Open tabs are cognitive spaces - <AUTHOR> https://rybakov.com/blog/open_tabs_are_cognitive_spaces/ <comment><USER2> We couldn't agree more, Michail. So much so that we founded a company (Workona Inc.) and built pretty much exactly what you've described.

Workona's extension turns your browser windows into "smart windows" (workspaces) that remember the tabs you open in them. This allows you to shut a project and pick up right where you left off later.

Your workspaces will help you split up your 477 open tabs into the 70 projects, topics and ideas you talked about. Workona also lets you "switch to these groups in your workflow" seamlessly so you can focus on one thing at a time. Soon workspaces will be sharable and even have URLs that can be used to access them, which will open the set of tabs in their own window. To ensure workspaces open quickly, we prevent the tabs from loading the content until you click on them.

We haven't officially launched yet, but we recently opened up the beta if you want to try it out (only Chrome for now, but support for Firefox coming soon). We'd love to hear your thoughts: [https://workona.com](https://workona.com)

<comment><USER3> This is an awesome idea, I just installed and tried it out. A few things jump out at me: if you have fifty tabs open, the first use experience is a little painful--you want to be able to create workspaces and quickly file things away, but it's a very slow process. Opening a workspace pops you into a new view, and it's not immediately obvious what to do from there.

I get that the first use may not be the case you're optimizing for, but it was a bit frustrating.

<comment><USER2> Glad you like it! You're right that onboarding can be tough for users with lots of tabs. We're working on a few things that will make it easier.

The intended initial set up flow is: \- Create a workspace (+ button next to the word "Workspaces") \- Switch to the window with all your unsorted tabs \- Drag and drop the tabs into your workspaces (multi-select coming soon)

Things get much easier once you're set up. Workspaces are essentially smart browser windows, so you can just open a new (unsaved) window and browse like you normally do. If at any point you decide you want to save the window as a workspace, you simply click on our icon and give it a name.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree with the premise, but I think that I actually want something closer to the opposite. >95% of the things I look up are dead ends. Because these externalized cognitive spaces have weight and complexity, I often want to just wipe them out completely and start over.

I've turned my Safari "remove history items" preference to a short interval, specifically to minimize the cognitive overload that URL completion will have.

(I was disappointed to learn that Firefox removed the history expiry setting entirely. All of the forum questions asking for it are met with answers like "We use an efficient database now, so you don't need to set an expiration time!" Cool, but the implementation architecture had nothing to do with why that was a useful feature.)

I also use private browsing a _lot_. Need to check a quick fact on Wikipedia, that isn't directly related to my main work? Private browsing window. Some people are obsessive about keeping their Git history clean. I'm obsessive about keeping my browser history clean. In a sense, my browser history _is_ the workspace imagined here, only with a less efficient UI.

Instead of a separate concept of "private browsing", though, I would love it if I could option-click a close button (on a window or tab) and have it erase all history/cookies that were generated by it. That would make history curation much easier.

</comment><comment><USER5> For Chrome I like to use the "Bookmark all tabs" option (Ctrl-Shift-D). When I am in the middle of researching a topic but want to shift gears, I save bookmarks to a new subfolder in my "Working Tabs" folder. Then I delete all tabs. That way (1) I know I can restore to this state if I need to, (2) I keep separate trains of thought from getting muddled, and (3) I can keep a relatively Zen workspace.

</comment><comment><USER6> Vivaldi literally does everything this article wants. Without addons or extensions. Also does what [https://workona.com](https://workona.com) does. See: [https://vivaldi.com/features/](https://vivaldi.com/features/).

<comment><USER7> And before that, Opera has had tab stacking and sessions saving for years.

Don't remember if they were shared, and there's no way to test now that the cloud for version 12 and earlier has gone offline.

(Moral of the story: don't rely on clouds for things you want to have in five years)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really like this idea. I use Pocket pretty heavily for bookmarking, but there has been something off about it and nearly any other solution that I used that I couldn't quite pinpoint. I think this is part of the issue. I save a set of bookmarks on a topic over a period of time, but it isn't easy to get access to all of those bookmarks again. Searching doesn't quite accomplish the goal because I might have been looking into a similar topic months ago, but a search will return results from both "mental sessions" together and I have to separate them myself.

I have tried saving all of my bookmarks also, but then I usually have to remove my pinned tabs that are part of my overall workflow and not part of the mental session.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you're using Qutebrowser you can save your sessions and name them whatever you want, switch between them, and come back to them later if needed. That's your immutable tabs collection.

</comment><comment><USER10> Tabs are ephemeral. I just lost all my tabs after restarting Firefox to free up some memory, even though I set it up to restore them: [https://www.gkayaalp.com/blog/20180326_quitting- firefox.html](https://www.gkayaalp.com/blog/20180326_quitting-firefox.html). Be careful using them. This is probably the weirdest HN post that gave me glistening eyes...

