In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html <comment><USER3> It wasn't so long ago that "trigger warning" wasn't even a common phrase. I remember thinking about this in college, though, because I was in a relationship with someone who would get angry _at_ people for expressing input that was too closely related to recent private trauma she had been through. I didn't really understand it because I had always trained myself to judge the producer of input by the intent of the producer, rather than by how it affected me (an effect the producer would have had no way of knowing ahead of time). It should always be fine for an affected person to remove themselves from a situation that feels unsafe to them, but it shouldn't necessarily mean additional regulation.

I am totally in support of educating people to speak sensitively in the sense of it meaning not to speak flippantly or hurtfully about charged subjects - for instance, I will still object to jokes about prison rape - but for it to progress to the point of avoiding provocative subjects entirely, that just seems like anti-progress and willful ignorance.

<comment><USER4> I am sort of on the fence on this. On one hand, I do not like pursuing ignorance. On the other, I do not objectively know the difference between a mind that is repeatedly triggered by random noise that can immediately bring my mind back into a state of flipping between catatonia and hyper- stress/hyper-alert, and a mind that is able to control information flow and pursue it's goals (such as a phd and happiness in life).

I've been in recovery from realizing and recognizing the effects of my trauma for almost 4 years now. You talking about rape does not bring me back into the mental state it once did. But I don't know how I got here, besides through time (and sheer determination to be the best I can be, and not let my past haunt me). But that said, if you reminded me of my abuser, I don't think I could control my reaction so much. And hyper anxiety / reactive shutdown is not something that is easy to remove oneself from.

I think your attitude is very intelligent, but I think you need to add a little more empathetic wiggle room for things you may not understand entirely.

<comment><USER5> > I think you need to add a little more empathetic wiggle room for things you > may not understand entirely.

You may be right that victims of trauma are not entirely understood. Even so, you seem to be suggesting that society _should_ "avoid provocative subjects entirely" and "pursue ignorance", as the parent puts it, to avoid upsetting victims of trauma. In the end, is that a strategy that will actually help any of us?

<comment><USER4> No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm in a forum talking about things related to my trauma, aren't I? Shouldn't that be triggering me into a horrible downward spiral, if I was suggesting this?

I got better. Some people are still in the process of getting better. I am asking for empathy and compassion for those people, if you have the capacity to recognize that they may need it. Otherwise, just do your best to be a decent human being.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What is most disturbing about this trend is the concept that some arguments are unassailable, that some ideas are not up for debate and discussion. "Safe space", while an admirable concept at first glance, has been co-opted by people who just want a rhetorical nuclear option to protect weak or unfounded arguments.

It quickly becomes a race to the bottom to see what is the crassest idea you can successfully firewall by accusing its opponents of oppression.

Ironically, this concept meant to bring to the fore the lived experiences of individual people (not an invalid goal when discussing social science topics) is most commonly used to suppress and silence - wait for it - the lived experiences of others.

<comment><USER7> You may be confusing "isn't interested in disucssing it with you" with "isn't up for discussion at all". Maybe you bring less to the conversation than you think you do, in some cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is the end result of a culture that treats children like dainty chinadolls that are going to shatter at the first fracture.

These kids are coddled since they are born to make sure they are "safe" and ferried endlessly from one constructive activity to another so they don't take any risk. Of course it will also be that they need "safe spaces" in college (basically extended high school) whenever they hear something tangentially against their worldview.

The assertion that a discussion of "rape culture" can be "too distressing" such as to require a trauma room is absolutely ridiculous. A part of it, I'm sure, is that the administrator needs to justify her unnecessary employment by creating work.

What farce.

<comment><USER3> I've always rolled my eyes at complaints about the "trophy generation" (Adam Carolla had a particularly brain-deadening rant about it), but this article honestly did get me wondering about how people like that would be able to cope with actual professional atmospheres after college. On the other hand, this article is an editorial that doesn't really try to quantify the problem, so maybe "people like that" aren't really a measurable population.

It's probably not so much the "trauma rooms" that are the problem, as it is using them as reason to censor the "traumatic discussions".

It'd be nice if there were more mechanisms in place to both teach and encourage actual reasoned discussion aka dialectic. There's too much debate out there, too much ethos and pathos crowding out logos.

<comment><USER9> They've been taught, whether or not they realize it, how to morally ransom others, guiltlessly. To ignore them is to marginalize them, to disagree with them is to threaten them, and to oppose them is assault. It's incredibly hypocritical and self-centered behavior, especially for an adult.

And what I fear is that they'll shape whatever environments that will allow it because everyone else has kowtowed to their feelings, and if you don't let them have their way, you'll become the toxic old guard who enables the victimizers-- quite a step away from "big, fat meanie head".

In a business environment, after making their way into a managerial role, it may mean over-promoting people who agree with them and reassigning those who don't. It might be some form of constant ostracism, like not getting invited along with everyone else to drinks after work, having negative rumors circulated about what a secret creep you are ("I heard they tried to pick up someone who was drunk." "I'd believe it, they don't think rape is real." "What a shitlord.", or not being put on jobs you're best at. And if you aren't having work that could make you look better withheld, you might have your career slowly poisoned by having things put in your file that indicate you're not a good candidate for promotion, which is all for the best, since you could be a closet oppressor who undoes a lifetime of progressive equality.

That's a bit hyperbolic, but those are all things that I've witnessed individually in varying degrees over the years, with different labels. It can be incredibly difficult to hold people to task for their actions, especially if they're not forthright in what they're doing and you're in the minority.

Perhaps it help to solve this problem if we included one more warning about life early on: "Safety is not guaranteed."

<comment><USER3> "To ignore them is to marginalize them, to disagree with them is to threaten them, and to oppose them is assault."

Sort of off topic, but what's interesting is that this sounds a lot like indicators of borderline personality disorder.

At any rate though, these sorts of articles basically ascribe a narrative to an entire generation, which isn't really fair. Those sorts of impulses are easily grown out of for most people, and people who are diagnosed borderline come from all generations. I think the current thinking is that borderline has both nature and nurture components - some from environment, some genetic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Unfortunately, there's a real professional risk in speaking out against this tide of censorship, so I won't say much.

This is a great essay on the increasingly anti-controversy left: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new- left/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/)

<comment><USER11> From your link, I think the author nailed it. The fear is that the current leftist ideas are tomorrow's mainstream ideas and tomorrow's left will be more extreme. The reality is that tomorrow's left will have opinions like the NYT writer. You can see the inverse of this on the right, too: Rand Paul has surpassed Sarah Palin; Alex Jones surpassed Glenn Beck.

Edit to add: So the progression of political trends isn't linear. Liberals push for the next new idea and conservatives want to hang on to (or revive) some other value, but (hopefully) neither is going to endlessly push their agenda today until it's some authoritarian mockery of itself.

<comment><USER12> > The fear is that the current leftist ideas are tomorrow's mainstream ideas > and tomorrow's left will be more extreme.

I see a lot of evidence on the right but not much on the left. E.g. The people saying they support gays but are against gay marriage are the same ones helping African governments pass laws enacting the death penalty for homosexuality. But I don't really see any evidence that, say, what the folks lobbying for high speed trains really want is to put Christians to death or whatever.

<comment><USER13> > The people saying they support gays but are against gay marriage are the > same ones helping African governments pass laws enacting the death penalty > for homosexuality.

I'm curious what this alleged political process actually looks like -- are people writing checks to re-elect Robert Mugabe? -- and the extent to which "people saying they support gays [etc]" here in America actually are participate in that sort of process. When I hear those words, I think of some of the people behind SB 296 in Utah, the antidiscrimination legislation which has received praise from both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Also, way to go easy on the left. "High speed trains" is the worst you could do? Ha! You could at least apply the "help African governments" standard and start digging through their support of various leftist / Marxist regimes for convenient atrocities, I'm sure there's something :P

<comment><USER12> > are people writing checks to re-elect Robert Mugabe?

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/whos-helping- finan...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/whos-helping-finance- ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-you-are_b_2229509.html)

> Also, way to go easy on the left.

I mean if you actually read DailyKos or whatever it's clear that a lot of the people there are batshit crazy. But as far as I can tell it's one level of crazy, I'm sure there are exceptions but for the vast majority of people I don't think it goes 10 levels deep. Whereas on the right it seems to be the rule that when people are fighting against the public option for healthcare what really want is to genocide minorities, rather than the exception.

Whereas when people on the left have historically supported genocidal regimes, as far as I can tell it's been because they (perhaps naively) did so unknowingly rather than because supporting genocide was their intended outcome.

<comment><USER14> _Whereas on the right it seems to be the rule that when people are fighting against the public option for healthcare what really want is to genocide minorities, rather than the exception._

I think you've been reading too much Daily Kos if you think it's an exceptional right-winger who _doesn 't_ want to genocide minorities.

<comment><USER12> > I think you've been reading too much Daily Kos if you think it's an > exceptional right-winger who doesn't want to genocide minorities.

I mean you could just watch Fox news or whatever and see what they say they want in their own words. It's largely not social liberals who are supporting the war on drugs, war in the middle east, privatized healthcare/water/education, climate change denial, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can definitely relate first hand to this as a current college student. To borrow some jargon, I absolutely feel 'unsafe' discussing many of these topics in public, and I don't hold controversial or polarizing opinions. Some people quickly label others as racist or misogynistic for presenting contrary viewpoints. Granted, those who seek to shut out debate by this sort of censorship are probably not worth debating, it's worrying that this rhetorical strategy is becoming mainstream.

