush hour (not fun).

If you want to get places fast in London, as the article suggests, you want to be on two wheels. Cycling is probably the best option, but motorcycle or scooter also works well.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's obvious with the new trend of electric scooters. Cars, due to traffic and intersections.. are sluggish in cities.

</comment><comment><USER37> There's a subway station 20 minutes away from my work that I take from time to time when I want to go to a specific movie theater. There's a bus that go pretty directly, without much stop, but during rush hour, it takes at least 5 minutes less to walk.

</comment><comment><USER38> Context here matters. I would uber if I were in work clothes, and its Houston in August in the afternoon. Im not trying to walk 15 minutes and arrive drenched in sweat to a work meeting.

</comment><comment><USER39> When I click on the link, I get a 404. That's not the usual response to the hug of death. Anyone have an alternate link?

</comment><comment><USER40> Less sweaty, though.

</comment><comment><USER41> Duh</comment>


Show HN: Responsive page designer – no grid/CSS frameworks - <AUTHOR> http://www.responsivewebcss.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I created a video to help explain what I made: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMs-4lPhJl0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMs-4lPhJl0)

Thanks

<comment> chestnut-tree The video is excellent and (with the captions switched on) explains how the site works very well. I would embed or link to the video on the site itself.

Great work by the way! A practical tool with a simple, easy interface.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I took your advice and threw the vid on the front page

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> some issues

zip includes file named "css\style.css"

css file includes both mixed \r\n and \n also mixed spaces with tabs

</comment><comment><USER3> That's pretty cute!

On OSX, the slash in the CSS filename doesn't generate a folder. If it's tricky to fix, I'd just leave it in the root directory and assume that people will move it where they please.

</comment><comment><USER4> The site itself is not responsive. This seems counterintuitive. Demonstrate.

</comment><comment><USER5> Gridpak[1] is a nice Responsive Grid Template builder.

1\. [http://gridpak.com/](http://gridpak.com/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Looks pretty awesome. I'll put it in my tools bookmark folder

</comment><comment><USER7> Site not responsive on my HTC DNA.

</comment><comment><USER8> The layout is not responding correctly to iPad 2.</comment>


MIT faculty see promise in American manufacturing - <AUTHOR> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/manufacturing-pie-overview-0125.html <comment><USER2> The public perception of a decline in American manufacturing is highly overrated. It's American manufacturing _jobs_ that have been in decline. American manufacturing itself has grown every year from 1970 to 2010 with three exceptions (2001, 2008 and 2009, recession years).

(cf. also <http://goo.gl/ZA1o2> \- for the historical stats; the opinion parts and any policy recommendations you can take or leave.)

<comment><USER3> Exactly, it's not foreign workers that have taken all the blue collar manufacturing jobs, it's robots.

Everyone seems to be worried about China becoming the manufacturer for the world, but as technology progresses manufacturing will move closer to the consumer.

<comment><USER4> I'm an engineer in the manufacturing sector and there is quite a bit of automation at the company I work for. Where there are robots, PLC's, and other things that can be programmed there will ALWAYS be problems that need both high tech people and blue-collar level involved. Engineers write the software, technicians repair them and workers operate them. I don't get why people have this notion that factories are comprised entirely of robots running at 100% efficiency with 5 people overseeing what used to be 1000 jobs. A robot may take someone's job and be able to perform the same amount as 3 people, but it's not like they're free-standing things that require no maintenance or other human interaction. In many instances it's just not feasible to have a robot perform the work.

<comment><USER5> A major car manufacturer, BMW or Toyota I believe, was showing their new factory and touting how it only required 50 people to run operations for the entire factory. You underestimate the amount of labor a robot can replace. It's not 3 people but 10. Now some of that labor will be pushed up to control and maintenance but most will simply be phased out.

As well, new factories are being built around robots and their limited degrees of freedom.