<comment><AUTHOR> If you didn't restart Firefox again there should be a backup of opened tabs saved in your profile folder!

<comment><USER10> I'll try, thanks, but I did restart it again... I was able to recollect some of the tabs via remembering them and searching through recent feeds and emails. Some importand to-be-read stuff are gone though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a stepgap for Firefox, I found that TabMarks fills that purpose. It keeps working spaces (windows) synced with tab folders.

There's one mismatch though - closing a window clears a space. To save it for later, I switch to an empty workspace first.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is a fantastic idea. I use Firefox containers for this purpose, but they do not utilize Firefox Sync, and so the grouping is limited to a single device.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you mean the Firefox multi-account containers? Wouldn't that just add some coloured bar on the tabs (and separate logins etc) without hiding the currently unused tabs?

<comment><USER13> The UX/UI is very poor in my experience, since I'm a heavy user of Firefox Containers, know about the feature, need it, and never use it, but if you click the Containers icon and have some container tabs active, it will display a right arrow indicating there are more actions available where you can hide the tabs of a specific Container group so that you can unclutter the browser and access them later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My open bar tab agrees.</comment>


Still can't decide on a Payment System. Please HELP - <AUTHOR>

[content removed by owner] <comment><USER3> The reason you fall under higher risk is because you are transferring or aggregating funds instead of just collecting. This means you could be prone to money laundering. The new paypal api (that's in beta, see x.com) allows transactions like this without you taking the holding/fraud risk. Its probably your best shot.

Outside of that, you could try to get arrangements with an escrow provider (like escrow.com) to handle the payment part of your transactions.

<comment><USER4> I am facing a similar problem.

So had checked X.com - but discarded them. Because they don't work with credit card transactions yet - only PayPal. Which would mean at least half the transactions being lost...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I went through this same problem a while back. The hard part was the direct deposit, most companies didn't offer it. I finally ended up using <http://www.achdirect.com/> I'm not sure I would recommend them - <USER2> support was horrible, and the dinged me with a $100 "hidden fee" - but they were the only company I found who had an API for both billing and direct deposit and it did end up working eventually. BrainTree rejected my app too.

I wrote a ruby active_merchant plugin to interface with ACHDirect - ping me if you want the source.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm about to implement Recurly <http://www.recurly.com/> on my own site, on top of PayPal Website Payments Pro.

Recurly abstracts my gateway's API stuff and stores payment details so I'm not tied to my gateway - much like I wouldn't use a Comcast email address to have the freedom to change TV providers.

Worth a try. Note: I'm a potential customer of theirs and have no other affiliation.

<comment><USER7> Offtopic: Can I use recurly outside the US? I'd need it for a b2b website and have nothing but a German bank account and credit card. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I know of one company that can do this, I don't like advertising friends businesses (simply because you might think I promote them because they are my friends).

I've used their services for several years now and they are in for the long haul and seem to be doing pretty good.

Warning though:

1) they're not cheap

2) the requirements are stiff, a lot of applicants get rejected

3) you'll need a Dutch BV to even begin the acceptation process, this will cost you a bundle. Even then the application may be declined (that's not their call, but the banks / PaySquares).

If all that hasn't scared you off yet drop me a line.

If 'barmstrong's solution works for the amount of the deposits you are looking at then that might be an easier solution.

Have you talked to your bank about this ? Have you talked to VISA ?

They might be able to give you pointers about which parties can handle the functionality you are looking for, they usually keep pretty good tabs on their IPSPs and gateways so they should be able to tell you.

</comment><comment><USER9> You need a "card not present" specialist, that understands ecommerce/tech startups. I highly recommend talking with JetPay (jetpay.com). They are the largest CNP payment processor, and they are an engineering company (even the CEO is an alpha programmer geek). Furthermore, they can integrate directly with you so you don't need a middleman (e.g. Authorize.Net). Their API and services support is outstanding -- see <http://www.jetpay.com/cc_update.php> for details. We just wish we'd found them a year earlier!

</comment><comment><USER10> Can you elaborate on the PayPal isuses? Have you looked at PayPal Authorization & Capture? I am launching an equipment rental site and planning to use PayPal Authorization & Capture to help me take deposits.

<comment><AUTHOR> Visit <http://www.paypalsucks.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article might help you: <http://sitepoint.com/article/merchant-account- review></comment>


MVP or Beta? - <AUTHOR> https://tractific.com/blog/mvp-vs-beta <comment><USER2> I think perhaps the more interesting question (more interesting than what you label something) is how much functionality you develop before trying to get people to actually use your product.