Relevant smbc: [http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2164](http://smbc- comics.com/index.php?id=2164)

<comment><USER16> You used to hear American liberals saying things like "I disagree with your position, but I would defend to the death your right to express it." It was part of the creed that they thought defined them as "progressive". Funny, you don't hear that much any more.

<comment><USER17> The thing is, I don't think there are all that many liberals out there who want to use the force of law to prevent objectionable speech;

They do want to use the force of law to prevent businesses from discriminating among their customers, though, which is an important distinction.

Hate black people? Sure, put up a klan poster, but you've still gotta serve 'em a drink.

<comment><USER18> Dunno about many, but there are clearly some, and often in positions of power. Popehat has often unsettling stories about "censorious dipshits", from any political position: [https://www.popehat.com/](https://www.popehat.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The more I see this kind of thing the more I am starting to fear that this is an unintended consequence of the internet.

Similarly to being raised in a cult, the internet gives people the ability to spend most of their time in a community that reinforces their world view while forcing out any dissenting view points.

Subcultures on the internet tend to trend towards the more and more extreme as anybody expressing an opposing view can be quickly and easily downvoted / banned.

Is it any wonder that now all the young adults entering university raised in this manner now behave this way?

<comment><USER20> You can see it in action on Hacker News, or any sites with downvotes. Inevitably, the downvoting will destabilise any equilibrium - the views of even a slight majority will get reinforced in a positive feedback loop, and you end up with an echo chamber. There are several opinions that I know can't be voiced here.

<comment><USER21> I frequent HN, often write controversial opinions and the downvotes are rare, usually I have someone spend the time and write a reply. The way adults should deal with the stuff. But we techies love to argue for the sake of arguing, so we are good at looking at it as a game.

<comment><USER22> On the topic of things unable to be said however, disagreeing with Stallman seems to result in immediate downvote shitstorming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _" Nowadays, it is true, we are made so sensitive by the raving crowd of flatterers that we cry out that we are stung as soon as we meet with disapproval. When we cannot ward off the truth with any other pretext, we flee from it by ascribing it to a fierce temper, impatience, and immodesty."_ \- Martin Luther, 1520!

Maybe not such a new phenomenon?

<comment><USER24> Well, either 1) things haven't changed much, or 2) history rhymes...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> >The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies

That is something you would expect to find in a young childs room. Is that really the state they are at?

And also, what is wrong with a real puppy?

<comment><USER26> Some people find dogs threatening...

I personally don't, but I do find rooms for adults filled with play-doh, comfort blankets and rabid third wave feminists a bit threatening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is this phenomenon observable in cultures that are generally accepted as more progressively feminist than the US? (e.g. northern European countries, Germany, etc)

I'm not American and I don't know much about feminism, so for me it's hard to tell the proportions with which these ideas come from US culture vs feminism (there are accounts of UK based initiatives, but there is heavy cross pollination between the US and UK student worlds).

<comment><USER3> This sounds like a conclusion looking for evidence. What's with the interest in blaming this on feminism?

<comment><USER28> I think that the parent comment is merely interested if this exists in societies like Sweden where feminism as a philosophy is more entrenched.

As for why he's asking the question - because activist intersectional feminism appears to be leading the trend towards these safe spaces, I guess? It was the focus of the article ("rape culture" as a concept is, as far as I can tell, a feminist one), although it segued into the racism/Islamophobia at the end.

<comment><USER3> You're right, I flipped some words in reading the first sentence and thought it was getting at something else. Thanks for clarifying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> On the same theme, Bret Easton Ellis [BEE] has been a vocal critic of what he has termed "Generation Wuss" and "Outrage Culture"[1][2]. BEE is obviously trying to be provocative, which might get some people to dismiss him out of hand, but I really think he's onto something. One has to remember that BEE is an author of transgressive fiction, and has experienced attacks based on the content he featured in his books all his career (without his attackers bothering to analyze his intent).

[1] = [http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis- interview](http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bret-easton-ellis-interview) [2] = [http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation-w...](http://www.vanityfair.fr/culture/livre/articles/generation- wuss-by-bret-easton-ellis/15837)

</comment><comment><USER30> >>>Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being "bombarded" by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material.

The Church of Scientology had to create itself some safe spaces in order that its practitioners could feel comfortable learning new things in spite of the rampant counter-opinions on the subject of the mind, body and soul.

Does the idea that colleges and other social institutions need a safe space, away from all the 'counter-opinions' offend you? Maybe you should stop reading right now.

Unless daily protected from doing so, every safe space eventually becomes a prison. No institution is safe from authoritarian behaviour - even those who fight repression/oppression/suppression. In fact, it is a daily struggle to prevent these very human elements from impacting society - <USER2> fundamentally there is a desire in all of us, every single one of us - enlightened or otherwise - to repress those we do not agree with, suppress those we despise for whatever reason, and hate those for whom we cannot find anything to love about.

<comment><USER31> What do you mean by safe space? I think traditionally people just formed meeting groups of like minded people? But does every opinion or interest need it's own fluffy room with puppies? I think not. It certainly wouldn't be practical, especially if you want to account for possibly infinite new interests and ideas that might emerge over time - so you would need thousands or even millions of safe rooms for all variations of interests.

Typically people also have a home which should be a safe space for whatever they want to do/be, and also of course their mind, in which they are free to think whatever they wish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Here is my (completely unsupported) prediction...

People involved in "safe spaces" or passing out fliers against "rape culture" (not rape, that's a crime and a different subject), generally, on average, after college, don't enjoy happy long term rewarding relationships, successful careers nor make a lot money nor contributions to the world.

When I was in college in the early 90's I flirted briefly with the emerging "PC" movement, (many of the principals which I support in theory). I quickly distanced myself when I perceived the pervasive underlying negativity and unhappiness.

<comment><USER32> I wouldn't think so. Being actively involved in things in college seem to be one of the better indicators of success in those areas. I know many geeks who aren't especially successful in those areas and I don't think less of them because of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> As an advocate of controversial discourse, i find these articles particularly rile me up. I would like a "trigger warning" whenever i read about trigger warnings.

</comment><comment><USER34> So basically colleges and universities are shirking their duty to their students of providing them with proper education because they're afraid of lawsuits which the college will likely easily win. The whole "politically correct" culture of censorship, which this seems to be just another instantiation of, has just gone too far and too few people are willing to stand up against its censorship. There's nothing wrong with safe rooms per se until the existence of such safe rooms deprives others of their right to peaceful assembly, free association, and free speech, something that seems to be the goal of some of these organizers. Censorship is censorship and people who fall for these ploys are fools themselves while the people perpetrating these ploys are the ones who should be prevented from trampling others' rights. To put it more bluntly, if you can't deal with opposing opinions, it's your duty to not expose yourself to them, not anyone else's problem. It's despicable to try to remove others' rights because you're a cowardly child. Furthermore, if these people insist on being children, then they should have the rights of children (ie: highly reduced) and their opinions on such adult matters should be discarded (ie: we don't let children vote). I'd like to think that they could grow up mentally and stop being children, but I'm not so sure that many of these people have that capability.

</comment><comment><USER35> Comedian, Chris Rock, no longer does campus shows for this reason [1].

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock- colleges...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/chris-rock-colleges- conservative_n_6250308.html)

</comment><comment><USER36> People can be thrown into paralysis or panic by PTSD. Giving a warning that something is about to be discussed in depth that might trigger such an attack, allowing someone who knows they would experience one to absent themselves while the lecture or discussion continues, isn't censorship. It's courtesy.

<comment><USER37> Most of the article was about none of this.

<comment><USER36> Fair enough. Most of the comments are, though! ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's not even just "hiding from scary ideas", it's "suppressing scary ideas".

</comment><comment><USER39> That discourse is ridiculous, yet it seems like a simple case of the pendulum swinging too far. It used to be bad one way, now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, but only because people are still learning the adverse effects of the way things used to be. Once people learn, and feel comfortable with the new knowledge, things will correct themselves. I'm not worried.

The only thing troubling here is the medicalization of the emotions experienced during an intellectual debate.

</comment><comment><USER40> Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I'm not sure I agree that the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally "unsafe." Emotional topics can definitely benefit from intellectual discussion, but it is not unreasonable to say that a portion of the population may very well not want to be a part of it

<comment><USER41> > _Creating a safe space seems very reasonable, but I 'm not sure I agree that > the implication is that the remaining space is therefore fundamentally > "unsafe."_

Why, then, isn't the "safe space" (in this case) anywhere that isn't the lecture hall holding the specific debate?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> OCD runs in my family, and as soon as I figured out I also had it, the way to get over it was to confront the things that "triggered" it. I've been wondering for a while if there's any similarity to not facing triggering issues in OCD and for all these people who've experienced trauma.

</comment><comment><USER43> Nietzsche has a great bit on these people. The Gay Science #359.

<comment><USER44> Here's a contemporary quote from Oscar Wilde that hits at the same issue, in a way that's easier for modern readers to digest:

"I never came across anyone in whom the moral sense was dominant who was not heartless, cruel, vindictive, log-stupid, and entirely lacking in the smallest sense of humanity. Moral people, as they are termed, are simple beasts."

<comment><USER45> So Oscar Wilde never met a genuinely kind and decent person?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> "Ms. El Rhazoui replied, somewhat irritably, "Being Charlie Hebdo means to die because of a drawing," and not everyone has the guts to do that (although she didn't use the word guts)."

