Computers shouldn't make people feel like idiots - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2132-computers-shouldnt-make-people-feel-like-idiots <comment><USER2> Regarding file systems:

One absurdly frequent source of customer issues with Bingo Card Creator was "I have no effective mental model of the file system, data as separate from programs, and how the physical location of a file relates to my physical location in the world."

I have a _huge_ number of customers who think that letters live in Word and bingo cards live in Bingo Card Creator. If you think like that, you might be unpleasantly surprised when you take your CD and install your Bingo Card Creator at school, and then Bingo Card Creator doesn't have your bingo cards in it any more. Actual quotes: "Did it lose them?", "I think my CD must have a virus." (People have been socialized to think that anything that goes wrong is, depending on the person, operator error or a virus/malware/etc.)

When I released the online version of Bingo Card Creator, which essentially dispenses with the file/folder metaphor, this issue vanished. _poof_ Their bingo cards really do live in Bingo Card Creator, for all intents and purposes. (Putting "cloud" support in the downloadable version, on the other hand, was a crashing failure -- probably a failure of communication on my part.)

I think file systems are the new registry: something which should be hidden behind several signs saying "There be dragons here!" and which power users can be allowed to tweak, so that they can brag to their wives "Yep, it took me a while, but I opened up a folder on my C drive and found your file, then I copied it to your desktop. I'm good with computers, what can I say."

</comment><comment><USER3> Stop Being An Idiot - [http://orderedlist.com/our-writing/blog/articles/stop- being-...](http://orderedlist.com/our-writing/blog/articles/stop-being-an- idiot/)

"Our job, when designing features and interfaces, is to make them powerful, usable, and understandable. Not to cater to those people too lazy to think. Our job is to make things intuitive. But intuition still requires an individual to want to understand something. It requires an attempt to understand. It requires thought, even subconsciously. We have little power over people's desire to succeed. We can only provide the tools to do so. So teach people, don't criticize them."

<comment><USER4> It's hard for gentle pushing from software design to overcome years of learned helplessness.

<comment><USER5> Around 92 I was forced into a required class for basic computers. I didn't pay much attention, but got A's as it was covering topics I already knew well. What I did learn from that class was from the students as I noticed many were just downright afrid of the machines and would only do what the teacher said.

There was no sense of play and the fear of "Blowing something up" was always there and I wondered how anybody could learn with that kind of fear.

I can understand getting frustrated but fear of the machine was baffling but I got a good glimpse on how "regular" people reacted to technology.

<comment><USER6> There will always be people like that. My grandmother used to live with us as I was growing up, and she was _always_ afraid of technology. She was afraid to touch the electronic thermostat... even though it only had two buttons and just displayed the set temp and the current temp. She was deathly afraid that she would 'break' it.

{edit} On the other hand, you also have people that constantly break things as a result of their own actions, and refuse to change. My friend's sister would be constantly corrupting her external hard drive because she would just yank the plug to remove her laptop from her desk. My friend would fix things and _repeatedly_ tell her _not_ to do that, but it would always happen again.

People are _all_ over the spectrum. There are people that are just downright afraid of new things, and there are people that just take everything for granted (not caring what the consequences of their actions are).

<comment><USER7> _My friend's sister would be constantly corrupting her external hard drive because she would just yank the plug to remove her laptop from her desk._

In the short term, your friend should tell her that she won't fix it anymore (or should have, whatever).

In the long term, thats a design problem. Not that I know how to fix it, but the idea that you can't just disconnect is something that needs teaching. If we can find a way that people can disconnect hardware (e.g. USB drives) that would be a _good thing._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As with most things, which side you're on isn't as important as the fact that you're having the discussion. I'm excited to see what Apple's competitors come back with to combat the seeming ease of use and simple interface that the iPad is bringing to market. I'm not a big fan of Apple products, but I'm a huge fan of driving innovation...so I guess I am a big fan of Apple as a company :-)

</comment><comment><USER9> Agreed. My Mom wants an iPad, too.

<comment><USER10> I don't think my mom knows what an iPad is, yet, but if getting her one makes her stop calling me with computer issues then I'm sold!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can see both sides of this issue. My parents have no problem with the computers for basic uses. My mom needs help more than my dad but if you tell her once, then she is ok.

On the other hand, one time about 10 years ago, I used a friends computer to print out a flier that I had made for a nightclub promotion. The name of the file had a cuss word in it. I forgot that I had copied it to the desktop to print it and the parents freaked. They were only a little bit mad about the cuss word. They thought I had put a virus on their machine because I changed the Desktop. They threatened to call the cops and try to have me kicked out of college. I calmly went it over there, explained that it was only a picture, and right clicked and erased it.

Until that point, I never realized that some people didn't know that you could place files on the Desktop of a computer.

</comment><comment><USER12> All the people defending the iPad as "the computer for the average person" are missing one important point. Those of us upset about the iPad being a highly restricted device, rather than an Apple tablet netbook, are not upset because it is targeted to a different audience. We are not upset because we will not be "the needed geek" anymore (I bet most are actually quite happy about that).

No. The problem is that Apple did not release anything else. They did not release a product for "professionals." Thus, some, perhaps many, IT people are upset because they were looking forward to a useful tool, and instead got a toy for mom.

edit: And I want to add, there is no sign at all that an Apple tablet netbook will ever be released. Many people are frightened that the iPad represents where Apple is going for _all_ of their product line.

</comment><comment><USER13> Somehow I don't think that learning how to operate a unique proprietary user interface(iPad) will help people to operate a real desktop computer. While it may temporary help to boost users self confidence in using a computer it will only serve as a fallback after the inevetable frustrations with a full UI.

What is realy apsent from the mind of older generations is the idea that computers are just tools, albeit imensly powerfull ones, and as with all tools we need time and especially motivation to learn how to use them.

Personally, I don't give a damm how my car works but I had to learn how to use it to get form one place to another and it would certainly be much harder to do it if every other car had a radically diferent set of controlls.

<comment><USER14> But why would all these people need a "real desktop computer"? People need to read their emails, browse their facebooks, store and browse their images... And most of them will get all this done easier with a simpler device than a "real" computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> One problem that I don't think the iPad's defenders are acknowledging is Joel Splosky's "Law of Leaky Abstractions" -- [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html) .

Of course, the ideal is to leak minimally; Apple has always been good at that, but very bad at allowing anyone past the abstraction in the event that it breaks down. I believe the analogy is "sports cars with their hoods welded shut."

<comment><USER16> In what ways do you expect the iPad to have problems with this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> On making people feel like idiots... do we still need KatMouse* on Windows 7?

* <http://ehiti.de/katmouse/>

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't think many people who have grown up using computers struggle with basic file system concepts, installing programs or using office applications. Maybe we have reached the stage where a basic understanding of computing, along with basic numeracy and literacy, is necessary to function in modern society?

<comment><USER16> I don't find this to be the case. Very very few non-techy people I know (young or old) have a decent grasp of the file system, enough to have any confidence in using it beyond dumping a few files into a folder, if even that. People who use computers all day long in an office setting have issues with it. Kids who use "Internet stuff" all day have issues, too -- because they never have to deal with it, normally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This post is reminiscent of The Design of Everyday things. A book that receives much praise but really annoyed me. Not so much the message, but the way it was written.

</comment><comment><USER20> Sure. They should take it for granted. </sarcasm>

</comment><comment><USER21> Another addition:

My grandmother just played a Wii for the first time. Now my Grandmother has NEVER seen the thrill of video games since she first saw them 16 years ago. I mean she had no desire to play any whatsoever. When she saw me with the Wii she actually said "looks like fun, can I try?" and we played a game of bowling on the Wii. She didn't quite get the buttons but the motions she did and she had an absolute blast.

Its all about interaction with the computer, and letting people interact with it in a natural way. Geeks care about "multitasking" on a computer, non-geeks care about their computers always running at top speed for any application they use. They don't care that you can have 100 windows open at a given time, just the fact that 1 is open and works well and they'll close it an open another. How many people here enjoy the fact that the blackberry allows multi- tasking and you have to spend time worrying about background processes sucking up your cpu?

I think this is the reason why the chrome os has tons of potential.</comment>


Automation Alone Isn't Killing Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/business/automation-alone-isnt-killing-jobs.html <comment><USER2> I don't get the "back in my grandpappy's day the steam engines left and we still survivded" notion that automation is not killing jobs. Most everybody was employable back in the 1820s. Simply because of the fact that there was no automation. Train took your horse carriage job? Go work in the fields.

If all department stores adopted automated cashiers, the cashier as a retail option as we know it is dead. Killed.

If all farms adopt tractors and automatic harvesting machines, the crop picker option as we know it is dead. Killed.

Etc. Etc.

There will come a time when we can conceive of a new task to be completed, while simultaneously sketching up the automatic machine to complete the task.

In fact, this job-killing-automation already exists in the form of the latest and greatest production lines. They were not built to be filled with workers, only product.

<comment><USER3> You can still work in the fields if you want to. Farmers are finding lots of their crops withering away and dying at harvest time because we're doing too good a job of keeping illegal immigrants out. People just refuse the work.

<comment><USER4> I'm curious about that; do you have any references to data on this phenomenon and theories about the cause?