At least in the space I'm working in (issue trackers) we had to build quite a lot of functionality up front to get people to seriously test out our product [0]. The reason being that we're in a space where we're convincing people to switch away from existing solutions so they're not likely to overlook glaring omissions in functionality.

So the question you should be asking yourself is - how much functionality do I need to build to get meaningful feedback?

0: [https://kitemaker.co](https://kitemaker.co)

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely</comment></comment>


Simplest possible examples of HTML, CSS and JavaScript - <AUTHOR>

http://www.simpl.info
Simplest possible code examples: nothing more, nothing less.
AppCache, canvas, getUserMedia, WebRTC, FileSystem, Page Visibility, WebSQL, track, datalist, Web Fonts -- and lots more. <comment><USER2> I like the concept but IMHO the implementation falls short of the "simplest" adjective. For example, I look at source for webworkers [1], and then I have to look at files [2] and [3]. Is there any reason to not have everything in a single file? Again, we are going for "simple" not "good modularity". When I write out a simple example or test in C or Java, it's in a single file, so that the reader can follow the flow.

[1] [https://github.com/samdutton/simpl/blob/master/webworkers/in...](https://github.com/samdutton/simpl/blob/master/webworkers/index.html) [2] [https://github.com/samdutton/simpl/blob/master/webworkers/js...](https://github.com/samdutton/simpl/blob/master/webworkers/js/main.js) [3] [https://github.com/samdutton/simpl/blob/master/webworkers/js...](https://github.com/samdutton/simpl/blob/master/webworkers/js/task.js)</comment>


New phones aboard Air Force One - <AUTHOR> http://electrospaces.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-phones-aboard-air-force-one.html <comment><USER2> The US is doomed if the country elects a colorblind president. All that red- green color-coding for secure and non-secure calls is going to ruin them...

<comment><USER3> _All that red-green color-coding for secure and non-secure calls is going to ruin them..._

I was surprised by the colour coding as well, albeit more from a usability angle than colour-blindness:

What are "danger" red and "success" green meant to represent?

My natural inclination would be to have no background colour for insecure, and then [colour of choice] for secure.

It makes me wonder how ignorant on the matter I am, and whether red and green are some form of standard for secure/insecure notifications.

<comment><USER4> > red and green are some form of standard for secure/insecure notifications.

They are. If you look at photos that the military/government publishes of facilities, the secure stuff is always red, and the public stuff is always green (well, always is a strong word. It is occasionally black). (I was going to include such an image now but I can't seem to find a search term for it that will find what I want.)

I agree, it seems a little backwards, but I guess it's a piece of domain- specific knowledge you don't forget once you've acquired it.

<comment><USER5> Historical German KWF secure analog telephone, with example red "secure" and green "clear" buttons. [http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/ant/kwf/](http://www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/ant/kwf/)

The convention evolved early, when secure communications were rare. The US/NATO clearly marked the secure lines with bright red phones, since the major danger is sending something in plaintext rather than secure, while the reverse error is more harmless.

The green phones followed (since green is the complementary color of red), more out of cargo cult thinking than any usability purpose, which is why you'll still see a lot of black equipment (because the colour of the unsecured line is relatively unimportant.)

And now, we have a hand-me-down convention that contravenes one of our hard- wired conventions about colors: Green: Go, Proceed, Correct, Benign Red: Stop, Not permitted, Incorrect, Harmful.

It is odd, but much like the wrong sign on the electron, you get used to it.

<comment><USER3> _Historical German KWF secure analog telephone, with example red "secure" and green "clear" buttons_

I'm confused; the article you linked to consistently says it's the other way around:

      - The green and red buttons at the front are for switching to SECURE and CLEAR mode respectively

      - When the user presses the green button... The exchange then switches to encrypted mode

      - ... Press the green button on the phone to cause the exchange to switch to encrypted mode

      - In normal use... the call is not encrypted and the red LED, marked Klar (clear), lights up

      - In secure mode, the red ET button can be used to switch back to clear mode again

There are a number of comments here stating that the convention is red secure/green insecure, so I presume the article's author is incorrect.

Or is this a classic illustration of UI confusion?

<comment><USER5> Huh, good catch. Either the author mixed up the description, or the designer confused the standard. I just grabbed the first example at hand, but a quick googling should turn up some more devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6>
      L-3 Communications advertises (pdf) the GSIMS system as
      the most advanced secure communication system for VIP and
      Head of States aircraft

In the light of Snowden's revelations that we spy on our allies and try to get broken encryption products released, I wonder if any head of state except an American one bothers with an American encrypted phone.

If not, I wonder who it's being marketed to?

<comment><USER7> "in light of" ?

This has been an obvious problem since the dawn of communications of any sort. No government on Earth would blindly install foreign systems. They wouldn't blindly install _domestically_ built units (what better way to get the inside track then to accidentally be able to listen in on your government's private conversations).