Amusing that the NYT's fusty policy for censoring profanity pokes its nose into THIS quote, of all things.

<comment><USER47> I'm reminded of the time I elided repeated profanity from a Fahrenheit 451 passage I quoted in a high-school paper about the book. I found the profanity unnecessary and felt it sort of obscured the point, but I did not realize the irony of censoring "451" until the teacher pointed it out. Well, at least I didn't burn the parts I didn't like, I just editorialized them...

<comment><USER48> What irony? Fahrenheit 451 isn't about censorship.

<comment><USER49> Go read it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I don't even know why I read this. I'm so tired of people debating people. Time to go do something creative instead.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes, personal attacks and anecdotal commentary. It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people here aren't interested in a debate, but just to affirming there own views on the subject.

I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance.

Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are by down-voting instead of replying.

<comment><USER49>
        Edit: And yes please reaffirm what cowards you are
        by down-voting instead of replying.

This part:

        This is a pretty bad opinion piece using scare quotes,
        personal attacks and anecdotal commentary.

And this part:

        It's disappointing to see this up-voted since people
        here aren't interested in a debate, but just to
        affirming there own views on the subject.

And some people are probably downvoting the vindictiveness and prejudice you hold and make evident in this part:

        I pretty glad I got out of the mainstream tech industry when I had the chance.

And maybe some are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate overall. Hope your day gets better.

<comment><USER32> "This part"

Do you want to refute my claim or do you don't think quality of the article is important?

"And this part"

I don't sympathize with people that actively constructs an environment where they will meet the least resistance. It's one thing if opinion pieces of different views on this subject was posted regularly, but they aren't. Quite the opposite.

"the vindictiveness and prejudice"

Maybe the biggest reason I left the mainstream tech industry is because of the judgement you meet when expressing an opinion that is seen as even remotely devaluing tech.

I'm having a much better time traveling and running my own business than being overworked, arguing about some library on a mailing list while trying to get some hobby project functional for production. Maybe that is prejudice, but it also how a lot of the tech industry works.

"are downvoting the prejudice and spite you demonstrate"

Or maybe it's just far easier.

"Hope your day gets better"

My day is going fine. My interaction here is very much conscious and not because I had a bad day.

<comment><USER41> > _" Do you want to refute my claim or do you don't think quality of the > article is important?"_

Refute _what_ claim? That you think it's a "bad piece"? That's an opinion, and you're entitled to it. There's nothing to refute.

<comment><USER32> As I said I think it's a bad piece because it uses cheap rhetorical devices rather than providing a nuanced view of the subject. And, as I also said, I don't think this kind of angled article is appropriate if articles from the other angles of the same subject aren't being presented on HN.

Those who upvoted it probably have a different view or they don't think the quality of the article matters as long as they agree with it.

You can find almost every opinion possible on the Internet. They have no value unless there's an argument behind them. I'm not going to write an essay for deaf ears, but I did express my opinion with initial argumentation. So don't act like I didn't and there's nothing to refute.

Edit: I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it's grey at the bottom of the page. Talk about tolerance.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


At $1.1 Billion, Bloomberg Is Top University Donor in U.S. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/nyregion/at-1-1-billion-bloomberg-is-top-university-donor-in-us.html?hp

<comment><USER2> A bit weird how the article emphasizes how his gifts were spent on decorative architecture, and doesn't say much about education, which Bloomberg says was the intent of the gift. A billion dollars invested at 5percent per annum can finance full 4-year scholarships for over 250 entering students each year.</comment>


Bootstrap 3 is mobile-first - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/pull/6342 <comment><USER2> I've found a few problems from using Bootstrap 3:

1) By going mobile first, browsers such as IE8 which don't implement media queries now require you to add in an extra 15KB of CSS to fix it ( <https://code.google.com/p/css3-mediaqueries-js/> ) , whereas all smart phones support media queries already.

2) By having glyphicons as fonts rather than sprites, we gain the ability to precisely size, place and colour the icon, but have now broken accessibility as the vision impaired or those choosing to have their browser use user specified fonts now get random characters displayed.

And that is it... the only 2 issues from a site currently in production and with users.

I should note that there are some really good bits, the extra support for mixins for example. I also personally also love that the new grid is now fluid and responsive by default. I like the declarative nature of col-lg-* and col- sm-* (though think a col-md-* should exist for fine-tuning layout tablets).

The biggest hurdle in coming from 2 to 3 is really the grid changes, the move to fluid, the changing of the class names. There are some minor changes to class names for buttons, forms, text colours, etc... but nothing that requires too much thought to deal with when upgrading.

<comment><USER3> 1) You can use respond.js[1] if you don't need complicated media queries. It's much smaller than 15k

2) Icon Fonts should make use of the Unicode Private Use Areas[2]. Screen readers should not attempt to make sense of these code points, and you can add title tags to enhance accessibility.

[1] <https://github.com/scottjehl/Respond> [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Use_%28Unicode%29>

<comment><USER2> Thanks for Respond, I'll give it a try.

On #2, that might fix screenreaders but it still looks ugly if a user chooses their own font: [https://f.cloud.github.com/assets/1126981/506313/554bfab4-bd...](https://f.cloud.github.com/assets/1126981/506313/554bfab4-bd4a-11e2-87ff-5701205870e8.png)

What we're likely to do is to create SVG icons and use those. with .png fallback... much like how Zurb are doing so: <http://zurb.com/playground/social-webicons>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Forget about "mobile-first", this is probably the best part of Bootstrap 3:

 _Refactor components to be more mixin-friendly._

Honestly, Bootstrap will really benefit from being easier to fit into your own markup, rather than forcing your markup to fit Bootstrap. I mean: that's what CSS is kinda all about.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. This is why I abandoned Bootstrap for Zurb Foundation. I found Foundation to be much more flexible and lightweight.

Bootstrap was so painful the moment you deviate from their styles. Similar to Rails when deviating from the "rails way".

<comment><USER6> I'm not new to CSS and also wonder why it was hard for you. I've found it very easy to mix Bootstrap with my own CSS.

<comment><USER7> In my experience, sometimes you "click" with a certain architecture, because it more or less maps to the way you work, and sometimes you don't. When you don't, it will be easier to adapt it if it isn't too opinionated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know it isn't really a big thing, but this is really going to cramp my style:

"Instead of .span and .offset, we're now using .col-span- and .col-offset-."

I can blaze through views using .row & .span in HAML, not so much now. I envision tons of personal errors in the short term as I transition projects to BS3.

</comment><comment>=====

Issue #2, does anyone know why Glyphicons won out over Font Awesome? ( <http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/> ) Isn't Glyphicons only free in .png? I'm kinda confused about how the licensing works here: <http://glyphicons.com/>

</comment><comment>=====

Issue #3 [This is under the modal section...] This sounds like a bad idea, I personally don't have an ios3/4 device handy, but someone should be on that for something as big as bootstrap:

"Test on iOS5. Not sure if we need to go older, but I want to check here to see how well fixed is supported."

<comment><USER9> About Glyphicons

From Bootstrap docs (<http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/base- css.html#icons>):

"Glyphicons Halflings are normally not available for free, but an arrangement between Bootstrap and the Glyphicons creators have made this possible at no cost to you as developers. As a thank you, we ask you to include an optional link back to Glyphicons whenever practical."

<comment><USER10> Font Awesome's license makes it effectively free:

<http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/license/>

<comment><USER11> The Font Awesome licence is much better (permissive) than the Glyphicons one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Updated class prefix for all icons: .glyphicon- instead of .icon-. We changed this for a more unique class, but also for consistency with the newly required base class as noted above."

Seriously, how is that in any way helpful?

<comment><USER13> So that people who ship alternative icon packs (e.g. font-awesome) no longer have to hack around[1] the bootstrap style?

[1]: [https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font- Awesome/blob/master/buil...](https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font- Awesome/blob/master/build/assets/font-awesome/css/font-awesome.css#L156)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Going handheld first _and_ dropping older browsers? Good to know they're following the path that Foundation took.

</comment><comment><USER15> It's also dropping IE7 and FF3.6 support. I'm glad they'll be hosting versioned docs as Bootstrap 2.x is going to be in use for a good while longer.

<comment><USER16> There's also <http://www.bootstrapdocs.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So they're becoming an annoying Zurb 4 clone? I don't get it.

</comment><comment><USER18> any idea as to tentative release date?

<comment><USER19> I asked a similar question on Twitter a couple of weeks ago and the only reply I got said "August?".</comment></comment>


American Express to Acquire Kabbage - <AUTHOR> https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200817005350/en/American-Express-Acquire-Kabbage <comment><USER2> > ..Kabbage, a leading financial technology company providing cash flow > management solutions to small businesses in the U.S.

> American Express will acquire Kabbage's team and its full suite of financial > technology products, data platform and IP built for small businesses.

> Kabbage's products include access to flexible lines of credit, online bill > payment, cash flow visualization tools, e-gift certificates, and the ability > to centralize funds through the company's recently launched business > checking account

> This product suite is integrated into a single online platform that uses > real-time data processing to help small businesses better understand, > forecast and manage their cash flow.

</comment><comment><USER3> For context, the small business lending tech space is about dead now. OnDeck and Kabbage were the two frontrunners, valued at billions in past years. Their valuations plumetted over the last few years and Covid put a nail in the coffin. OnDeck just sold for $90m, Kabbage undisclosed.