<comment><USER3> [http://m.siouxcityjournal.com/iowa-farm-labor-shortage- fuels...](http://m.siouxcityjournal.com/iowa-farm-labor-shortage-fuels- immigrant- debate/article_db32e2b7-d390-5423-8804-ab2e2a6ec341.html?mobile_touch=true)

[http://www.cnbc.com/id/48725145](http://www.cnbc.com/id/48725145)

[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3996502/](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3996502/)

[http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324866904578513...](http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324866904578513510141995612?mobile=y)

[http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/02/15/2830734/farm- labor-...](http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/02/15/2830734/farm-labor- shortages-spread-across.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bit of an awkward narrative. Has that undergrad "crank it out the night before its due" quality to it. Lots of words, none of them really saying anything.

<comment><USER6> I feel like people upvoted this without reading it first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a throw-everything-and-see-what-sticks... kind of article. Financial crisis, long term unemployment stigma, business cycle, technology, demographics, all crammed into 1 page, and doesn't really answer its own question. A very frustrating read.

</comment><comment><USER8> "There is also a special problem for some young men, namely those with especially restless temperaments. They aren't always well-suited to the new class of service jobs, like greeting customers or taking care of the aged, which require much discipline or sometimes even a subordination of will."

Did the above line from the article strike anyone else as flagrantly sexist?

<comment><USER9> Let's try a little exercise in reversing the problem:

"There is also a special problem for some young women, namely those with especially docile temperaments. They aren't always well-suited to professional careers, like making hard sales or managing grown men, which require much confidence and sometimes even exercising authority."

Yes, dripping with it.

Although more condescending than outright sexist. I'm guessing the author comes from a privileged background.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Automation has always been an interesting topic to me. I wrote my upper level paper in law school on automation for a labor law class. Unless something has changed recently, the Supreme Court hasn't really addressed whether intentional "job killing" from automation qualifies as anti-union activity. The last time the Court did talk much about it the new cool technology was cold type setting.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> We're getting mixed messages as to if automation is slowly killing more jobs than it creates. I think low level knowledge worker 'paper-shuffling' jobs are on the way out but where to from here? What's out role as coders as we disrupt industry by industry?

<comment><USER11> This article seems to argue that automation isn't killing jobs, it's just killing jobs for a certain type of people, nudge nudge. It then proceeds to go pretty much nowhere with the thought.

I can't figure out if this is some political propaganda piece or just thrown together by someone who can't put together a coherent argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem of automation is it shifts the allocation of production from labor to capital. Compounding this the owners of capital are not spending their allocation on activities that employs low skilled human labour (e.g. if a billionaire's income goes up 10 times over a decade then he does not employee 10x as many maids). The general trend is to push down the demand for low skilled jobs and hence wages.

</comment><comment><USER13> Automation doesn't "kill jobs" at all.

I'm tired of news articles that try to pass of "jobs" as some sort of discrete, easily quantifiable units. "Over a million jobs are being shipped to china", "12,000 jobs created", etc.

That's not how labor works. Or at least, it's a useless and misleading way of thinking about labor.

Sometimes automation makes a certain type of labor irrelevant. Those laborers need to find a new job (which possibly involves retooling) or starve (or, today, live off some sort of welfare or charitable income).

We are not even close to simply having no labor left that needs doing by humans. That's the only way you can really "kill" jobs; replace all human labor altogether. Otherwise, humans will just move to whatever they're still good at. Because of automation, the world will _always_ be able to support those new jobs. The market will force this to be the case.

<comment><USER14> You are missing the point of the automation discussion.

The problem is that the jobs that are left for those without a tech degree of some sort aren't appreciated by the market and is forcing salaries down way below what is possible to live off. Wallmart is a much more accurate way to look at what automation does.

<comment><USER15> _...forcing salaries down way below what is possible to live off._

This is an exaggeration. It may be forcing salaries below the level necessary to support US middle class consumption levels, but there is a huge gap between that and "possible to live off". Where I live, even the middle class don't live in homes with 2 rooms/person or own a car (unlike poor people in the US).

A full time minimum wage job pays $14,500/year. GDP/capita (adjusted for purchasing power) in Bulgaria is $14,100. In Brazil it's $11,700, here in India it's $3800, and in Haiti it's $1200. Yet people continue to live.

(These numbers are adjusted for purchasing power, so don't argue that it's cheaper to live over here.)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\)_per_capita)

<comment><USER14> Could you live on 14.500 a year? That 1400USD a month. If you have kids good luck with that.

50 years ago GM was the biggest job creator in the country. Average hourly wage was quite good to live off.

Today Wallmart is the biggest and many workers need extra help from the goverment to even make it.

The problem is very real.

<comment><USER15> I live on well under $1400/month now. For a while I was living in a 400rs/night hostel and spending about 600-700rs/day. Billions of my fellow human beings live on considerably less than that.

If you want to argue that wages are not high enough to sustain the moving goalposts of US middle class life, do it. But do it honestly and acknowledge that the main problem is that the definition of "middle class" (or whatever term you want to use) has risen more rapidly than low skill wages.

Using phrases like "possible to live off" is simply a lie. If it were true then I should be surrounded by over a billion dying people and I should be dead myself.

Check your privilege, dude.

<comment><USER14> Oh please.

Billions of your fellow human beings do not live in New York or SF or in the US for that matter. Comparing with other countries is so misinformed it's not even worth taking serious.

If you want to play with rethorics be my guest. You very well know what I mean and is just trying to dodge the real issue here.

Most people once they move out of their early twenties have obligations bigger than themselves. Sure some people can choose to live for 1400/month but most people can't and therefore the government is stepping in to help.

Maybe you don't have a problem with that. I do.

<comment><USER15> _Billions of your fellow human beings do not live in New York or SF or in the US for that matter_

If only I were smart enough to have thought of that. Then I might have cited PPP-adjusted numbers rather than nominal ones. I'd have said this: "GDP/capita (adjusted for purchasing power) in Bulgaria is $14,100...here in India it's $3800"

If I were really smart, I might also have anticipated your dishonest response and said this: "These numbers are adjusted for purchasing power, so don't argue that it's cheaper to live over here."

[edit: It's amusing that in your response you bring up food. Fun fact: poor people over here aren't fat. You really need to leave the US at some point in your life. Canada and the UK don't count.]

<comment><USER14> Did you adjust by state? Did you look at what kind of food you can get when you have what ever is left after rent etc for 1400 per month. So yeah if only you where so smart to have done that then you might have a point. But you didn't so you don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The original conference paper upon which the NYT article is based: [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/projects/bpea/spring%202014...](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/projects/bpea/spring%202014/2014a_krueger)

</comment><comment><USER17> My beef with this piece: automation probably isn't the only thing killing jobs, but it's the only thing that the author provides any evidence of having a causal role in driving job losses. Everything else mentioned (e.g. the financial crisis) is a sort of catalyst for labour market changes or a red herring.

I mean, if a dude gets shot and dies, we tend not to argue too much about whether it was the bullet that killed him, or the corresponding massive blood loss.

</comment><comment><USER10> Automation has never killed jobs, only dis[re]placed them.

<comment><USER9> That is only true if you see jobs as statistics, not as activities carried out by actual human beings.

<comment><USER10> designing, producing, selling, installing, operating, and maintaining automation are activities carried out by actual human beings

<comment><USER18> How many of those jobs can be done by a dull person? Consider someone smart enough not to be classified as disabled, but not smart enough to do more than semi-skilled labor under supervision.

They used to have factory jobs. These have been automated.

Agriculture is increasingly automated.

We are finding ways to build our systems around fewer and fewer people. More capable people are fighting further down the food chain.

Do we just throw people who can't adapt on disability? That's what we did for the group below them, after all. (Who themselves, mind you, we're once capable of being functional members of society, even if they needed help and we're often exploited.)

<comment><USER10> it doesn't automatically follow that "finding ways to build our systems around fewer and fewer people" in a SPECIFIC area = a system for fewer and fewer people. What if the journey to automation elevated job positions to something far greater than if the job had remained off-limits to automation?

<comment><USER14> You are grabbing for straws now.

The whole point of technology is to increase production output. To do more with less.

This might open up new areas but it doesn't follow at all either. And unless you can point to something like the semiconductor revolution it's hard to see what you are referring to.

<comment><USER10> I don't feel like I'm reaching at all. I feel like I'm describing a pretty general truth.

Job A gets replaced by Automation 1.0. Automation 1.0 required the labor of Jobs B, C, and D to become a reality. Now, not only can Jobs B, C, and D become greatly automated but Automation A is going to eventually lead to Automation 2.0 which led to Jobs E, F, and G being created. Within one generation of the death of Job A, six other jobs were created.

You're arguing that specialization isn't opened up but someone specialized in something enough (robotics, AI, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, something) to lead to the automation in the first place.

<comment><USER14> That's not a general truth at all. Thats the point. There is no data that shows that new jobs are created to replace those lost by automation. So not it's not a general truth at all.

<comment><USER10> How in the world did the automation become a reality without at least one new job having come into creation? Replacement is at least guaranteed (not obviously analogous by hours or skills required). The question is can we say that more now jobs exist (although they might not need filling or lead to the displaced workers finding new work).

<comment><USER14> Because at the same time new markets where liberalized. In fact it was a major part of the US doctrine since second world war. To open up new markets for American companies which they have done very successfully.

You could have jobs for everyone if you just gave them 50 cent an hour so no that is not question as it's missing the point.