<comment><USER4> There aren't too many manufacturing facilities in the US of that size that are automated to the extent you mentioned. There are many situations where it's nearly impossible to have a robot do the job such as installing wiring harnesses, installing hardware in very tight, awkward spaces, etc..(when I say impossible I mean it would cost more to develop that job than the income it generates). I've seen many cases where a human can do the job faster than a robot too. Sure, improving object design can improve manufacturability, but robots are not going to replace people entirely anytime soon in every type of manufacturing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _"... high-tech firms such as Dow Corning have kept significant amounts of manufacturing in the country. ..."_

It was reported in the NYT article, _"How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work"_ (Duhigg, BradSher) ~ [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple- america-and...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and- a-squeezed-middle-class.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print) that Dow Corning lost out on the touch-screen glass contract to a nationally backed Chinese firm. [1]

Reference

[1] _"For years, cellphone makers had avoided using glass because it required precision in cutting and grinding that was extremely difficult to achieve. Apple had already selected an American company, Corning Inc... Then a bid for the work arrived from a Chinese factory... The Chinese plant got the job."_

<comment><USER7> Fair point, but saying that Dow Corning is not high-tech because it did not win the Apple iPhone business is akin to saying Foursquare is not 'high-tech' since FB also does location based services.

The NYT article does not give any detail on that specific contract, margins paid, etc. There are many reasons DC might not have that specific business but that doesn't detract from the sophistication of their current mftg or its location in the US.

I work in mftg and many of the branded, PR-heavy products are actually pretty poor decisions from an economic standpoint - think of Andrioid's market share compared to Apple's profit-share.

<comment><USER6> _"... saying that Dow Corning is not high-tech because it did not win the Apple iPhone business ..."_

I didn't say that. I cited the reference. Corning Inc. has the technology to produce the product. The article cites lead time to set up a batch-run & lack of facilities. Corning Inc. lost out because the Chinese firm was able to meet the un-reasonable constraints, faster. Is that the real reason Corning Inc. lost? I don't know, I just remember the NYT quote.

      "Dow Corning have kept significant amounts
       of manufacturing in the country"

When an MIT hack reports Corning Inc. as an example of keeping manufacturing in the US and the NYT incidentally reports Corning Inc. loosing a contract to supplying a high volume, hi-tech manufactured product, something doesn't tally. What's the real answer?

<comment><USER8> Presumably Corning has other contracts. It's not that unusual to lose a contract to the competition, foreign or domestic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> the US isn't particularly friendly to capital intensive businesses. Specific factories will get local tax breaks, but you'd never see something like that for airlines.

I wish i could remember the reference, Fred Smith (the fedex guy) laid out a really clear argument why. The effect is, you just don't see that many long- bet kind of investments. What's intel's threshold to pay of a new factory? 9 months?

I think stuff like they mention in the article - biotech, nanomaterials, etc - will be fantastically more expensive here in the US. we don't have the structure for that kind of risk.

<comment><USER7> In textiles we see the opposite. Large capex businesses are still here in the US since depreciation is such a big portion of your cost component (think big battery separator, diaper or wipe production lines - 3 football fields long 24x7x365).

These big lines have almost no labor component (maybe 1-2 operators / shift) so paying a premium on labor is worth it to reduce the shipping costs.

It is all of the heavy labor activities that are in China now. They didn't just leave the US, they left everywhere that had high labor costs, and even now they are flowing to SE Asia out of China. With low labor costs, and with labor a significant component of cost, it made sense for these jobs to go right away (especially if their fibers are agricultural in origin and now harvested globally too).

<comment><USER9> Well, i'm not saying there's never capital investment - i'm saying the us tax structure favors keeping that investment as small as possible.

From what little i recall of berkshire hathaway's history, textile automation has been getting far more powerful and cheaper for like the last 150 years. lot's of textile companies went out of business from betting the farm on an expensive new machine, and not staying competitive 5 years out - because the new machines are that much better.

So with biotech or something, you have all this extra hassle. Super tight environmental control. Special heating and cooling for different resources. Special containment for the lubrication of the machines, so the aerosolized grease won't touch the stuff you're working on - all kinds of crap. basically, all the complexity you have to deal with, plus a million extra constraints.

found the old link: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122488966230768509.html>

Fred Smith's argument is it's easier to make money with debt than it is by actually making stuff. US business is forced to optimize around the cheapest possible automation. Maybe that's a good thing, robots keep getting cheaper. Maybe it's a bad thing, it's really hard to get the massive capitalization for these fancy future industries.