<comment><USER4> Is this because of a looming threat of regulation? These businesses strike me as essentially online payday loans (extremely high rates, short term).

<comment><USER3> No, it's that the market size for expensive, short term loans is smaller than they thought.

<comment><USER5> It's likely not smaller.

But the market for expensive, short term loans, _from people who can access and use the internet and /or apps_ is smaller.

I don't imagine a payday loan customer is thinking about that new financial service option they read about in the paper.

Which increases cost of customer acquisition. Which makes this more of a Palantir market and less of a scalable one.

Square has a much better shot, as pivoting an _existing_ customer relationship seems a much better angle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This makes me curious how lending club and prosper are doing right now. Does anyone have loans they've extended on the platforms who is willing to say if they're seeing a rise in missed payments?

</comment><comment><USER7> A lot of small businesses in Europe and the Middle East don't accept Amex, due to the transaction fees. I understand that they're interested in maintaining a luxurious image, but it just means I drive my finances elsewhere with these businesses by using MasterCard. I hope they will increase the card's outreach

<comment><USER8> > I understand that they're interested in maintaining a luxurious image

They give you a lot of value back compared to other cards I've tried in Europe. I don't know it's something as flippant as 'luxurious image' \- people use them because when they are accepted and you're buying something expensive like corporate flights and hotels, you can earn an a significant amount of value back. I flew transatlantic first-class a few times completely free on my AmEx. My Visas give me so little I don't even bother checking what the current total is.

It's free money to you (the actual cost is amortised across all consumers and it's there if you use you card or not) so might as well take as much as they'll give you.

<comment><USER9> OP is talking about merchant fees. Amex is the most expensive card for merchants to accept.

<comment><USER8> Yes that's what I'm talking about as well.

Merchants don't accept them because of their high merchant fees, but AmEx don't have high merchant fees for some flippant reason like to create a 'luxurious image' \- they do it to create value for their card holders.

<comment><USER10> "Free money" paid for by merchants is a luxury, not a necessity.

<comment><USER8> The consumers overall cover the costs - the merchants don't just eat the cost.

<comment><USER10> Yup, point remains. It's an externality masquerading as a luxury.

It's also arguably regressive, since the beneficiaries of those rewards tend to be overwhelmingly rich, while the inflated prices are paid for by everybody else.

<comment><USER11> It seems like a cashback card then

<comment><USER10> Yup, point remains. Cash back cards maintain the same characteristics.

Traditional cash back cards are arguably less regressive since it isn't just the wealthy that have cash back cards. In theory, a broader set of people are beneficiaries of a system that a broad set of consumers pay into via higher prices.

AmEx cards OTOH are expensive enough to process that there still exists a broad set of merchants who refuse to process them. For those that do process them, it's harder to say to what degree the costs are passed on to all buyers. And unlike cashback cards, Amex rewards beneficiaries heavily skew rich.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is pretty old news by now...</comment>


How I feel about Scheme's performance - <AUTHOR> http://prael.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/how-i-feel-about-schemes-performance/

<comment><USER2> How do I feel about Scheme's runtime performance? I feel happy :-)

Seriously, most Scheme implementations are _fast_ _enough_. I use Gambit-C for writing small memory and fast command line utilities and some other utility type applications. I don't much use Racket, but the JIT compiler seems to produce good results and (like Chicken) it has great contributed libraries.

Ruby is fairly much my favorite language but it is much slower than even Scheme (e.g., [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=racket&lang2=yarv)). In a lot of cases runtime performance does not matter nearly as much as the agility of a language.

</comment><comment><USER3> I did not know Stalin could compile to LLVM bytecode. I thought it could only compile to C. It takes a while to compile code but the compiled code is blazing fast, that too, without type annotations.

Is the LLVM support new ? Then I am pleased that Stalin development has become active again.

Another fast scheme is Mosh-scheme and Ypsilon, the latter compiles to native code directly.

<comment><USER4> It looks like he's saying you can use LLVM to JIT compile the C that gets generated from the Scheme code.

<comment><USER3> Oh! In that case I totally misunderstood.</comment></comment></comment>


Nanotechnology makes inroads in the construction industry - <AUTHOR> http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/nanotechnology-makes-inroads-in.html <comment><USER2> Yet another example of selling good old chemistry as nanotech. The photocatalytic properties of titanium dioxide, also known as the Honda- Fujishima effect, were discovered in 1967:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide#Photocatalyst>

<comment><USER3> I wasn't aware of the photo-catalyst properties of bulk TiO2, so I'll have to agree with you there, but I'll say two things in defence of the article. Firstly, it does mention that a key factor in the effectiveness of TiO2 as a catalyst is the exposed surface area, so nano-sized TiO2 may be necessary to get the efficiency to make this viable. Perhaps bulk TiO2 just isn't enough. Secondly, nano-sized TiO2 responds to light differently (for example, I just did a lab experiment where TiO2 particles in nano behaved very differently under XRD from bulk TiO2). There might be other benefits that nano TiO2 offers that weren't mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER2> Nano-size doesn't seem to play a crucial role in this application. The article is concerned with Italcementi's TX Active cement. Italcementi's main development is a photocatalytic hydraulic binder, and here's their patent:

[https://data.epo.org/publication- server/getpdf.jsp?pn=094645...](https://data.epo.org/publication- server/getpdf.jsp?pn=0946450&ki=B1&cc=EP)

In the patent, they claim that

"Any kind of photocatalyst able to oxidize in the presence of light, air and environmental humidity (oxygen and water) the polluting substances contacting the surface of the hydraulic binder (or the relative mortars and concretes) in a hardened state is part of the present invention, particularly a titanium dioxide, mainly in the form of anatase, or a precursor thereof, optionally doped with other atoms different from Ti."

<comment><USER3> I glanced at the patent, and it looks like you're right. It doesn't say much about actual nano-properties at all.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Update from the CEO - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/update-from-ceo.html <comment><USER2> Andy Rubin was the major factor responsible for insecure Android devices. He thought it was impossible to be both secure and 'X' for any 'X'. Meanwhile, Andy Rubin's replacement is Sundar Pichai, SVP for Chrome and ChromeOS.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai>

If you care at all about the security of Android mobile devices, this is probably a good sign.

EDIT: I wonder if this helped move Andy out the door? [http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/07/phil-schiller-tweets- lin...](http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/07/phil-schiller-tweets-link-to- mobile-malware-report-that-slams-android/)

<comment><USER3> Not to mention that Chrome has figured out how to push updates, while a majority of Androids are still running a version released over two years ago. If Google can start pushing auto-updates to all of its devices, that would be one of the greatest improvements ever made to Android.

Also, one of Chrome's most touted features is performance, which has always been Android's weakest point. Hopefully he'll be willing to assign more people to the task of making Androids work as smoothly as iPhones.

<comment><USER4> > Not to mention that Chrome has figured out how to push updates, while a > majority of Androids are still running a version released over two years > ago.

The reason for the hold out is the carriers, not Google. Google is very good at pushing updates to phones when it's not limited by the carriers (and Android implemented over the air updates years before anyone else did. iPhones still require cables to be updated).

<comment><USER3>
      > The reason for the hold out is the carriers, not
      > Google. Google is very good at pushing updates to
      > phones when it's not limited by the carriers

I didn't imply it had to be a technical solution. If users can't update their phones that run Google's operating system because Google isn't leaning hard enough on the carriers, then Google needs to fix that.

Apple has managed to strong-arm the carriers into letting it supports its customers, and Google's market position isn't _too_ much weaker than Apple.

      > iPhones still require cables to be updated).

iOS has supported OTA updates since iOS 5, which was released almost two years ago.

<comment><USER5> Just to add data to those wondering, iOS 5 released 16 months ago (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history>)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > But his insight immediately struck a chord because at the time it was > extremely painful developing services for mobile devices. We had a closet > full of more than 100 phones and were building our software pretty much > device by device. It was nearly impossible for us to make truly great mobile > experiences.

This is highly ironic statement given that one of the biggest pain developers trying to build mobile experiences face today is the number of devices they have to test on, and that Android plays no small part in making it worse.

The drawer/closet you have, full of all those test devices? it's called the "Drawer of broken dreams."

<comment><USER7> Having been working in the Android space as a programmer, IMO the idea of Android fragmentation is mostly overblown these days. It was more of an issue in the past, but post-Gingerbread it has ceased to be a practical problem for any dev work I've done.

This isn't to say Android development is wonderful, it (often) isn't. And I've been increasingly concerned with the amount of "OMG HOW?" bugs that have been introduced into the Android OS and frameworks over the past few releases, but generally speaking the code you write for one modern Android device runs (or breaks due to OS or framework bugs) equally across all the phones, at least those that (legally) ship with the Play store.

<comment><USER8> I've just started android dev. I'm still struggling to deal with the fact that you can still buy brand new devices that come with froyo.

I feel lucky that some kind soul created a compatible version of the ActionBar (Sherlock) to work with these out dated but still selling devices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sort-of thank you to the mod who changed the title. The old one ("Google lets go its (sic) Android head Andy Rubin, appoints Sundar Pichai") was editorializing and incorrect, but the new one ("Update from the CEO") is completely useless.

On a related note, I find it rather fascinating that Andy is planning on staying in Google.

        Andy's decided it's time to hand over the
        reins and start a new chapter at Google.

I wonder what the real story is.

<comment><USER10> The real story?

He won.

What's left for him to do?

Sit around and defend 70% market share for 10 years?