I find the continued apologetic nature of your and some others argument amazing. Technology does not create more jobs than it destroys it help create new markets.

But at the same time it removes jobs from the middle class and leaves only either high tech jobs or Wallmart like jobs in the US (and europe)

If you think that is a sustainable model and proves that the market works just fine I think you are mistaken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think there is this big confusion about jobs and money. And that the psychological view is overlooked.

We want to feel important. And we want freedom to do whatever we want to do.

While automation gives more freedom, it makes us feel less important? What we can do with a washing machine, everyone else can do too. But the question is, do they want to?

With more automation we will see more and more services. And even more possibilities.

</comment><comment><USER20> Did anyone actually think that automation was the only thing killing jobs? And then you read it and find that the title has only a small portion to do with the actual content.

Coming from an economist (a professor at least), I'd expect a little bit more positive economic analysis and objectivity. This reads more like a sociology commentary.

</comment><comment><USER21> Boo! lame article.</comment>


Ask HN: Any HN meetups in Greater Boston Area? WebInno anyone? - <AUTHOR>

I was wondering if there were any regular meetups from HN in the Greater Boston Area?   Is anyone planning on attending the WebInno event on July 15th (www.webinnovatorsgroup.com)?
I'm particularly interested in meeting with experienced Perl hackers (details in my profile).
Any other casual or formal meetups besides WebInno in the area that people know about?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> There's nothing HN specific, but there's an OpenCoffee group for startup-types that meets Wednesday mornings, 9:00 AM, at Andala Coffeehouse in Central Square (Cambridge). Good crowd and good discussion there.

Lots of good stuff on Meetup.com, and you can find a ton of tech-related networking events on: <http://MarksGuide.com>

See you at WebInno.

</comment><comment><USER3> While not HN specific, there are a few regular web meetups north of Boston. North Shore Web Geeks (<http://northshorewebgeeks.com/>) in Newburyport happens the third Thursday of every month. Build Guild (<http://www.buildguild.org/>) in Salem happens the second Tuesday of every month.

</comment><comment><USER4> One time I was coding at the 1369 Coffeehouse in Central Square, and some guy came by and asked if I was there for the Hacker News meetup. I said I wasn't, but that I'd be quite interested. I'm not sure who organized that or if they have plans on organizing more. Any clues?

</comment><comment><USER5> See previous discussion <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=217274>

Hope to meet everyone at WebInno.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'll be presenting at Webinno!</comment>


Obama, NSA, Verizon and DoJ sued for $3B over PRISM - <AUTHOR> http://www.scribd.com/doc/146930457/PRISM-Class <comment><USER2> By Larry Klayman, of Judicial Watch; a fringe political group just a tier above Orly Taitz. Read his history (he was all over the spotlight in the '90s during the Clinton administration) before jumping to the conclusion that this is the start of something meaningful.

<comment><USER3> As a Canadian who is seriously concerned about this political issue in your country which affects me, I have to ask, why are you bringing character into this? And also, why does his character matter if the intentions are good?

<comment><USER4> I'm assuming he's referring to his motive rather than character as (from what I've read), the person in question likes to chase issues the public is currently outraged about.

If he's able to follow this through, it really doesn't matter WHO is bringing the suit to light, but if his motive is weak then I would assume that he may not be as committed to follow-through on this as someone who is doing it from a principled standpoint.

<comment><USER5> >the person in question likes to chase issues the public is currently outraged about.

Sounds like a good strategy. What good is it to invest resources chasing an issue that you can't make anyone care about?

<comment><USER6> It's more a question of whether or not he can actually make a difference. Good lawyers don't take bad cases. Bad lawyers take cases that are unwinnable and make money from the gullible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The fact that a former DOJ prosecutor is pursuing this is a very good sign. I am very happy that it's someone whose credentials cannot be called into question.

I still think it stands no chance at all but it's great to see it happening. I wonder what would stop say a good 2/3 of the country from jumping in on this case? I know I haven't personally used Verizon as I don't have a contract with them but I'm sure my calls have been snooped on since I can't help but call people who do have Verizon contracts.

<comment><USER2> This kind of sums up HN's analysis of what's happening for me: a comment that says Larry Klayman's credentials cannot be called into question.

Sorry for singling you out.

<comment><USER7> So I should have made a comment that had a greater depth of thought to it? If you want to tell me that I'm wrong go right ahead. But could you at least tell me why I'm wrong?

EDIT ADDED THIS: Also I guess I think that his credentials -- in this case -- are a big deal. Anyone can sue anyone for anything at all and it's up to the courts to quash all the bullshit lawsuits. Since lawsuits cost money to file (if you're not a lawyer) or time (which is money if you are a lawyer) the millions and billions of frivolous lawsuits that could be filed generally aren't. Obviously this guy could be filing a totally bogus lawsuit just for the publicity but that scenario seems much more likely if he wasn't a former DOJ lawyer.

EDIT AGAIN: Just saw that this guy's deal is nuisance lawsuits. Bummer. I was hoping this was a real thing that would get legs.

<comment><USER8> Not to put words in his mouth, but I think tptacek is referring to how credulous this site can become when it's something they feel passionate about. You said that the credibility of the petitioner here "could not be called into question" when it quite obviously can. You were just one example of this trait, but you were the highest rated one.

Also, there's this ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#Federal_sov...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#Federal_sovereign_immunity)), which should immediately occur to anyone who follows legal stuff in even the most passing fashion. Generally speaking, you can't sue the President over anything related to his work.

<comment><USER9> There are lots of waivers to sovereign immunity, some routinely granted by the courts (for injunctive relief) and some granted by Congress. There are specific waivers relating to law enforcement abuses, particularly for abuses of search and seizure powers, written into the law but I won't speculate as to whether they apply.

For those following sovereign immunity issues, the recent Millbrook v. United States should come to mind right away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Please change the obviously-incorrect title. PRISM is not involved in this suit.

The suit is about the gathering of Verizon metadata.

PRISM, as it has been publically alleged, has nothing to do with this. PRISM is an alleged program that involves SiVa tech companies, and involves spending $20 M to magically ingest, sort, and dispense basically all the traffic of half a dozen of the biggest IT companies in the world. (In case my bias wasn't clear, I don't think that's possible to do with $20M.)

Note that the word "prism" appears nowhere in the legal document. Because Larry Klayman has the basic literacy skills to keep apples and oranges distinct, unlike the scribd uploader.

</comment><comment><USER11> Former AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) or not, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client". Might be entertaining though. He may at least get a headline or two when it is thrown out, which will be good because this whole thing will die from the headlines in about a week, and the vast majority of Americans will go back to being blissfully ignorant.

</comment><comment><USER12> I stopped reading at "Barack Hussein Obama." That name is the clearest signal of ideological intellectual dishonesty that I've yet found.

<comment><USER13> Is it not customary to use someone's full name when naming them in a lawsuit? Or are you not aware that this is the US President's legal name?

<comment><USER14> Obama has been subject to some rather curious use of and emphasis on his middle name by his political opponents, largely in connection to implicit or even explicit conspiracy theories that he's secretly a Muslim. If you ever hear someone do it, you'll notice immediately -- the "Barack" and the "Obama" will be quieter and come out very quickly, while the "Hussein" will be spoken loudly, clearly, slowly, and often with emphatic pause before and after, to draw attention to it.

This has the lingering effect of tarnishing the credibility of anyone who uses his full name even for innocent purposes.

For a while during the 2008 campaign it was a bit of a meme to do the same to McCain ("John SIDNEY McCain") and imply that he was secretly Australian, as a way of pointing out how ridiculous the whole thing was.

<comment><USER15> It's Obama's own fault. During the election campaign when the audience was more sympathetic to minorities issues, anti-war, etc. he used to actually proudly state his middle name. I.e. when visiting Arab counties during his first term he used to emphasize 'Hussein' like in each and every speech he gave. Then when back at home, especially talking to more right-wing minded electorate he doesn't mention it at all, and when somebody asks pretends to be seriously offended.

You can's have it both ways Mr. Peace Nobel Price Spying Americans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Pretty amusing, although it's (obviously) going to be thrown out.

<comment><USER17> Why do you think it will obviously be thrown out? (I'm not being argumentative; I'm really curious, though I didn't read the entire legal document.)

<comment><USER18> For starters, it names the President as a defendant EDIT: originally was plaintiff, dunno how that happened. Thanks

<comment><USER19> You mean as a defendant? Nothing stops you from suing the President in his capacity as a public official. The usual remedy, though, is an injunction, but under Bivens you can seek damages (as is being done here).

E.g. Rasul v. George W. Bush ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush)).

<comment><USER16> The usual remedy (like 99% of the time) is the case being thrown out ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd say it's safe to say that Klayman is 'functionally insane.'

[http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/klayman-jews-behind- ga...](http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/klayman-jews-behind-gay-marriage- irs-scandal)

It's a very reasoned argument he makes, the one where Jews are to blame for gay marriage.

No. No, it's actually not. It's pretty crazy. It sucks that this is the first lawsuit.

<comment><USER21> I had never heard of this guy before this thread, but the original article cites Joe Bidan claiming Jewish industry leaders brought about changing perceptions of gay marriage:

> Indeed, just last week, Vice President Joe Biden praised so-called Jewish > leaders in Hollywood and elsewhere for promoting gay marriage and other > leftist causes, stating at a reception hosted by the Democratic National > Committee, "Think of all that. I bet you 85 percent of those changes, > whether its in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders > in the industry. The influence is immense ... and I might add, it is all to > the good."