<comment><USER10> you should read about Tragedy of the Commons and externalities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The character of a nation is stronger when aligned with those who create value, than with those who move value around. The making is as important to character as design. America needs more makers. Not all makers can be Hackers. Makers on a National scale means more manufacturing jobs, the great middle class participating in the making.</comment>


Why we are saying "uh" less and 'um' more - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31158167 <comment><USER2> There is something that seems dumber about an "uh" in that it leaves the mouth open where an "um" seems more polite. By "um"ing and closing the mouth you are offering more of an invitation for the other speaker to chime in. An "uh" seems to fill space even after it's over.

<comment><USER3> That's my first assumption. It's less strenuous and breathy to sustain an um, at least for me. There's a clear parallel to _duh_ (like _uh_ ) usually concerning topics of [obviousness and stupidity] and _hmm_ (like _um_ ) usually concerning topics of [deliberation and intelligence].

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good grief, this is empty even by the low standards of BBC science coverage. tl;dr Young people say 'um' more than 'uh.' Nobody knows why.

<comment><USER5> To be fair, this is what BBC News call their "Magazine" section, which tend to be even less rigorous than the already paper-thin reporting of the main news site. But it's no coincidence that Magazine stories are treated as part of BBC News overall, and the clickbaitiest headlines routinely end up in the right- hand "Most Read" and "Most Shared" panels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find over use of "filled pauses" to be incredibly distracting. I'm always fighting for my focus with an internal dialog that's saying "just say it, or pause if you need a chance to think but stop saying um!". I should probably work on my patience and focus. But I always hope that people that overuse those filler words are conscious of it and putting effort into breaking the habit.

<comment><USER7> Our technical writing prof in school made it his personal mission to wipe those filler pauses from our lexicon. It was remarkably difficult to adjust at first - you don't realize how much you do it until someone calls you on it every time - but I definitely found presentations and such came across much more clearly without all the uh, er, and ums. It feels very uncomfortable as a speaker to simply pause silently, at least at first; to the listener though (unless you're unusually awkward about it) it seems natural, and can single- handedly make you come across as more thoughtful and compelling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Another form of these filler words are the words/phrases "seriously, I'm not gonna lie, for real, actually, honestly, to tell you the truth". My take on it is, why would you lie to me in the first place? Should I assume you're lying if you don't say these phrases? They serve the purpose of gaining that extra millisecond to calculate the content of the proceeding sentence.

</comment><comment><USER9> Reminds me of Paul Graham.

</comment><comment><USER10> Perhaps this is because um is closer to the mystical sound om/aum[1]?

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

</comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that they used double quotation marks for "uh" and single quotation marks of "um" in the headline?</comment>


Please stop sending me your shitty Word documents – Coding 2 Learn - <AUTHOR> http://www.coding2learn.org/blog/2014/04/14/please-stop-sending-me-your-shitty-word-documents/ <comment><USER2> > Just spare a thought for those of us that choose not to use Microsoft Word, > and respect our right not to do so.

The price you pay for inconveniencing me into sending you a document type which might alarm or confuse a non-technical person or necessitate additional software being installed is that when I send you a .doc file you have to email me back to specifically ask that I send it in a non-.doc format. I won't judge you, but you're asking people to optimise a standard behaviour (assumption that Word is ubiquitous) for a marginal gain (catering to the tiny fraction of nerds who get so agitated by this assumption that they lecture people on the internet).

<comment><USER3> "necessitate additional software being installed"

Every computer on the market that can read Microsoft Word documents can also read plain text without anything being installed.

"you're asking people to optimise a standard behaviour"

"Standard" according to whom? Some rough numbers from Googling from a couple of minutes:

Number of personal computers in the world: 1 billion Number of copies of Microsoft Word sold: 100 million

So, no, having Microsoft Word (or at least a legal copy of it) is not standard.

"for a marginal gain"

Again, according to whom? What is the relationship here? If he is your teacher, boss, prospective boss, or customer, the gains might be anything but marginal. It looks like he is a computing teacher, actually. I've had plenty of teachers who required work to be formatted in a specific way from which you deviated at your peril.

The assumption that everyone has Microsoft Office running on a Windows machine was never true, but in today's mobile world it's not true with a vengeance.

<comment><USER4> .doc(x) != word. For example, I really like [http://www.abisource.com/](http://www.abisource.com/) on desktops.

Having the ability to open .doc(x) files IS standard, Microsoft Word is not. Lucky we got OpenOffice, LibreOffice, AbiSource and tons of other open source, freeware, shareware, commercial off the shelf software to open .doc(x) on every imaginable platform.