Get deposed in a lot of lawsuits?

I certainly wouldn't enjoy either :)

<comment><USER11> Exactly what I was thinking. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Along with Sinofsky and Forstall late last year, this means the initial heads of all three major mobile platforms are now out.

</comment><comment><USER13> > Sundar will do a tremendous job doubling down on Android as we work to push > the ecosystem forward

This is really incongruous. You don't move a project from having a dedicated top level manager to being one-of-many under someone else as a way of "doubling down" on it (what an awful expression). It makes no sense, if Google sees Android has having future in its own right as one of Google's top priorities, that they put it under management with somebody with so many other priorities.

I can only conclude that either a) Sundar is a temporary replacement while they locate someone of Andy's stature as a replacement to lead Android in its own right or b) Google has charted somewhere far in the future that Android will get folded, substantially merged or otherwise share some kind of significant synergy with the other projects that Sundar Pichai is in charge of.

I find b) quite worrying because it signals an end to the (healthy) competitive tension that Google promoted internally where both Android and ChromeOS were pursued as independent ventures and "may the best man win" would determine the outcome. I also find it worrying because no matter how they spin it, I don't see how this can not seem like a blow to the esteem of the Android team - they've effectively been taken over by another division, effectively falling down one step in the company ladder. To have that happen after establishing one of the most incredible technology success stories in history - I can't imagine how deflating that would be to the team members. I hope Android doesn't lose a lot of talent from this. A huge amount is going to depend on how well Sundar Pichai handles this transition.

</comment><comment><USER14> New Pope, New Head of Android--a wonderful correlation...just kidding.

It's an obvious move to try and blend Chromes OS with Android more seamlessly but I think it also means something else BIG at Google is coming--and not their everyday-'big'. As qualified as Pichai is, it doesn't make sense for Rubin to go anywhere UNLESS he truly is upto something groundbreaking.

My bet is that Rubin has a vision, perhaps a "moonshot" as Paige said, that impressed the execs at Google so much that it made sense for him to move on from his current position. It'll be interesting to see exactly what this is, but I have to imagine Rubin is upto something the masses (most of us) have not yet heard about...and his ingenuity will be absorbed by Google themselves.

<comment><USER14> some backup to my above comment: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/13/andy- rubins-next-moonshot-c...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/13/andy-rubins-next- moonshot-could-happen-at-googles-project-x/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I suspect that Andy is not in fact staying on at Google but instead this is a golden parachute in which he will pretend to stick around as "a consultant to the CEO" before leaving.

<comment><USER16> I never really understood this sort of thing. Why would he stick around and do nothing? To "save face"? And if he is not being useful why do they want him around or play along?

<comment><USER17> Might be sort of like a non-compete period. Instead of being contractually bound to not compete for a period after leaving a company, which isn't always enforceable, pay the person enough to stick around for a while, perhaps with limited access to information about upcoming products.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "We're getting closer to a world where technology takes care of the hard work—discovery, organization, communication—so that you can get on with what makes you happiest… living and loving."

Just lie back and let yourself sink into the goo. Don't worry about all that messy technology behind the curtains. We've got that taken care of. Have a nice day :)

<comment><USER19> Isn't that what nerds have always wanted? To be the ones saying that.

<comment><USER18> yeah, pretty much

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I remember the week or so when both Sinofsy and Forstall were let go, people jokingly said 'these come in threes, look out for Rubin'.

Turns out that was true.

</comment><comment><USER21> what an unhelpful title

EDIT: for those downvoting me, how is "Update from the CEO" in any way relevant to the article's content?

<comment><USER22> I had quite a few random downvotes today too (for completely aseptic claims) so I suspect someone's trolling.

<comment><USER23> We need a unique term for such behavior. "Trolling" seems to be a different, broader thing. "Karma griefing"? b^)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Title seems misleading, the post said Andy is moving on to other things _at Google_.

Edit: fixed (it used to be "Google lets go Andy Rubin", which is generally a euphemism for fired)

</comment><comment><USER25> Pure speculation here: Andy might work on a new version of Android which will integrate Android with Google's self-driving car, and also bring the work done by CloudCar to Android. [http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/22/cloudcar-the- stealthy-start...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/22/cloudcar-the-stealthy- startup-that-andy-rubin-is-not-joining-has-raised-11-5m/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Observation by Benedict Evans: almost all key divisional leads at Google were born in India. Android, Engineering, Advertising, Youtube…

Polar opposite to Apple, which is a white boys club.

<comment><USER27> There are lots of Indians in top Google management, definitely, but they're hardly the majority. Maybe 25% of "key divisional leads", maybe 25% of SVPs (a group that greatly overlaps with "key divisional leads").

First of all, there's no "key divisional lead" of "engineering". That's not a division at the top level. That'd be a pretty stupid top-level division, in a company which is mostly engineering (I'm deliberately obfuscating exact ratios).

Second, the SVP of Ads is Polish, and the SVP of Youtube is Persian. So that's two more things wrong with the four examples.

Indian: Chrome/Apps/Android, G+, and Sales/Business.

Not Indian: Ads, Search, YouTube, TechInfra, Finance, Legal, Sergei (a law unto himself), Geo/Commerce, Motorola, HR, PR, .....

In short, who the heck is Benedict Evans, and given that he is gibbering, why are you quoting him?

<comment><USER26> <http://ben-evans.com/>

thanks for clearing this up, hard to find the real org chart of google.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, I too can find no publicly available org chart. I was careful to restrict myself to public information in that comment (except, I guess, "engineering is not a top-level division").

Several easy searches, like google.com/search?q=google+management or "google svp", lead to this page: <http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/management/>

You also get some media reports from 2011, which discuss several key players from that era.

I admit that doesn't tell you about "key divisional leads", but it does give you a list of who Google thinks is worth publishing about.

As for Ben Evans's tweet, he just made some random shit up. Again, 3/4 of the people he mentions as being Indian are NOT INDIAN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is an interestingly timed article. We're building our Android app right now, and its certainly more annoying than when we built out iOS app.

As an app developer, in Canada (not Canadian however) i'm excited that RIM have attempted to prevent further fragmentation by sticking close to the Android stack, however i really don't want to deal with the distribution and other issues (such as screens, OS bugs etc) that i'm sure will come with releasing on a 3rd platform.

I feel like we're dealing with the issues similar to what were encountered during the 17-1800's with different size railway tracks. Is it just a matter of time until we agree upon a standard?

<comment><USER29> > however i really don't want to deal with the distribution and other issues > (such as screens, OS bugs etc) that i'm sure will come with releasing on a > 3rd platform.

Is this better or worse than developing for a completely different platform (i.e. BB<10, WP7/8, etc)?

<comment><USER28> I think its better for sure, but i'm sure there will be bugs that only exist on Blackberry and those that only exist on Android. I suspect that eventually we would (will...) end up with two builds anyway.

Overhead, it would be great if Blackberry could just start making Android phones...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Whether Android and ChromeOS are merged or Android scales up to the desktop, I hope Google makes a big play for the desktop within the next 1-2 years.

1\. Microsoft support for Windows XP ends in about a year leaving a huge chunk of their users orphaned. 2\. PC sales are flatlining... there's a sense among users that performance is getting to be "good enough" 3\. Apple isn't really even trying to compete in countries that aren't somewhat well to do. 4\. The ARM Cortex-A15 will help bring those ARM mini-pc sticks and net tops up to task for desktop work.

</comment><comment><USER31> The "open source" posturing is very annoying. They're just doing it for the PR.

Even considering the subset of Android that is "open source" the development process is closed and we just get code drops after product releases. It's like Apple used to do when they were playing the game with Darwin. They're doing a lot of work to avoid and purge LGPL and GPL code so they can work this way. It's not even free to use for vendors, you need to pay licensing fees to get a useful system out of it and sign contracts subjecting you to Google's whims.

</comment><comment><USER32> Wait... where is this post saying what's going on with Andy Rubin? Let me understand: you have a guy that leads one of the most adopted projects coming out of Google and then you announce a new person to lead that project without mentioning anything about the former? That should be an awesome feeling for everyone at G...

</comment><comment><USER33> Rubin is someone who, from his days of running a BBS in New York many years ago, to creating and working to expand Android more recently, has always had a strong alignment with the values of free software, hackers and hobbyists. Over two decades ago he praised those who "write their programs for the hobby, for the hack". His commitment and his efforts for open source software and open platforms have borne fruit with an open platform which accounted for over 70% of smartphone sales in the fourth quarter of 2012. I am grateful for his efforts in this regard, especially since I have been focusing on writing Android apps for the past few years.

</comment><comment><USER34> Chrome OS and Android merger please?

<comment><USER35> I know something for sure and that is Java is not the future of Android. Android will run web apps in future. In makes sense in many different ways:

      - Google is a huge pusher of web platform. They want it on mobile.

      - They are pushing new APIs to HTML5 everyday to make it more suitable for mobile

      - Google is the only one that can make real mobile web apps a reality

      - Did you ever see that metal android status in Google campus? They want choromize the Andriod

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Better title "Andy Rubin hands Android team to former Chrome lead, stays at Google".

<comment><USER37> Maybe Google should hire some SEO consultants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Another way to look at it is that Android was a home run and basically accomplished everything it was supposed to do, not much left for Rubin to accomplish.