The article you cite removes this context and starts quoting at the very next paragraph, as if the Klayman guy is just saying it, rather than repeating Biden. (He may very well be saying it himself, I'm not familiar with him, but that kind of misrepresentation should be called out in any case.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Remember, you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you. If the powers that be decide that they are immune, then they are. If they decide to give immunity to Verizon for complying with government orders then poof! they have immunity. It's a noble idea, but the courts will not solve this issue. I think ultimately the government will not be able to fix itself, one branch cannot fix another branch.

<comment><USER19> Yes and no. Sovereign immunity is more complex than you're making it out to be, and cannot be delegated, either to public officials or to companies.

<comment><USER22> Rayiner, you're confusing legal concepts with reality. Remember that AT&T was granted immunity by Congress for the room 641A fiasco. So even if you can't meet the legal standards for sovereign immunity the system will still protect itself. Nobody is going to jail for this except for Snowden.

<comment><USER19> You're handwaving, throwing around terms in a paranoid fit. AT&T was granted immunity for violations of FISA by Congress. It was FISA that created the basis for the suit against AT&T in the first place, so it was just Congress making something not illegal that it had made illegal. In bad taste, but not anything that has to do with sovereign immunity or inherent immunity from suits.

I don't think Snowden should go to prison, but if he does it's because he's the only one who did anything illegal. There's nothing illegal, under the FISA Amendments Act, about AT&T or Verizon sharing the information they collect about your usage of their networks. The default presumption is that you're allowed to share information in your possession, unless restricted by some law. HIPAA protects medical records, FERPA protects educational records, etc, and FISA/ECPA protects electronic communications in certain circumstances, but the monitoring programs here, as far as we know, are written to avoid running up against these laws.

<comment><USER22> Who's throwing around terms? I'm not the one who works at a law firm. I didn't bring up FISA, HIPPA, or FERPA here. I was just stating it like it is, which you in your roundabout way have confirmed: The system isn't going to fix itself, and nobody is going to jail except Edward Snowden.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why is Bush missing from this?

<comment><USER24> > Why is Bush missing from this?

Because its not a real lawsuit that is intended to win, its a propaganda piece designed to get attention for the theory that the Verizon metadata capture is an act targetted against Obama's domestic political opponents, which is why the suit highlights the named defendants (including the one who is also the attorney filing the case) strident criticisms of the President as the _basis_ for the conclusion that they were surveilled (not just their metadata, but their actual conversations) by the NSA as part of the program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Quick search for telecom immunity shows me that hn forgot that Verizon, et al are exempt from such prosecutions after the GOP pushed for said immunity in the late aughts. That was a good fight the dems put up against this sort of thing, but alas. Not to mention the fact that no laws seem to have been broken, only the heart of a libertarian redditor.

</comment><comment><USER26> Its going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Its an exciting episode in the new technological age of 'freedom of speech'

</comment><comment><USER27> oh come on, if you're going to sue Obama, NSA, Verizon, and DoJ, go for broke: $TEXAS.

</comment><comment><USER28> Um ... for PRISM, shouldn't they be suing Google, Facebook, Apple, etc?

<comment><AUTHOR> Google, Face, Apple, etc have to comply with law enforcement, so the point of the lawsuit is to end the program that's forcing them to cooperate under such vague circumstances.

</comment></comment><comment> jack-r-abbit Perfect. And then when they lose and need to pay a bunch of lawyers $3B, someone will go shake the money tree and a bunch of tax payers will fall out to foot the bill.

<comment><USER29> If that bothers the taxpayers, then perhaps they should be more careful in the voting booths next time.

<comment><USER30> I don't see where Director of the NSA appears on the ballot in my jurisdiction.

<comment> jack-r-abbit ...or anyone at the DoJ ...or the guy from Verizon. Basically the only person in there anyone voted for was Obama. And even then it was barely 50% of the country. I'm beginning to think this isn't a voter issue.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Mechanical keyboards for programming - <AUTHOR> What are the best mechanical keyboards for programming currently available in market?<p>I've got my eyes on the Das Prime 13. <comment><USER2> It depends on your taste, and where will this be located.

As an ancedote, I got the Das Keyboard brought it to work. I literally felt daggers in my back. Until I was kindly asked to remove the keyboard as it was disturbing the work environment. So keep in mind the sound it outputs. When I worked tech support, everyone had mechanical keyboards so sound wasn't an issue.

I remedied this by getting

[http://matias.ca/quietpro/pc/](http://matias.ca/quietpro/pc/)

At home I used the Unicomp which is buckling spring instead of switch. This is by far my favorite keyboard I've used. [https://www.pckeyboard.com/](https://www.pckeyboard.com/)

My friend has a Kinesis, and constantly tells me it's helped his hands significantly. [https://www.kinesis- ergo.com/shop/advantage2/](https://www.kinesis-ergo.com/shop/advantage2/)

So how much resistance do you want, a solid click feel, and audible sound? Something older fashioned. Do you need backlight, ports, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> Factors to keep in mind:

1\. are you comfortable with remapping keys? I use AHK in Windows and Karabiner in mac.

2\. mac/pc? I use the context menu key next to AltGr in Winodws for correcting spelling mistakes without reaching for mouse.

3\. are you a touch typist? In that case avoid back lit. This really adds for unnecessary expense.

4\. Is numpad important? Das Keyboard without numpad are on sell. I prefer this to enter lot of data in Excel and also it can be used for remapping using AHK for various task.

5\. switches? Would you like to annoy your coworkers with blue switch?

6\. do you want to carry your keyboard wherever you go? Das also sell keyboard as heavy as 3 kg.

7\. are multimedia keys important?

8\. Wire/Wireless?

9\. Das ultimate keyboard also act as USB 3.0 hub along with normal keyboard. If your laptop does not have enough UBS ports for your need then you may want to go with it.

10\. Would you Touch pad in your keyboard instead of numpad? I have seen such Logitech keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm rocking a keyboard called Mathias Quiet Pro. As far as the feel goes, if my blue switch CM storm gaming keyboard gets an A grade, the Quiet Pro is like an A-.

The Quiet Pro is barely a hair louder than the average membrane keyboard. I work in an open office and I wouldn't dream of using any other mechanical keyboard at work.

</comment><comment><USER5> I bought a Rosewill mechanical keyboard[1] (Cherry MX) about a year ago. People claim it's the best bang for your buck.

A few weeks ago, I spilled tea on it. While it was drying, I switched back to my Logitech K310 washable keyboard[2]. My enjoyment and productivity on the K310 are exactly the same, and I won't be switching back to the mechanical keyboard because it's not waterproof.

YMMV.

1\. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00UBQZPXK/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00UBQZPXK/)

2\. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008D1JRIO/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008D1JRIO/)

</comment><comment><USER6> I recommend you figure out what kind of switches you like and then pick the best keyboard with those switches. They all have different features, e.g. 3.5mm jack,usb hub, high n-key rollover, etc. I dumped my razor as soon as it wanted me to log in to use my macro keys. I bought a lesser known brand based on features and have been quite happy with it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp46JeDDTCw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp46JeDDTCw)

I like the red switches myself. The blue switches will annoy your coworkers.

</comment><comment><USER7> I bought a Cooler Master Quickfire Rapid with Cherry MX Blues in it. I also purchased a Frosty Flake custom controller for it. Along with some software I have a fully programmable board.

[http://1upkeyboards.com/product_info.php?products_id=246](http://1upkeyboards.com/product_info.php?products_id=246)

[http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=51252.0](http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=51252.0)

</comment><comment><USER8> * Razer BlackWidow Stealth Gaming keyboards for FPS and MOBA Gaming || [http://www.razerzone.com/store/blackwidow-stealth-switch](http://www.razerzone.com/store/blackwidow-stealth-switch)

I love this.

Good marketing video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC93-h3nprs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC93-h3nprs)

</comment><comment><USER9> Personally, I would favor any mechanical with dedicated mute and volume control. Use. Them. All. The. Time.

Also, I'm not sure how good it is for your health to have WHITE backlight. A warmer color would probably be better.

If you are going to use it in a office, then go with a quieter switch, such as the Cherry MX Brown.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've had the original Das Keyboard for 7 or so years and it works just as well as when it was new. I use it heavily, too. I tend to beat on a keyboard (literally) a few times a week, along with the usual 40+ hours of normal use per week.

</comment><comment><USER11> I use a Matias QuietPro (mac version).

Got the quiet because my home office is used by my fiance as well and wanted to try and keep it to a reasonable sound level

Fantastic keyboard, love using it.

</comment><comment><USER12> Unicomp Model M. [https://www.pckeyboard.com](https://www.pckeyboard.com)

</comment><comment><USER13> Kinesis Advantage</comment>


I showed leaked NSA slides at Purdue, so feds demanded the video be destroyed - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/i-showed-leaked-nsa-slides-at-purdue-so-feds-demanded-the-video-be-destroyed/ <comment><USER2> This has some great stuff:

> I might have seen trouble coming. One of the first questions in the Q&A that > followed my talk was:

> "In the presentation you just gave, you were showing documents that were > TS/SCI [top secret, sensitive compartmented information] and things like > that. Since documents started to become published, has the NSA issued a > declass order for that?"