EDIT: I prefer text, because I am a vimmer, but accept opening (and often sending) .docx is a part of the requirements that I can't control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How utterly ridiculous. Please stop posting your own shitty, over-entitled rants. That you clearly think that you are still "1337" by being so dissmissive of a commonly used tool is arrogant and ridiculous. Also, your list of installed apps is missing TextEdit, which reads doc and docx files perfectly well. Unless of course you remove all of the other apps that come with OS X and literally only use those you list, which would be absurd.

</comment><comment><USER6> I used to think this way. In fact, when applying for a job, I would only submit my resume in PDF. I've stopped this.

I know you think you're doing good to the world by telling people to shove it, by adhering to your standards. But what you're really doing is exactly what you claim they are doing to you. The world works in Microsoft Office. 9 out of 10 computers have Microsoft Windows installed. Gartner has estimated that 9 out of 10 Microsoft Windows installations have some version of Microsoft Office installed.

With the advent of online document, spreadsheet, and presentation software popularity, and the fact the Microsoft Office documents are natively supported, it's a losing battle. There are good strong technical arguments why proprietary formats should not be used, even including open binary formats. You won't win that argument.

It doesn't help your cause either, when the reply back to your refusal to open a .docx is "Well then, install it, or don't read it." By you trying to force work on others, you will simply just be missing out on what the content of the document is. Unless, of course, you install LibreOffice/OpenOffice.org.

If you want to send open standard document formats to your contacts, go for it. But by demanding that the sender do extra work curtailing to your needs, so you don't have to do extra work installing office software, is hypocritical.

Get over yourself. No one cares.

<comment><USER7> > 9 out of 10 computers have Microsoft Windows installed.

Nine out of 10 traditional desktop/laptop PCs, maybe, but that's a smaller and smaller share of the computers people use every day.

> 9 out of 10 computers have Microsoft Windows installed.

That's probably true; unless things have changed recently, nearly all consumer PCs shipped with Windows for several years (and Windows/Office versions) have shipped with whatever the current "Home" version of Office is installed, though the license may have been a time-limited trial. So, yeah, if you are looking at _installed_ , you'll get a pretty high number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sorry buddy, you're vastly outnumbered and your expectations are unrealistic.

<comment><USER3> The last time I looked, mobile devices were outselling desktops and notebooks by a comfortable margin.

So, no, he's not outnumbered.

<comment><USER9> I use a desktop (or laptop) for doing work. The most I will do on my phone is send a short email reply, as the interface is so inferior for getting any "real" work done.

<comment><USER3> You're not everybody. When you send email to someone else, your preferred mode of working doesn't really enter into it.

I'd rather not have bloated Word files sucking up my data plan.

<comment><USER5> And neither are you or the OP. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that you are in actual fact a minority. Before you assert higher mobile sales again, think on how many people use their device for anything more than the very basics; photos, messaging and social networking etc.

<comment><USER3> You are missing the point completely.

No one is trying to tell you you can't use Word to your heart's content on your own machine. When you send email to another person, though, you can't assume that they're going to have it. Especially not now.

"In fact, I'd hazard a guess that you are in actual fact a minority."

Smartphones that do have email and don't have Microsoft Word are a minority?

How do you figure that? Neither iOS nor Android comes with the ability to view Word documents.

<comment><USER5> >" _Smartphones that do have email and don 't have Microsoft Word are a minority?_"

You, as already stated, are missing the point. It has been explained and you continue to miss, or obtuesly ignore the point.

> _" Neither iOS nor Android comes with the ability to view Word documents."_

Bullshit. iOS can read doc files natively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is a side of HN that loves whining.

<comment><USER11> You said it pal... Kinda sad!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I notice that this post has bold-faced section headings, opens with an italicized pair of sentences, has a bulleted list, and quotes that are indicated with a gray vertical bar. The best part is the section title "Plain text should be plain" which is bolded.

The author must think they are a pretty good designer to not use plain text (their conclusion, not mine).

<comment><USER3> Web pages aren't email.

<comment><USER13> I used to think email should be plain text. I ranted at technical people that sent rich text or HTML email.

Then I realized I was being an idiot, and they were right.