<comment><USER39> Sure, it's probably achieved everything it was meant to - like Google probably had when they first became the top search engine. I really doubt anybody is leaving because of that though, it's certainly not perfect, and it's certainly not achieved everything it can achieve. In fact, it probably hasn't achieved everything it is meant to achieve now. Goals aren't static, nobody's going to leave because there's nothing left to achieve with Android.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> If ChromeOS and Android merge, then a comparable is - Ubuntu! They would both have a mobile/desktop linux distro.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is an unusually bleak and uninspiring message. Reads like a mundane press release. An average update from a small startup founder is more exciting.

</comment><comment><USER42> Andy Rubin is not leaving Google, is he?

</comment><comment><USER43> I would've preferred Vic Gundotra to take the lead of Android. He's a much more "experience" kind of guy, and a great speaker, too.

But I guess Sundar Pichai isn't a bad choice, either, especially if they plan on unifying the 2 platforms. But he's still more of a "core" product guy, than a human interface guy. I just hope he at least leaves Matias Duarte enough independence.

<comment><USER44> My read is that Pichai is a really good at ops, and the experience stuff will be left to Duarte. It seems like a good partnership to have on the Android boat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> >>Today Chrome has hundreds of millions of happy users and is growing fast thanks to its speed, simplicity and security.

Simplicity and security, fine. But speed? That's hardly the reason people prefer Chrome these days.

<comment><USER46> Speed is the reason I prefer Chrome, is Chrome not fast for you?

<comment><USER45> It's decent, but Firefox seems a lot faster. Completely anecdotal of course.

edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted

<comment><USER47> There was an article only the other day about how firefox is faster, on the front page. I've even switched to it (for a few days, to see) myself!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Since Sundar Pichai is the head of ChromeOS, perhaps this move is part of a larger move to unify Android and ChromeOS.

<comment><USER4> > Since Sundar Pichai is the head of ChromeOS, perhaps this move is part of a > larger move to unify Android and ChromeOS.

I can't see both exist at the same time for much longer, and Android is encroaching on ChromeOS' domain much faster than the other way around.

I'm predicting that ChromeOS will be shut down within a couple of years.

<comment><USER49> ChromeOS is going nowhere, it's currently the best OS option that is able to turn a PC into an instant-start, always-connected "appliance" where end-users don't need to care about the mundane details of using a PC, e.g managing files and folders, backing up, syncing, updates, security and virus-scanning protection, etc - everything runs in a sandbox, gets updated automatically and "just works".

<comment><USER50> Chrome is a browser, that's all. Not sure what it will be 1-5 years from now but now it's a browser in a computer

<comment><USER49> Yeah it's just a browser if you forget about the Custom Firmware, Custom Hardened Linux OS with auto-updating sandbox, built-in TPM support and a trusted bootpath optimized for FastBoots, customized Portage build system, Custom Window Manager, built-in media player, file manager, integration with Google Cloud Print, Chrome Shell/SSH, Chrome Remote Desktop.

But it's comforting that there are people that just think of it as just another web browser - that's the whole point, just think of it as a web browsing appliance that "just works like a browser" -- even though it's not.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Recreate Secret Doors from Movies - <AUTHOR> https://hiddendoorstore.com/recreate-secret-doors-from-movies/ <comment><USER2> Apparently if you have hard floors doing a bookcase door is pretty simple. Find a bookcase that it's about the size of the door and bolt it onto the door, after taking off the molding around it. Then you need a cheap gate latch actuated by a wire that you attached to a book on a shelf on a horizontal hinge. The bookcase should have a caster wheel that it rolls on so the weight is not all on the door hinges.

<comment><USER3> In a very real sense, isn't every bookcase already a secret door?

<comment><USER4> Thanks - you made my night

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A cheaper source of hidden doors I recently found: [https://murphydoor.com/](https://murphydoor.com/)

</comment><comment><USER6> This just seems to be a creative product page of a company specializing in hidden doors?

The prices they list are very discouraging but it's basically just their rates and it seems this company is targeting rich eccentrics.

</comment><comment><USER7> I like that they have a lovely animated image of how their patent-pending super-fancy adjustable hinges work.

As an engineer with a knack for CAD, thanks! I'm going to see if I can model something that works similarly now.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hidden rooms with secret doors are fun. If you're handy there are some great videos on YouTube for DIY solutions that are much less expensive than the commercial options.

The best hidden room I've ever seen was in the closet of a child of a family friend. If you opened the lid of what appeared to be a toy box in the closet, there was a ladder down to a basement playroom. Children and ladders at least a story tall probably isn't a good combination but eight year old me was totally blown away by the coolness factor.

</comment><comment><USER9> These are fun. We have one in a home and the kids absolutely love it. Completely impractical but definitely adds something to the home. Nice party trick for folks too.

<comment><USER10> We have access to storage space in the roof through a door in the back of a closet (only hidden by the clothes hanging in it) - we call it the "secret passage" \- our kids always won at hide-and-seek when their friends came over (well at least the first time)

<comment><USER11> Has the book House of Leaves been recommended to you countless times already?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I watched 'Clue' last week and the girlfriend lost her mind over the secret doors. I sent her a link to the hiddendoorstore and now she is flipping out all over again.

<comment><USER13> Our lives are in danger ya beatnik!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This seems popular with Matt Risinger's customers - he's a builder that runs a YouTube series about all sorts of building related things.

Actual Safe (for guns - also has a follow-up video once the equipment is in): [https://youtu.be/RjsWIQUhHTA](https://youtu.be/RjsWIQUhHTA)

Aesthetic hiding under stairs storage etc: [https://youtu.be/9SqWcywqoGE](https://youtu.be/9SqWcywqoGE)

Bookcase door: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYONtBkbFGs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYONtBkbFGs)

Full playlist: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDYh81z-Rhxj82itZ5Grs...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDYh81z-Rhxj82itZ5GrshXdQRYAGXTFf)

</comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if they have permission to use those movie clips to promote their products.

</comment><comment><USER15> Can I just buy the hinges and frame, and convert existing furniture?

</comment><comment><USER16> Hi, Young Frankenstein fan here. Was wondering about possible financing/installment payments for the $15,000 candlestick/bookcase option?

</comment><comment><USER17> Shit, ended up spending 5k!</comment>


The Boosted Wait Is Over - <AUTHOR> http://the-boosted-wait-is-over.strikingly.com/ <comment><USER2> Was I supposed to already know what this is? I only caught mention of the motors by accident while scrolling. Until then I thought it was just a skateboard.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. At first I thought the wheels were the revolutionary product and was excited about putting them on my board. Then...Oh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not explaining what it is anywhere is a rookie move. Even though your life has revolved around this for the past N years, most people have no idea what your product is or why they should care.

</comment><comment><USER5> I had a second batch pre-order but bought a.. competitor board after the price increase.

some general thoughts on longboarding as a last-mile vehicle:

\- to get good speed out of it you really need a bike lane

\- I use a gun lock on the trucks, but it's hard to find a good spot to tie it to.

\- carrying around 15 pounds is a pain, but I have a feeling reducing weight would also reduce stability

\- it does get a lot of attention ("is that an electric skateboard?")

all in all I feel like it would only work for commuters with a good bike lane between home and work. Random destinations is just too much work.

I've had a lot of fun in parks though, just cruising and enjoying the boarding experience.

</comment><comment><USER6> A $2,000 skateboard to remove the exercise from my bicycle commute? Sign me up! I will just have to recover the original purchase price of all 3 of my bicycles to cover it.

<comment><USER7> A $2,000 powered skateboard, with a breaking system.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the best Web based API you ever used? - <AUTHOR>

We are designing an API for one of our products and would love to learn from the best. As a developer, what's the best (any why) Web based API you ever used? <comment><USER2> Stripe. Streamlined and well-documented.

<comment><USER3> Agreed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I liked ones that I used and had Swagger documentation, that way you can easily make API calls in the API's documentation. Take for example pipedrive: [https://developers.pipedrive.com/v1](https://developers.pipedrive.com/v1)

</comment><comment><USER5> Parse. I like APIs you can copy/paste into javascript and build an MVP and worry about fail-proof server-side integration for production later.

<comment><USER6> Another vote for this one, felt like you were up and running within minutes. Used it with their iOS SDK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Whatever web API I use I like it to be documented in automatic way so that is always up to date. Especially in first phase API changes, and I remember bad days spent in discovering the new version of some Facebook api before they get published..sort of MSDN black box hell

</comment><comment><USER8> Another vote for stripe. I know of many junior web devs cutting their teeth on stripe. It's too easy.

</comment><comment><USER9> Do SDKs count? AWS has been great so far.</comment>


Why the Accelerator Game Is Played Out - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ivynewgen/the-startup-world-has-matured-it-s-time-for-most-accelerators-to-go-afbb221d5d22 <comment><USER2> Accelerators remind me of those companies that claim they can help you 'become a model' by paying for crappy head shots and helping you through their connections (and taking a percentage in the process).

Many startup founders treat these accelerators like the end goal and give up when they don't actually make it.

I would argue that accelerators are actually the sign of a more mature market. Everyone smells money and you now have the scammers, con artists, and the mediocre trying to make a buck.</comment>


Twitter uses Drupal - <AUTHOR> http://w3techs.com/sites/info/twitter.com

<comment><USER2> I think they use: scala, js and a little bit of ruby/rails

and documentation is written with drupal</comment>


Ingo Molnar: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements - <AUTHOR> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/886319 <comment><USER2> I would _LOVE_ to use a scheduler tuned for my hardware if outperformed the generic scheduler. I'm not a kernel developer, but I can imagine how the mainstream single-socket multicore case may be quite different from the multi- socket multicore case.