> I took the opportunity to explain the government's dilemmas when classified > information becomes available to anyone with an Internet connection. "These > documents, by and large, are still classified," I said. "And in many cases, > if you work for the government and you have clearance, you're not allowed to > go look at them… Now, it's perfectly rational for them to say, we're not > going to declassify everything that gets leaked because otherwise we're > letting someone else decide what's classified and what's not. But it gets > them wound up in pretty bad knots."

> My remarks did not answer the question precisely enough for one post- > doctoral research engineer. He stood, politely, to nail the matter down.

> "Were the documents you showed tonight unclassified?" he asked.

> "No. They're classified still," I replied.

> "Thank you," he said and resumed his seat.

> Eugene Spafford, a Purdue professor of computer science who has held high > clearances himself, wrote to me afterward. "We have a number of 'junior > security rangers' on faculty and staff who tend to be 'by the book.' > Unfortunately, once noted, that is something that cannot be unnoted."

> Sure enough, someone filed a report with the above-mentioned Information > Assurance Officer, who reported in turn to Purdue's representative at the > Defense Security Service. By the terms of its Pentagon agreement, Purdue was > officially obliged to be _shocked to find that spillage is going on_ at a > talk about Snowden and the NSA. Three secret slides, covering perhaps five > of my 90 minutes on stage, required that video be wiped in its entirety.

> This was, I think, a rather devout reading of the rules. (Taken literally, > the rules say Purdue should also have notified the FBI. I do not know > whether that happened.) A more experienced legal and security team might > have taken a deep breath and applied the official guidance to "realistically > consider the potential harm that may result from compromise of spilled > information."</comment>


In Argentina it is now unconstitutional to punish for marijuana - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8221599.stm

<comment><USER2> "Personal use decriminalization" is a farce. Imagine if possessing a cup of coffee remained perfectly legal, but anyone found with a box of coffee beans were presumed to be a dealer and sentenced to hard labor.

<comment><USER3> Decriminalizing supply is impossible under current international treaties. But hopefully the farcical nature of this situation will open up the popular debate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hurray for Argentina and Mexico. I hope the trend continues.

I give Obama accidental credit for this. I suspect these decriminalization efforts would not have been tried under a McCain administration. (And if they were tried, those countries would have been punished.)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm happing to see this is maybe becoming a trend (Mexico sort of decriminalized marijuana for personal use recently). The war on drugs has done much damage already.

<comment><USER3> Portugal has also been getting a fair bit of press lately for their ongoing experiment. They decriminalized the possession of all drugs way back in July 2000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Each adult is free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state." I agree in principle, but the reality is people's lifestyle choices can impact the state - whether it be they turn to the government health systems to help break their addictions (I write this from UK where we have socialised healthcare) or crime rates go up, and the state has to increase the police force. There are so many issues, but it's interesting to see a government taking a more progressive attitude towards casual marijuana use.

</comment><comment><USER7> In South America more people are killed by drunk drivers that stoned drivers.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just to show that law is open to interpretation from many countries.</comment>


Wiener Gut-and-Amend Bill reduces ballot measure transparency - <AUTHOR> https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/19/walters-bill-reduces-ballot-measure-transparency/ <comment><AUTHOR> Related article from the Daily Post:

[https://padailypost.com/2019/06/17/sen-wiener-uses-gut- and-a...](https://padailypost.com/2019/06/17/sen-wiener-uses-gut-and-amend- maneuver-to-introduce-legislation-to-help-move-housing-projects-along-sb50-is- still-on-hold/)</comment>


Edlib – a library for building a document editor - <AUTHOR> http://blog.neil.brown.name/2015/07/edlib-because-one-more-editor-is-never-enough/ <comment><AUTHOR> Recent presentation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjfHEGeqpIY&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjfHEGeqpIY&feature=youtu.be)

GitHub (with a very interesting readme) [https://github.com/neilbrown/edlib](https://github.com/neilbrown/edlib)

A comment mentioning edlib: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11244405](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11244405)

</comment><comment><USER2> One of the best written blogs out there. This guy should be writing books - they would be hilarious and informative.</comment>


Infographic illustrating the current state of digital marketing technology - <AUTHOR> http://cdn.chiefmartec.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/marketing_technology_jan2014.png

<comment><AUTHOR> Also for some more context, you can watch a talk here

Scott Brinker - The Golden Age of Marketing Software

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMTb0WoR5vw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMTb0WoR5vw)</comment>


Advice From An Old Programmer - <AUTHOR> http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/advice.html <comment><USER3> Edw's comment aside, I can understand being bored with programming. After you learn your way around a dozen or so different platforms, if you're not getting bored you might want to check to see if you don't have a bit of Asperger's.

But he nails it when he points out that all of this programming talk is bullshit. It's just stuff to chat mindlessly about while you're not helping people. Programming is making computers help people. Never forget that. The more you focus on the computers part, the unhappier you are going to be.

I will extend my analogy. If after the 50th article you read on HN about some upcoming technology you haven't figured out that something is wrong with your focus you should seek help. If you want theory, computer science is a great field to study. For the vast majority of us, it is not an end to itself.

It's all very easy to get good at critiquing Judy arrays and suck at making something people want. You can carry on like this for the rest of your life. Don't do that. You provide a bridge to the future for millions of people. Please, the rest of us need your help.

<comment><USER4> When I was 21, I thought the fun part was learning new technologies and the hard, frustrating, somewhat boring part was writing the code. (I also only knew C++ and Java, so I thought the accidental complexity of these languages was an intrinsic fixture of programming.) Learning Python, then Ocaml, then Lisp, was a lot of fun. (The REPL makes a huge difference in the experience of programming. It makes the code _real_ rather than some hazy gobbledegook.) It was even better to start using these languages for real-world problems.

I'm 28 now and I find the writing of code to be the fun part, because I'm now good at it and know better technologies than C++ and Java. I get into "the zone" and before I know it, 4 hours have passed. Unfortunately, that's not the reality of industrial software engineering where, if you're lucky, 25% of your time might be spent writing code. Learning new platforms (often with so many of them that I can only learn enough to glue them together) is _often_ boring. It's fun to learn new technologies when there's something genuinely new in them, but I'm sick of having to learn new and often less useful ways of doing old things.

<comment><USER3> I love programming and find it very relaxing.

I would probably also like re-arranging chairs at a charity function. Or solving mathematical puzzles in books. I also love instrument flying, which is like real-time fluid dynamics where you die if you screw it up.

But I've come to understand that these are just properties of the types of people who grok computers -- detail-oriented, able to spend many hours in the zone, and in love with complexity. At some point, the "benefits" from this personality type become drawbacks. There are a lot of guys spending thousands of hours on code in their spare time that might help 3 people -- who are also programmers. I'm not saying this is a bad choice. It just seems to me like we programmers as a whole like trivial things and can spend most of our time on them as long as they tickle our analytic bone. Continuing my flying example, there have been cases of people flying airplanes into the sides of mountains in perfectly good weather while they were fiddling around with the flight computer. Many of us are doing the same thing -- only in very slow motion.

By the way, the fun part _is_ learning the technology. The hard part is working with people to make something they want -- which is why it's about a million times more important.

<comment><USER5> _By the way, the fun part is learning the technology. The hard part is working with people -- which is why it's about a million times more important._

That's very interesting, and indeed seems to mark a certain personality type. Most people would see that exactly the other way around, that working with people is fun and easy, but the technical stuff is hard and extremely frustrating.

It depends completely on your skill and what you're used to. Almost all people tend to think their own area of expertise is easier compared to others and don't understand why other people don't get it like they do (which has a simple answer: years of experience).

 _There are a lot of guys spending thousands of hours on code in their spare time that might help 3 people -- who are also programmers_

Nah, helping 3 people in your spare time is more than helping no one. You're right, if your goal is to help as many people as possible, programming isn't the right time sink. Better to sign up for some volunteer job. On the other hand, you could also be reading a book, playing a game or watching TV and helping exactly no one :)

Edit: and don't forget many non-programmers also spend their spare time on very trivial stuff. The problem is not exactly limited to technical people...

<comment><USER4> _That's very interesting, and indeed seems to mark a certain personality type. Most people would see that exactly the other way around, that working with people is fun and easy, but the technical stuff is hard and extremely frustrating._

Learning technology is fun _when it adds something new_. For example, if you know functional programming, then Gang-of-Four "design patterns" are completely useless cruft and not especially interesting to learn. It's painful to learn that sort of stuff when it's less powerful than what you already have and would be able to use in a better environment.

"Working with people" can be fun, to a point. It's enjoyable when there's no power relationship, or a symmetric one. What's difficult is the context-switch from programming to interpersonal communication. It takes some time.

<comment><USER6> The point is that different personality types enjoy different aspects of programming. For some people the technology itself is the fun part. For some its what you can accomplish with it. There is no right or wrong here.

<comment><USER5> Yes, exactly. I think it's overall too easy to call someone else's use of spare time "trivial" because we don't understand why it could be useful for them, or to other people. We're all limited by our skills and interests. If only we could all be world-savers doing work of great impact and help to every person on earth in our free time...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect. People who can code in biology, medicine, government, sociology, physics, history, and mathematics are respected and can do amazing things to advance those disciplines."

That is the best thing in his advice column.