Here's how I came to that realization. Imagine an alternate reality where computing developed almost the same as it did in ours, except for one key difference. They did not develop email--it just never occurred to anyone. They have Internet. They have FTP. They have the web. They have instant messaging. They have Facebook. They just don't have email. They still do their correspondence on paper, sent through the post office.

They, of course, use computers to write their mail. They then print it, and mail the printout. They think nothing of including inline photos, bold headings, embedding charts, and so on. If they need to send a lot of data with a mail, they drop a thumb drive or a memory card into the envelope.

When the recipient receives the mail, there is a good chance they scan it, OCR it, and store it in their computer, as that is more convenient than dealing with physical sheets of paper.

Now someone has the bright idea of skipping the "print/mail/scan" and instead using the Internet to transport the content. Does anyone think they are going to toss in a requirement that their new "email" system only can handle plain text? Of course not. They are going to try to make it as capable as the regular "print/mail/scan" mail system, and so are going to support inline graphics and photos, multiple typefaces and fonts, bold, underling, strikeout, color, and all that jazz.

The difference between that alternate reality and ours is that the people that got the bright idea for email in our reality got it at a time when most computer terminals couldn't handle more than simple plain text. The recipient was going to be reading on a teletype or, if lucky, on a video terminal that was effectively a glass teletype.

Those technical limitations have been long gone. There is simply no reason to keep email less functional than paper mail now that we are not forced to do so.

<comment><USER3> That would be a good argument if the OP were about HTML email, but it it isn't. It's about sending Microsoft Word attachments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've found through my time at University that the standard document format for anything that doesn't require the recipient to edit/add to the document is pdf. Most word processors will now export to it, and readers are pretty prevalent to.

Is this truly different in business?

</comment><comment><USER15> For reading only - PDF and nothing else.

For when I need to be able to edit the document - .doc please.

</comment><comment><USER16> This topic was already ranted to death what ... 20 years ago? This post brings absolutely nothing fresh to the discussion, just reiterates the same old tired points, continuing to preach the choir.

<comment><USER3> Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is not 20 years ago.

<comment><USER16> So what has changed then that invalidates the old rants and justifies a new one?

<comment><USER3> More mobile devices sold than desktops and notebooks.

<comment><USER16> And none of the arguments in presented TFA referenced mobile devices at all. Even the section which would be relevant ("I don't have Word installed") does not even mention mobile. And it doesn't even touch the real problems with .docs on mobile, eg their "non-responsive" layouts.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. There are plenty of other things that aren't the same now as 20 years ago. More people on Macs. More people on Linux. More free or low cost alternatives to Word. Stuff tends to be web-centric rather than 8.5x11" paper-centric.

A book could be written about all the things that have changed since then.

Just because an argument was had 20 years ago doesn't mean it isn't worth having again. Otherwise we'd still be using stone tools.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A JavaScript console for minimalists with a WYSIWYG editor - <AUTHOR> http://howjs.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I've tried many JS playgrounds but found none of them can let me quickly type some JS & see results. Most of them have narrow windows for JS/HTML/CSS. You often have to click around and pull up the browser inspector which will take some precious space on the screen.

So, I decided to create HowJS with a much simpler UI to solve that problem. HowJS also provides helpful shortcuts start with ":" let you load external libs or print multiple vars easily.

Hope you find it useful :) Let me know what you think. Thanks.

<comment><USER2> Looks great! But it seems to be buggy on mobile devices. Kidna works on Android Browser from Android 4.4 and doesn't work on Firefox.

It sadly seems to not be Open Source so I can only complain about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi iokanuon. Thanks for your inputs. It should work well on desktops. Working on mobile bugs...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> DuD on FF. Would down-vote it immediately, if I could.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi vital, I've just fixed 1 bug for Firefox. I recommend using Chrome/Safari for now until bugs on other platforms get fixed.</comment></comment>


History of Mobile Malware - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilesecurity.com/articles/421-history-of-mobile-malware-part-i

<comment><AUTHOR> The other two parts are below but I'm not done reading them:

[http://www.mobilesecurity.com/articles/422-history-of- mobile...](http://www.mobilesecurity.com/articles/422-history-of-mobile- malware-part-ii)

[http://www.mobilesecurity.com/articles/423-history-of- mobile...](http://www.mobilesecurity.com/articles/423-history-of-mobile- malware-part-iii)</comment>