As I software engineer, I realize that making different schedulers for different architectures is "inefficient" (unless development/test resources are increased). But if somebody is willing to put in the time and effort to make me a scheduler that works best on my hardware, I'll gladly take it.

I have to agree with Con's remarks here. Seems like an underhanded move by Ingo to give this thing a bad reputation (and hence kill developer and beta tester interest) before it comes out. And judging by the comments here, he may have succeeded. Looks like open source has lots of politics too. :)

<comment><USER3> I don't think I quite understand what misconception people hold which leads them to believe that any environment in which two or more human beings are in social contact could ever be free of politics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think CK's reply just put me off for good from taking the time to try out his patches:

 _/me sees Ingo run off to find the right combination of hardware and benchmark to prove his point.

[snip lots of bullshit meaningless benchmarks showing how great cfs is and/or how bad bfs is, along with telling people they should use these artificial benchmarks to determine how good it is, demonstrating yet again why benchmarks fail the desktop] _

So, to paraphrase: BFS is vastly superior, but not in any way that you can actually measure.

Con made a valuable contribution back when the choice was between staircase- deadline and the old mainline O(1) scheduler, but he's since turned himself into a crank.

<comment><USER4> _So, to paraphrase: BFS is vastly superior, but not in any way that you can actually measure._

From my understanding, your interpretation is not correct. BFS is about latency, not throughput. Ingo chose all the wrong benchmarks.

Also, it's a dick move by Ingo. CK hasn't even made a public announcement about BFS yet.

Finally, you should use code that has technical merit, regardless of the personality behind the writer. I imagine the kernel you're running on has code in it written by some pretty unfriendly people.

<comment><USER3> _From my understanding, your interpretation is not correct. BFS is about latency, not throughput. Ingo chose all the wrong benchmarks._

Then how about CK showing up the right ones?

 _Also, it's a dick move by Ingo. CK hasn't even made a public announcement about BFS yet._

He announced it publicly enough that I knew about it, and I haven't followed this stuff in years. Given that, I hardly think that commenting on his efforts on LKML constitutes a premature "outing".

 _Finally, you should use code that has technical merit, regardless of the personality behind the writer. I imagine the kernel you're running on has code in it written by some pretty unfriendly people._

Indeed: one of them murdered his wife. But you brought up personalities, not me. The part of CK's post that I quoted is rather dickish, but I deliberately avoided commenting on that.

<comment><USER4> _Then how about CK showing up the right ones?_

Why? It's not as if CK is trying to get it into the mainline. I think the only reason why CK got angry is that Ingo's benchmarks appear to be deliberately chosen to make BFS look bad. Anyone who took the time to read the documentation would realize that testing throughput is not correct. That'd be like benchmarking Python and C using matrix multiplication and concluding that Python sucks. Two different tools for different purposes.

 _He announced it publicly enough that I knew about it, and I haven't followed this stuff in years. Given that, I hardly think that commenting on his efforts on LKML constitutes a premature "outing."._

I think the announcement was mostly the work of Reddit et al., but fair enough.

 _Indeed: one of them murdered his wife. But you brought up personalities, not me._

Reiser was a crazy one. ;) I actually only brought up personalities because I was under the impression that you wouldn't try CK's patch because of his personality. I say if there's interesting code out there, it shouldn't go to waste because of the quirks of the author. I apologize if I misinterpreted.

<comment><USER3> _Why? It's not as if CK is trying to get it into the mainline._

What does one have to do with the other? If I'm going to spend the necessary 20 minutes to compile a new kernel using CK's patch, I want some evidence that I'm going to be gaining something.

<comment><USER5> _What does one have to do with the other? If I'm going to spend the necessary 20 minutes to compile a new kernel using CK's patch, I want some evidence that I'm going to be gaining something._

Then perhaps you should pay Con Kolivas to prove the value of his freely provided no-warranty work-in-progress code for you.

<comment><USER3> Nothing is ever free unless your time has no value. I've published and contributed to a great deal of open source software, much of it successful. I've been among these communities for a very long time and understand the social expectations. One of them is this: if you want anyone to care about your work, then you'd better be prepared to defend it. I would find any contrary expectation to be unbearably narcissistic, and, whatever his other failings, I think CK would agree with me on this. Think of it this way: if you published an essay containing controversial opinions, would you demand that it be immune to criticism on the basis that you're giving it away for free? I don't think software should be considered different in any case, and certainly not in this one given that CK is representing his work as an improvement over someone else's.

<comment><USER5> _I've published and contributed to a great deal of open source software, much of it successful._

I have also published a great deal of open source software, much of it successful, and some of it almost universally used. Unfortunately, that does absolutely _nothing_ to bolster either of our arguments.

 _If you published an essay containing controversial opinions, would you demand that it be immune to criticism on the basis that you're giving it away for free_

You asked for: "I want some evidence that I'm going to be gaining something".

If we try to apply that to your analogy, why is it the author's responsibility to not only produce the work, document the work, but then also supply their own literary criticism so that you can decide if the work is worthwhile, all before the essay is completed and ready for publication?

Open source developers regularly produce software just because they want to, and feel no impetus or desire to convince you of anything. That's not, as you put it, some sort of "narcissistic" behavior, but rather a desire to simply share without additional burden or demands by others.

<comment><USER6> For what it's worth, the kind of analysis dfranke expects is required in the academic community. If you provide no evidence that what you've created is better than the status-quo, then no one will care. I don't consider this an "additional burden."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The parallel LWN thread: <http://lwn.net/Articles/351058/>

<comment><USER7> A lot of discussion on LWN and on the LKML seems to focus on the "unbenchmarkability" of UI interactiveness. This is just a guess, but maybe Con's background as an anesthesiologist (rather than a programmer) causes him to understand feelings better than measurements.

If I were to assign blame for the latency problems I experience, I would place it on the 100-call-deep stacks that are used to deliver events in Gtk+ and Qt, and on the binary Nvidia driver's lack of good 2D+compositing acceleration.

<comment><USER8> "Con's background as an anesthesiologist (rather than a programmer) causes him to understand feelings better than measurements"

I would be pretty worried with an anesthesiologist that disregarded his measurements... Either you can measure or it doesn't exist. If it exists and you don't measure, you'd better write something to measure it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not going to try to follow LKML just for this but if anyone at HN has a benchmark they'd like me to try out on 2.6.30 Arch vs 2.6.30-bfs on a quad- core Xeon I'll give it a shot.

<comment><USER10> Run a compile job, or a video encode... then try web browsing.

Perhaps you could time clicks to open new tabs in your browser. Or switch virtual spaces.

With the background work, you should notice no or very little difference. Since the interactive work should get highest priority(this is what you are aiming for).

You can try these tests without bfs patches too. You can see how the default kernel/X11/driver is not optimal - and how things can be improved.

It's still much nicer than OSX, and windows however.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I've done the standard "nice make -j 4 bzImage" and noticed no detectable slowdown in normal browsing tasks, window movement, chromium/flashplayer etc. It does _feel_ snappier as CK was going for but since I know I'm running bfs I'm somewhat afraid of confirmation bias.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> On a related thread <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=810833>

BFS had been ported to one of the Custom Roms for Android and has already shown increased speed improvements.</comment>


Ask HN: More Ergonomic Assembly Language? - <AUTHOR> It has been many decades since the AT&T and Intel syntaxes were introduced, and we've learned a lot about programming language design since then.
For example, consider how AT&T assembler uses parentheses to dereference memory locations: `(%eax)`.  Such a usage of parentheses is unlike that of most programming languages, and unlike how parentheses are used in mathematical notation.  You could say it "violates the principle of least surprise".
Another problem is width specification: typing e.g. `DWORD` (in all caps) a la Intel to specify width is verbose and laborious, but appending a letter to the instruction name a la AT&T makes those names harder for the human eye to parse.
Then there's the inscrutable naming of registers and instructions.  Ideally we'd want them to follow "Huffman Coding" naming principles, where high-value short, clear names are assigned to the most commonly used elements and rarer elements get somewhat longer, more explicit names.  Unfortunately this is a problem for hardware manufacturers, but let's dream for a moment that they're listening.
What would a more ergonomic assembly language look like? <comment><USER2> Firstly, I think those may interest you slightly, those are some projects which tried to have a somewhat unified assembly syntax across ISAs, and with more regular naming of registers, etc.: [https://9p.io/sys/doc/asm.html](https://9p.io/sys/doc/asm.html) [https://tip.golang.org/doc/asm](https://tip.golang.org/doc/asm)

Now, are you proposing to change the "ordinary" assembly (with simple one-to- one mappings between assembly and machine instructions) or rather something like this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- level_assembler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_assembler) ? I think it is important in this kind of discussion to elaborate on the uses we have for assembly languages, the main uses I know about are:

1) Documenting an ISA or compiler or similar.

2) Reading machine code as disassembly. (For debugging, profiling, etc.)

3) From within a high-level language to rewrite some hot-spots in the source code so they would be more efficient.

4) Using specific instruction not accessible by compiler intrinsics. This is mainly for kernel or embedded work.

I think that for all four uses one would want an "ordinary" low-level assembly (including the Plan 9 or Go assembly languages), but honestly, I never used a high-level assembly and have no idea why would somebody use something like that except perhaps for "demos", so that one could brag of having written the whole thing in "assembly". In any case, you should clarify which use of assembly language you have in mind for this discussion.