It's hard to pull off though. I started programming at 5 and am at a skill level comparable to this poster, but I studied biology in college with an eye to doing exactly this sort of thing. Then I discovered that bio is a Ph.D's only club and that you cannot get any kind of job in the industry if you don't at least have a Masters'. I didn't want to do this for various reasons (money, not liking school), so I found myself back in IT/programming where the pay was 3X higher than what I could get in the bio world with a BS only.

<comment><USER8> With a degree in biology, even with no PhD, it's still vastly useful when paired with programming skills. You have a good high-level overview of the problems in the industry, and that's an important first step.

But it seems like in today's competitive market (especially when it comes to doing a startup), you need 2 degrees. Computer Science is not enough. It's just a set of tools but if you don't have a domain where you can apply those tools, it's useless. It's like knowing how to write. Great! if you don't got anything interesting to say, or expertise in a specific area, it's almost useless. Of course I guess you can write about writing, which is analogous to writing developer tools.

<comment><USER9> In the corporate world domain knowledge is more important for developers than technical knowledge. The complexity of real-wold domains (e.g. insurances, banking, ...) is amazing. For an experienced developer programming is the easy part of his job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Also a part of this problem is that many programmers are assholes. Going out to the world while thinking "im to smart for the rest of the world, tha hell with them" is just a big social failure in general. One need to be able to see things out of different perspectives, a bit more open minded. Just because a person like to do other things in life then CS-stuff, does not mean they are automatically stupid.

Programming is not everything in life as many would like to think. Handling different kinds of people in different kinds environments for example is much, much harder then learning how to code.

Connecting this all together has made up a history of non sympathetic people doing "the coding stuff" at the office where everyone else just stop caring about these guys cause you can't really talk to them. Now im just talking about the stereotype thats has been biting us in the ass for ages. Portrayed in media etc etc

This has been covered well in the beginning of the social network where Mark get lectured up by his girlfriend at the bar....

So really from experience, a good way out of this is not going to management, but just to "listen" to other people and open up your mind a bit...

/coder since age of 13, 29 years now, startup, the whole 9 yards

<comment><USER11> You're right, the real way to be an asshole and have people love you for it is to say:

"im too tough for the rest of the world, tha hell with them"

Because being smart and confident is just uppity, but being tough and confident is baller yo.

<comment><USER12> Nothing wrong with being smart, confident and/or tough.

It's being arrogant and snarky that upsets people.

(I'm not aiming this comment at anyone btw!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect" Generally in business, those people whose job title is 'programmer' or 'developer' or 'software engineer' get relatively little respect even with lots of experience. (I am 37 years old and programming since 12) Previously I thought the only way out of this is to become a 'manager', which I never really wanted to do... Recently I have discovered 'quantitative finance' which is a quite respected and interesting geek profession (with lots of math, which i like), and I am planning to transition into that in the long term. (Theoretically a relatively smooth transition is possible because there are 'quant developer' jobs out there.)

<comment><USER14> a) Is "respect" really so important to you that you are willing to sacrifice a 25 year career? Surely if the pay is good and you enjoy that's all that matters.

b) By switching professions to a more "respected/cool" one do you not think you're just contributing to the problem of programmers not being taken seriously?

<comment><USER15> > more "respected/cool"

By using "cool", I get the impression that you're thinking more about respect from people outside work, rather than those you are working with. I think the article was talking about respect from the people you work with and work under, in the sense that if you are not respected, then you likely won't get paid what you are worth. From the point of view, point (a) is a contradiction - if you are not respected by the company you work for, the pay won't be good.

<comment><USER16> Pay isn't that well correlated with respect.

Exhibit: The "starving artist" vs the "slimeball lawyer".

<comment><USER4> Whatever people say about "lawyers", people tend to have a lot of respect for _their_ lawyers. It's lawyers as an aggregate that people tend to stereotype.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > _"People who can code in biology, medicine, government, sociology, physics, > history, and mathematics are respected and can do amazing things to advance > those disciplines"_

True. I have a theoretical physics friend who's now applying a ton of machine- learning techniques to biophysics stuff (in an academic setting).

I've no idea exactly what he's doing other than he's _always_ snowed under and people keep coming back to him for more.

<comment><USER18> My favorite example of this is OsiriX[1], a GPL'd medical imaging (DICOM) viewer written by a radiologist who couldn't find existing software that did what he wanted. It's now an established part of the DICOM world.

[1] <http://www.osirix-viewer.com/Snapshots.html>

<comment><USER19> I have known people who started as programmers and became highly valued domain experts, so it works in the other way, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> When I read pieces like this, it reminds me there are many reasons for learning to code. Some learn just because the technology is interesting. This is a fine reason, but what's interesting today will not continue to be interesting tomorrow.

Some have learned to code because they want a steady job. This is an ok reason, but being an accountant, plumber, carpenter, or "running a fast food joint" has the same benefits.

The best reason to learn to code, and the reason I did, is because your head is full of..... stuff. Stuff that is always there, choking out simple thoughts like "I'm hungry" or "I'm tired". And the supply of stuff never runs dry, it constantly increases and overwhelms other thought and builds up immense pressure on the sides of your cranium until your head feels like it'll burst.

And the only way to relieve the pressure is to turn that stuff into code.

That's why you should be a programmer.

</comment><comment><USER21> Would have been a great article except for the last 3 paragraphs.

Instead, I like the letter from _why in this post: [http://delicious.com/redirect?url=http%3A//www.smashingmagaz...](http://delicious.com/redirect?url=http%3A//www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/05/15/why- a-tale-of-a-post-modern-genius/)

It goes:

I do not write tests for my code. I do not write very many comments. I change styles very frequently. And most of all, I shun the predominant styles of coding, because that would go against the very essence of experimentation. In short: all I do is muck around.

So, my way of measuring a great programmer is different from some prevailing thought on the subject. I would like to hear what Matz would say about this. You should ask him, seriously.

I admire programmers who take risks. They aren't afraid to write dangerous or "crappy" code. If you worry too much about being clean and tidy, you can't push the boundaries (I don't think!). I also admire programmers who refuse to stick with one idea about the "way the world is." These programmers ignore protocol and procedure. I really like Autrijus Tang because he embraces all languages and all procedures. There is no wrong way in his world.

Anyway, you say you want to become better. I mean that's really all you need. You feel driven, so stick with it. I would also start writing short scripts to share with people on the Web. Little Ruby scripts or Rails programs or MouseHole scripts to show off. Twenty lines here and there, and soon people will be beating you up and you'll be scrambling to build on those scripts and figure out your style and newer innovations and so on.

— _why

</comment><comment><USER22> "Finally, I'll say that learning to create software changes you and makes you different. Not better or worse, just different. You may find that people treat you harshly because you can create software, maybe using words like "nerd". Maybe you'll find that because you can dissect their logic that they hate arguing with you. You may even find that simply knowing how a computer works makes you annoying and weird to them."

This is very true, unfortunately being a programmer requires dedication, non- stop learning to keep up. And this can lead to a very lonely life in a way that you don't socialize too much by favoring what we love to do. If you live with a tech-oriented city you should be fine, but for the rest of us it sucks a little, knowing that most of your friend/relatives don't understand what you do, and why do we spent so much time in front of a screen.

</comment><comment><USER23> Thoughts from an Older Programmer...

 _I've been programming for a very long time._

Me too.

 _So long that it's incredibly boring to me._

Actually, it's more interesting to me than ever.

 _...I knew about 20 programming languages and could learn new ones in about a day to a week depending on how weird they were._

I have a cursory knowledge of quite a few myself. But I know one really, really well.

 _Eventually though this just became boring and couldn't hold my interest anymore._

That may be because you're too focused inwardly and not toward your users.

 _This doesn't mean I think programming is boring, or that you will think it's boring, only that I find it uninteresting at this point in my journey._

Not me, and I'll tell you why shortly...

 _What I discovered after this journey of learning is that it's not the languages that matter but what you do with them._

Yes!

 _Actually, I always knew that, but I'd get distracted by the languages and forget it periodically. Now I never forget it, and neither should you._

Yes fellow programmers, this is a trap! Even after 33 years of building stuff for my users, I'll have a day when I realize that it's already dinner time and I haven't done a damn productive thing all day long. Just played around for the fun of it. (This is not a bad idea every once in a while, just as long as you know its a trap, and eventually you have to get back to work. Do this for months and you can really lose your way.)

 _Which programming language you learn and use doesn't matter. Do not get sucked into the religion surrounding programming languages as that will only blind you to their true purpose of being your tool for doing interesting things._

Yes. I've made about 4,500 Hacker News comments, but I don't think I've ever participated in a language war. Fortunately, I instinctively knew that this was pretty much a waste of time for me.

 _Programming as an intellectual activity is the only art form that allows you to create interactive art. You can create projects that other people can play with, and you can talk to them indirectly. No other art form is quite this interactive. Movies flow to the audience in one direction. Paintings do not move. Code goes both ways._

What about stand-up comedy? By definition, the audience is part of the act. Anyone can tell jokes to their cats, but killing a room is an entirely different story. (I found this out the hard way.)

Oddly, with the users I've had lately, I often forget whether I'm doing comedy or programming. I have to check to see if I'm sitting or standing to be able to tell the difference.

 _Programming as a profession is only moderately interesting._

Take out the words "as a profession" and re-read that sentence. It shouldn't make any difference. If you love programming, you can easily love it as a profession (in the right conditions, of course). If you don't love programming, do the world a favor and do something else as a profession.

 _It can be a good job, but you could make about the same money and be happier running a fast food joint._

Money really shouldn't have anything to do with it. You can earn a living many different ways. Do what you love.

 _You're much better off using code as your secret weapon in another profession._

I disagree. I've met a lot of non-programmers who knew a little programming. They were more dangerous than effective.

 _People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect._

This was a nice post from OP until this sentence. This is just stupid. There may be lots of mediocre and poor practioners in any vocation, but _good_ programmers and _not_ a dime a dozen. Also, respect is relative. If you're worried about getting respect, you're worried about the wrong thing.

 _People who can code in biology, medicine, government, sociology, physics, history, and mathematics are respected and can do amazing things to advance those disciplines._

People have often asked me how I've used my programming skill to help the world. I always answer immediately, "With everything I've ever done." Sure, the disciplines OP mentions are sexy, cool, and important, but so is manufacturing stuff, distributing it, accounting for the money exchanged, and a million other "boring" things. Programming to keep the world working is just as important as all that sexy stuff too. (Maybe even more important, what were all those "sexy programmers" doing for food, shelter, and essentials when they were busy changing the world? You better believe that a "boring programmer" built something to help bring those things to them.)

 _Of course, all of this advice is pointless._

Not really. Even though I've disagree with OP on a lot of stuff, his advice is _not_ pointless. There's something to be learned from everyone else, especially those with lots of experience.

 _If you liked learning to write software with this book, you should try to use it to improve your life any way you can. Go out and explore this weird wonderful new intellectual pursuit that barely anyone in the last 50 years has been able to explore. Might as well enjoy it while you can._

Great advice. I did it and I'm so glad I did. Many others should, too.

 _Finally, I'll say that learning to create software changes you and makes you different. Not better or worse, just different._

This is true of just about anything. And most definitely true of programming. I can't imagine what my life would have been like otherwise. (In another century, I probably would have been a cook or something. I probably would have been happy, but I'm so glad things worked out the way they did.)

 _You may find that people treat you harshly because you can create software, maybe using words like "nerd". Maybe you'll find that because you can dissect their logic that they hate arguing with you. You may even find that simply knowing how a computer works makes you annoying and weird to them._

Another hard lesson: others' opinions of you should not matter. If it does, slow down and think about this again. You should be focused on your work and your users. Don't worry about the naysayers.

 _To this I have just one piece of advice: they can go to hell._

My feelings exactly, but I'd like to think I'd use different words. Be nice.

 _The world needs more weird people who know how things work and who love to figure it all out. When they treat you like this, just remember that this is your journey, not theirs. Being different is not a crime, and people who tell you it is are just jealous that you've picked up a skill they never in their wildest dreams could acquire._

It took me a long time to realize that I was an "outlier". Once I understood that, lot of other things came into perspective. That's probably true for lots of other programmers, too.

 _You can code. They cannot. That is pretty damn cool._

Please remove the sentence "They cannot." That's bad attitude and doesn't matter. The resulting paragraph, "You can code. That is pretty damn cool." pretty much sums up exactly how I've always felt about it. Thank you, OP!

<comment><USER24> > I disagree. I've met a lot of non-programmers who knew a little programming. > They were more dangerous than effective.

I'm sure you're well aware of this, but there's a ton of opportunity for even very simple programming to help in cases where people have never thought of programming as a possible solution. (This is how I contributed roughly $3MM of value to one company as a kid who barely knew how to program). On the other hand, it takes a lot more sophistication (I assume, don't have first-hand experience) to add value to a place that already recognizes the value of programming and automates their work.

<comment><USER25> Fully agreed here. It's amazing how many people could be replaced (or freed up to do better things) by very simple shell scripts or excel macros. This is where someone who knows a little programming but understands the business process really well can be highly effective.

The danger, in my view, is that these first simple solutions tend to have more and more bolted on to them and over the years maintaining them is more time consuming than the job they were designed to replace. This is when you hire a good programmer or two to fix things.

The trick is figuring out when to pull the plug on the prototype and make things good. I'm reminded of this quote from Mike Lesk about the early days at Bell Labs: "He wouldn't issue long specifications; he'd lash together some combination of shell scripts and awk code that did roughly what was needed, tell the customers to send him some clerks for a few days, and then have the customers come in and look at their clerks using the prototype and tell him whether or not they liked it. If they did, he would say "you can have it industrial strength so-many-months from now at such-and-such cost"."

<comment><USER26> It's really a tragedy that the same company - Microsoft - is the origin of the only reasonably successful business-focused programming environment (VBA) and the notion that interacting with a computer through _any other_ means than point-and-click - _especially_ typing command and editing text files - <USER2> _hard_ and is only for stupid geeks with bad hygiene.

<comment><USER27> Microsoft is not responsible for people hating to type commands in the command line, early computing is. In the past you were forced to type commands to get anything done and a lot of people hated it. The introduction of the GUI made things "easy" for most people.

<comment><USER26> No, they didn't invent it, and for the most part, GUIs are leaps and bounds better than CLIs.

What I'm opposing is the notion that commands and text files are something to be scared of and shun, when there's nothing so hard in it that most regular office workers couldn't pick up the basics on a three day course. And Microsoft pushed that agenda _very_ hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think this piece keeps coming up every so many days. It's a great piece of advice, and i think most developers come to the same conclusion after a few years. I think a useful corrolary from this is "Do not reinvent the wheel all the time by changing programming styles, instead try to extend the frontiers of technology" (I 'm looking at you, web frameworks).

<comment><USER16> This. I was reading someone's blog the other day about how they were rewriting their app in node.js... whereas a few years before that, I remember that they had rewritten the app in rails... Their product could've been so much further along had they just stuck with php/.net (whatever is was originally).

<comment><USER29> An app that can be rewritten on a whim is not a significant app. Harsh but true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Programming as an intellectual activity is the _only_ art form that allows you to create interactive art." (his emphasis)

Kinetic sculptures? Fashion? Hell, go to a science museum and you'll find endless halls of interactive art, little of which involves programming.

<comment><USER11> Let me know when you can tell a Fashion designer you hate their dress by writing on the back of some girl wearing it. Oh, and doing that without software.

<comment><USER30> Eh? Are you saying that the random hate commentary at the bottom of online articles is required for something to be art? Your comment just doesn't make sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> juliendsv-mbm "People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect" , I disagree with that, I think you got a lot of respect in a company that is focused on technology. But If you are working into a marketing company in the development team, then yes you will not get much respect..

<comment><USER31> What I think he means by "if you have coding as a secret weapon" in this case would be, if you are a Marketer that can code as an extra, you will be highly valued.

I think it is hard to argue with that.

<comment><USER29> Do you know any such marketeers?

<comment><USER32> I am a marketer who can code in a rudimentary manner. I've done projects on a shoestring budget that have netted companies thousands of new customers and hundreds of millions of dollars.

What helps is that even if I can't code the entire project, I do know how to properly source and manage people who do. I have enough of an understanding to respectfully manage all the business and technical partners in a marketing project -- and help them work together in a way that produced a better sum of the parts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant > _Which programming language you learn and use doesn't matter. Do not get > sucked into the religion surrounding programming languages as that will only > blind you to their true purpose of being your tool for doing interesting > things._

That, is a dangerously double-edged wording. I see two ways of interpreting this, which are almost opposite.

(1) "Languages don't matter, in the sense that whichever you chose doesn't change the end result." Which is flatly, provably false. Different languages have different strengths and weaknesses, which makes them suited for different sets of problems. Use the wrong tool for your particular job, and you will find that your program took too long to write, or has too many errors, or is too slow to execute. Just thinking about C, Python, video encoding, and quick sysadmin work should make it obvious to about anyone here.

(2) "Languages don't matter, in the sense that they are a _mean_ , not the _end_." Which is true for exactly the same reason the first interpretation is false: what should control your choice of language is your end goal. Personal preferences only matter to the extent you expect to have more fun. Given that your choice of language _will_ change the end result, you'd be wise not to give it too much weight.

I think the author meant the second interpretation. The key words are " _their true purpose [is] being your tool for doing interesting things._ ". A tool is only good to the extent it serves its purpose. For any given purpose, some tools are better suited than others. If no such tool suit some purpose of yours, consider crafting a custom one. In this regard, programming languages are no different.

<comment><USER11> 1) No I could actually write the same thing with the same quality in most any language I know, baring a few esoteric ones like brainfuck. One language may take me longer than others, but the error rate would not be higher or lower usually.

2) This is more what I'm saying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The meta-topic is about disillusionment, which in this profession comes from having to learn new libraries and knowledge that you know will soon become obsolete. Reduce the risk by focusing on learning what interests you (language & industry), and accept only interesting work if possible (or create your own fascinating projects, if you're the entrepreneurial type) -- or work as a contractor, where you pick your projects, focusing on your favorite language.

Don't let yourself become a cog in the machine, learning one company's proprietary library after another; to me, this is what leads to programmer burnout.

One of the challenges of a programmer (among other professions) is leading a balanced life; do not let your work define you too strongly.

<comment><USER11> Actually, learning all the cool new stuff that comes out is what I like the most about programming. I love taking apart new stuff, watching communities rise and fall, and dissecting the philosophies that come out of it all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> "You're much better off using code as your secret weapon in another profession."