> It has been many decades since the AT&T and Intel syntaxes were introduced, > and we've learned a lot about programming language design since then.

I don't think programming language design applies very much to assembly language, at least the usual, low-level kind. I'd say that assembly language is only a trivial case of a programming language, because it definitely is a programming language, but the assembler does not have to bother with types or translating all those high-level constructs into lower-level forms. Assembly is much more "descriptive" of the end-result (machine code) than high-level programming languages are. Another point is that assembly is, as a formal language, much simpler than high-level programming languages, so it is already easy to understand and there is necessarily little room for improvement.

> Such a usage of parentheses is unlike that of most programming languages, > and unlike how parentheses are used in mathematical notation. You could say > it "violates the principle of least surprise".

The "principle of least surprise" sucks. It stiffles innovation for little gain. But my last point is also applicable here. I.e. I think it does not matter that the principle of least surprise is violated because assembly will be simple anyway.

> Another problem is width specification: typing e.g. `DWORD` (in all caps) a > la Intel to specify width is verbose and laborious, but appending a letter > to the instruction name a la AT&T makes those names harder for the human eye > to parse.

I'm fine with the AT&T syntax, but maybe it would be better to have number instead of letter suffixes for specifying width, e.g.: MOV1, MOV2, MOV4, MOV8 instead of MOVB, MOVW, MOVL, MOVQ.

> Then there's the inscrutable naming of registers and instructions. Ideally > we'd want them to follow "Huffman Coding" naming principles, where high- > value short, clear names are assigned to the most commonly used elements and > rarer elements get somewhat longer, more explicit names.

Regarding registers: we don't need that. Registers come from small finite sets. It is better to have regular and small names for registers, at least with the current ISAs.

Regarding instructions: that's kind of what we already have.</comment>


Most Wanted Time Capsules - <AUTHOR> https://crypt.oglethorpe.edu/international-time-capsule-society/most-wanted-time-capsules/ <comment><USER2> It takes a special sort of villainy to steal a time capsule, hoarding for yourself alone what was intended to be a gift from one generation to another.

<comment><USER3> Most of them aren't stolen, just lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is practically impossible for an individual to make a time capsule that is up to the job. Few artefacts from everyday life can be expected to survive the passage of time:

[https://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/collectioncare/faqs/t...](https://www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/collectioncare/faqs/timecapsule/)

Even if you did remove the acid from the wood and paper, the sulphur from rubber and pack the whole lot in a nitrogen rich atmosphere, welded tight inside a stainless steel box, how is someone going to open the box in a few centuries on from now? If it could be opened easily then it would not survive the passage of time, if it was fully welded stainless steel then it might survive the passage of time and not be opened due to the required effort.

If they did get in, would that newspaper that some well meaning child put in there be of any more value than the version of that same paper held in libraries?

Some time capsules must be quite a testimony to vanity, no more so than with Scientology. They have all of their founder's writings transcribed onto millions of stainless steel disks and stored in a mountainside vault. This vault is then made so that its location can be 'seen from space'. Handy for passing space tourists wanting to brush up on 'Dianetics'.</comment>


Is Flickr Worth $4 Billion?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.markevanstech.com/2008/05/08/is-flickr-worth-4-billion/

<comment><USER2> This article should have been titled "If we assume a 25X sale or Flickr selling every ad unit At $5 CPM then this post isn't linkbait"

</comment><comment><USER3> Flickr is worth 4 billion because he guessed at its freemium conversion rate and the introduction of advertising, then ran it through a multiplier chosen by a guy banned for life by the SEC? At the least, this is unpersuasive.

</comment><comment><USER4> There are several factual inaccuracies in his post and unreasonable assumptions.

1) I believe that Flickr sold for $17 + a small earn out. The only authentic data on this is a post by Rafat on paidcontent.org.

2) You can't get at potential freemium subscribers by total uniques! Most Flickr viewers are not Flickr members! You need the actual uploader count and then at the very very best 1% might pay.

3) The ecommerce number is probably significantly off (2-3x) because Flickr is all about online sharing.

4) Flickr is huge but unfortunately is losing community aspects to other channels now like Facebook and twitter.

5) For another comparable, Webshots sold late last year for $45M and was probably 3x revenue.

Ultimately, Flickr has a pristine brand, leads the photo sharing category, so I'd guess it deserves a premium above photobucket so if Yahoo decided to sell then maybe $300-350M.

The bottom line is that there will never be big money in photos.

</comment><comment><USER5> Am I the only one who is amazed that Compete has Flickr receiving same amount of unique visitors per month as Facebook!?

Every single one of my friends uses Facebook, yet I'm one of the few who use (and even know of) Flickr.

</comment><comment><USER6> The one thing that stands out in this analysis is the author's almost casual statement that Flicker users regard "Flickr as their property and are resistant to change of any kind." Given the recent flap over adding video to the site, which is an individual user's choice, what would kind of noise would people make if ads started popping up on Flickr even if people could opt-out? The issue of how user's seemingly arbitrary whims may obstruct monetization of community sites seems to begging for further analysis.

</comment><comment><USER7> I find it interesting that some people still pay attention to what Henry Blodget has to say with regard to valuations. The "25X revenue" as a generic formula is nonsense, not even worth debating. This type of thinking is what inflated the first dotcom bubble.

</comment><comment><USER8> Nope.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yahoo owning Flickr allows them to dominate the photo sharing market ... just as google owning YouTube..

\- owning something that has a moat (its user base) is definitely worth a lot, I put Flickr at 1.6bn

</comment><comment><USER10> I read a while back that Flickr's conversion rate for the "pro" accounts was dismal, as in less than 1%. Sorry no linky to back that memory up but there's no way it's even close to 10%.

</comment><comment><USER11> It is is somebody writes "four billion" on a check and hands it to them. Heck, money's not worth anything unless we agree it is anyway.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think it don't worth $4 million, this is ridiculous

</comment><comment><USER13> Is it April 1st?

</comment><comment><USER14> Maybe</comment>


IAMA founder of NewsTilt, a YC startup trying to reinvent journalism. - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/bwrew/iama_founder_of_newstilt_a_y_combinator_startup/

<comment><USER2> I've got to say that I think as far as online news reporting goes, the major weakness right now is forums and comments. If there were a better way to collate ALL the comments on a specific incident or even on a general topic, and then filter them out according to anecdotal relevancy, it would add so much more to the ability for people to find out what's actually going on.

So, for example, for the Arizona immigration story, I bet there are comments on a bunch of news sites and personal blogs that give fascinating anecdotes about run-ins with the Maricopa County Sheriffs, or about seeing illegal immigrants passing through some rancher's property, or about some local leader's opinion on the new bill.

But one comment may be on Huff Post, one might be on some small regional news site, another might be on someone's personal blog.

Those comments get buried and no one will ever find them.

<comment><USER3> The problem with aggregating comments is that it degrades the quality of discussion, and therefore, the community. There's no depth, no flow. Backtype does the aggregation thing, but I find it just looks like noise.

Maybe there's a better way, but I've yet to see something better than the type of 5-10 level deep conversations that happen on reddit/HN.

<comment><USER2> I agree with you. But maybe the aggregation isn't for more conversation (people like to do that within their trusted communities), but to enable better filtering. That is, you could have a rough total count of interest in a topic. Then you could label comments different things like "funny", "anecdote", "primary source", "trolling", etc. So if I just want to read the funniest comments, I could. If I wanted to get more context from on the ground, I could select "primary source" or whatever. Not sure why this isn't done already...I'm sure enough random commenters would categorize comments on their own to make it useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the IAMA thread : "Yes, Facebook is required to add comments."

Reducing irrelevant comment noise by linking it to FB Connect is not a solution. This is not for me then.

Edit: Just noticed this : "On reddit, anonymous accounts add a lot to conversation. So we intent to add semi-anonymity, where no-one but us can tell who you are." - Again, not sure , how that will be a solution.

<comment><AUTHOR> We'd love to hear a solution that makes people using their real name without using Facebook Connect.

The point about anonymity is that we'd like to allow some sort of anonymous comments, because they can sometimes add to the conversation.

<comment><USER4> May be i am not getting the whole story here but if you do allow anonymous comments or "some sort" of anonymous comments then how different is it to the other existing authentication schemes ?

For e.g. on HN i can easily look-up certain nicks and i know what their public persona is via their blogs, websites etc. Does that add value to their comment ? May be. Is that what you are aiming for ?

"We'd love to hear a solution that makes people using their real name without using Facebook Connect." That is a hard problem , more incidental complexity than anything else.

Edit: edited for grammar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When was the last time a startup 'trying to reinvent' something actually succeeded? Most of the successes were accidental, by companies who tried to do something neat and stumbled onto something powerful. Most of the failures were companies that set out to 'reinvent' the way things work.

Maybe these guys will succeed, but it seems like hubris to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> We started down a different path too. We were making a Disqus clone for newspapers. We definitely stumbled onto this path, because we were talking to so many journalists and feeling their pain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's IAMA/AMA? I am a founder? Or am I missing something?

<comment><USER7> I-am-a .... Ask Me Anything, this is a subreddit for community interviews with the person who is whatever they are claiming (the star means verified)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is it true that 80% of YC startups use Rails?

<comment><USER9> Not the OP, but: probably not. Ruby is big, but Python is pretty big too. In the latest class there is even PHP, .NET, and backend Javascript.</comment></comment>