Exactly. So many students and young people see programming as an end, rather than a means. They might take a class in Java or Python or somethign, hoping to learn how to write code. What needs to be impressed on people is that you don't write code to write code, you write code as part of creating an online network connecting a billion people around the world or write code to create an immersive world that tells a unique story every time someone enters it. Despite the rise of DIY blogs and webpages, people still talk about programming as if they were an artist talking about learning how to paint in order to use a paintbrush.

</comment><comment><USER35> _People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect_

Last time I went to a startup meetup the people who could code were a very small minority, and they were always surrounded by others trying to poach them for their startups.

</comment><comment><USER36> _Maybe you'll find that because you can dissect their logic that they hate arguing with you._

I'm glad I don't need to argue with "them" in my current position, but I've seen this effect a lot: the most manipulative people in a company are against any logical processes.

<comment><USER37> And those people usually get their way, too. Quite frustrating to deal with them, mostly when they come back to you after their way didn't work out and want you to solve it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This ("the language you use doesn't matter") has never made sense to me. I get that what we produce is of value to others while the tools we use isn't of value & doesn't - directly - matter.

But, I know that certain languages are closer to how I want to think & how I want to be able to solve problems while other languages inhibit that or restrict the ways I think about & am able to express problems.

I only have about a half dozen years of professional experience so perhaps I am simply naive here.

<comment><USER39> Actually, your attitude is exactly the one that advice is trying to foster. Keep in mind that some pieces of advice are not meant to stand alone; they're reactive and meant to act as pushback against worse things.

There _are_ religious wars between various languages, as I'm sure you're aware, and the driving force between a lot of the arguments is that the tool of choice is more important than solving the problem. If only they focused more on problem solutions rather than saying that Perl has too many sigils or Java is full of silly factory patterns, they'd be able to agree that Perl is useful for many things and Java is useful in many situations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> _You're much better off using code as your secret weapon in another profession._

That's why Bezos is my hero.

</comment><comment><USER41> I worked for a company where they had a student (internship) set up the LAN, among other things. He got the job done, they liked to boss him around and pretty much everyone agreed the guy was lazy and there was no way they were going to hire him, blah blah. Truth be told, you could see he didn't like it there. But they couldn't have been more wrong about that guy. And I've seen this over and over again: it has nothing to do with technology. It has everything to do with the people you work for and how big of an influence your job has on whatever it is a company is trying to sell. It's very discouraging to a lot of people when they're in a situation like that guy was. Fortunately, he only stayed there for like 6 - 9 months (too long, imo, but he had no choice), so when his time was up I asked him where he was going. He was going to work for a company that offered network solutions, he figured that was a better choice than to go work for a company similar to the one he just interned for. And he was right. I happened to know the company and the owner, so I assured him he made the right choice. I checked up on him a few months in and all I can say is: time to move on when you're in a situation like he was.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Programming as an intellectual activity is the only art form that allows you to create interactive art"

Well, except for architecture. And industrial design. And pretty much most art that requires someone to interpret it (it depends on who you think you are making your art for - the person interpreting it, or the person watching the interpretation...)

<comment><USER11> Let me know when you can tell the Architect that his building needs improvement or contact a designer about their devices. Oh, and without programming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is brilliant advice.

 _"What I discovered after this journey of learning is that it's not the languages that matter but what you do with them."_

For those developers who have only discovered the nirvana with one, or two languages, and love their rails, djangos, closures to death, just know that if one exists, there's always the possibility that there's more.

Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Get building. Customers simply don't care what you code in, and very few languages give an overall edge to developing, most languages have very capable frameworks that all have their pros and cons that even out.

The question is, can developers stop foaming at the mouth and seeing the world just one way? Seems a little fanatical.

<comment><USER43> Wow, I can't believe saying something similar to edw519, and the OP, got downvoted.

At least, kind of explain, maybe why. I don't think there's anything inflammatory here.

Thanks!

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't worry about it. This part of my book seems to get fairly polarize results or simple meandering talks about each person's own life and decisions so it most likely has nothing to do with your comment.

<comment><USER43> Appreciate the support, I'm not worried, not the first unpopular / misunderstood opinion I've had.

Calling insecure lashing out towards others though, all, day, long. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm also pretty old, relatively speaking, but I think of myself as young programmer because I started somewhat later in life. Early in my career I made the mistake (for me) of going into software testing and I found myself pretty bored and unmotivated. But now that I'm a dev, I've found that my passion and dedication to the craft has only grown over time. All that stops me from coding all night when I get home from work are the physical barriers (hands/back).

Well, that and my girlfriend. So my advice is that if you want to stay in it for the long haul, play a long game: be passionate and consumed with what you're doing but don't burn out. Have friends, hobbies, and a life outside of work.

</comment><comment><USER45> "Maybe you'll find that because you can dissect their logic that they hate arguing with you."

QFT

</comment><comment><USER46> I would like to think that the sentiment of this piece is to move programmers to go and explore more disciplines.

Or to make the point that computer programming is such a powerfull tool that it's a shame to see that a lot of competent programmers are "just programmers" who think of code as an end to itself. Higher levels of manipulation and appreciation are available. Like a car mechanic, stuck with the beauty of the engine and the physics involved, but not the freedom and happiness and excitement of the car runing .

</comment><comment><USER47> Which programming language you learn and use doesn't matter?

Really ?? It doesn't matter for most people because they only know C/C++/C#/Java/JavaScript/Python and other similar language as they all provide same kind of "thinking technique" and you have been programming using same techniques your whole life.

Try to learn languages like Lisp and Haskell and over a period of time they will change the way you think about programming and if something can change the way you think about solving problem, it does matter.

<comment><USER11> I disagree with the idea that a language changes how you think. I think a more accurate statement is:

"A programming language teaches you to think like the language's creator(s)."

If you look at it from that more anthropological lens, then you start to see how you're not necessarily learning new ways of thinking, you're learning something more like a new language around a group of people who think similar.

Once you understand that you start to see that none of these are any better or worse than the others, and thinking like you learned some secret weapon at the Church of Haskell will really just prevent you from exploring other cultures.

<comment><USER47> Hmmm.. the "way to think" doesn't change as that would be like changing the way human brain works. Still some programming languages allows you to think more abstractly than others. For ex: You see a problem and in few mins you come up with an abstract solution because the language you use provide certain abstractions to help you solve problems. It is interesting discussion though and in my free time I do try to find about how human brain thinks :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> > You can code. They cannot. That is pretty damn cool.

If it weren't for the last 3 paragraphs, I'd agree completely. But seriously- who makes fun of developers anymore?

</comment><comment><USER49> You may find that people treat you harshly because you can create software, maybe using words like "nerd". Maybe you will find that because you can dissect their logic that they hate arguing with you. You may even find that simply knowing how a computer works makes you annoying and weird to them. To this I have one just piece of advice: they can go to hell. :D It was worth it for that alone.

</comment><comment><USER50> The author suggests to not get caught up on a programming language and use that as just a tool. I think I agree. I also want to add that people get caught up on using some other tools like vi or emacs or things like that. I think they should not be taken too seriously either. Creativity and building a useful product are the most important things of all.

</comment><comment><USER51> "Programming as an intellectual activity is the only art form that allows you to create interactive art."

I will have to let the car designers know that. And the great chefs of the world. And probably dozens of other artists.

</comment><comment><USER52> >People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect.

I guess it just wouldn't be a Zed post without a little light trolling.

<comment><USER11> You say "troll", I say "honest".

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Loved this article. 100 % agree with the point that the technology doesn't matter, what matters is what you do with it. Simple and evergreen advice :)

</comment><comment><USER54> "The world needs more weird people who know how things work and who love to figure it all out."

At your best you can become antibodies in the global cultural organism.

</comment><comment><USER55> I would disagree that programming is the only interactive art form. Drawing and painting are quite interactive when you take into consideration the interpretation that the audience must perform, and, more importantly, the back and forth of artists as they see and react to each other's work with their own work.

In that sense programming is _very much_ like the visual arts.

For what it's worth, I've been visual artist for around 40 years and a programmer for around 35.

<comment><USER56> First thing that came to mind for me was various forms of sculpture that interact with people. Not far from where I work there's a shopping center with fountains right in the floor in the middle of a little plaza, but they turn off when people come close. I know there are other (better) examples. And that's not even getting into performing arts.</comment></comment>


Properly setting Vim up for Python coding - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sontek.net/2008/05/11/python-with-a-modular-ide-vim/

<comment><USER2> There is actually some incorrect information in there:

        Vim already has built in syntax highlighting for python
        but I have a small tweak to vim to give you notifications
        of small syntax errors like forgetting a colon after a for
        loop. Create a file called ~/.vim/syntax/python.vim and
        add the following into it:

That will override the system's version of python.vim. Using ~/.vim/after/syntax/python.vim or even something like ~/.vim/after/syntax/python/custom_errors.vim will do the trick.</comment>


Rationale for a Large Text Compression Benchmark (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://mattmahoney.net/dc/rationale.html

<comment><USER2> Thanks a lot, this is awesome! Just about the right time. Will use the references in my paper :)</comment>


Why You Want to Start a Startup - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@miraan/why-you-want-to-start-a-startup-89484ca30b01 <comment><USER2> Oxford kid at Facebook building a Machine learning advertising product. There's got to be more interesting problems to work on.</comment>