People need to realize that nothing Snowden disclosed was news to _any_ government, especially its security people.

<comment><USER8> >No government on Earth would blindly install foreign systems. They wouldn't blindly install domestically built units (what better way to get the inside track then to accidentally be able to listen in on your government's private conversations).

History is full of stories that makes this not true dating back to even Xerox machines that the US tampered with before selling them overseas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why not always use a secure line? Latency?

<comment><USER10> Because the person on the other end may not be calling from a secure location.

<comment><USER11> Or put another way, the other person might be calling from a normal phone.

<comment><USER12> Yes, for a secure, encrypted phone call, both ends must have equipment that uses the same encryption system, else it's impossible to decrypt what the other end has encrypted and vice versa.

<comment><USER13> So how do calls between leaders of different countries work? Have all of them agreed upon using the encryption system? Or perhaps they have equipment that can choose which encryption system to use depending on who they are talking to?

<comment><USER14> If the leaders are important enough, you'll just get a new phone that can talk to theirs. Or a translation server. No need to bother the head-of-state with the technicalities. The point is, there's no reason for there to be a clever, all-in-one solution here, since these are allmost one-off solutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The thing is that phone underneath could be a SIP/VOIP phone running over a VPN tunnel(or tunnels to provide the MLS -- multi-level security) with a CAC card reader. It probably costs upwards of 10s of thousands if not more per unit.

A lot of that is the red tape and overhead related to having it certified and having as much of it produced in US as possible.

Also wonder if secret service or FBI will pay extra attention to the author for being a little too interested in that topic. Nothing too serious of course, just some visits to his workplace, maybe interrogating his friends, spouse or kids. (Has happened to a friend of mine, after making an inappropriate joke in a forum, and that was before 2001)

<comment><USER16> I would be shocked if the cost-per-phone system was less than $250k/phone, with all costs amortized over the project (Design, Delivery, Installation, Support)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It doesn't seem that surprising to me that Air Force One has encrypted VOIP phones.

But it is always useful to see new info.

It is surprising that they are relatively new.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow. Just wow.

I would have thought that that the NSA would be more sly about their unattributed propaganda sites. That whole site is full of bullshit whitewashing.</comment>


'We don't need the FCC': A Trump adviser's proposal to dissolve it - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/22/we-dont-need-the-fcc-a-trump-advisers-proposal-to-dissolve-americas-telecom-watchdog/ <comment><USER2> _" Most of the original motivations for having an FCC have gone away," Jamison wrote. "Telecommunications network providers and ISPs are rarely, if ever, monopolies."_

While I sometimes wonder about the value of the FCC in some respects, I think the statement above is a load of horseshit. Jamison either has friends at Comcast (edit: nope, Sprint: [http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/trump-net- neutrality-fcc/](http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/trump-net-neutrality-fcc/)), or mentally is stuck back in the 90s where everyone and their brother owned a dial-up ISP.

Although I think the standard response is to raise a hue and cry and fight a move to dissolve the FCC wholesale, I think a far more effective tactic is to talk about what the FCC does _well_ , what it _could_ do well, and what (if any) responsibilities should either be handled through legislation or removed.

I'm pretty sure that there's a baby in all that bathwater.

<comment><USER3> My thoughts exactly. Whenever I see somebody talking about internet connectivity in US I have an impression that _stronger_ anti-monopoly regulation would help, as it helps to some degree in EU. Dissolving FCC seems to be a step backwards.</comment></comment>


The destructuring algorithm in ECMAScript 6 - <AUTHOR> http://www.2ality.com/2015/03/destructuring-algorithm.html

<comment><USER2> [Disclaimer: I'm the author of the blog post.]

Knowing the algorithm helps with understanding the difference between the following two function declarations.

        function move({x=0, y=0} = {})         { /*...*/ }
        function move({x, y} = { x: 0, y: 0 }) { /*...*/ }</comment>


Contradictions in Roman law left incurable headaches for its judges - <AUTHOR> https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/how-get-away-murder <comment><USER2> Laws are the source code of society; built up over dozens of generations by thousands of people who all had a different idea of what the finished product should look like and what algorithms to use.

In addition most of these people never communicated and there is a ton of legacy functionally that is still in there that needs to be gotten rid of, but nobody wants to go through the trouble of submitting a change request to get the old cruft out.

Beyond all of that bug fixes get pushed through without any real analysis and consideration for their consequences or to make the product better, but instead for the Project Manager to get a chance to show how great they are.

Feel free to add to the analogy.

<comment><USER3> The law is less like source code and more like bytecode with the legal system working as a constantly changing interpreter. Sure, the bytecode gets updated. However, in this case, the interpreter is more often updated than the bytecode.

Take, for example, the recent Title IX case in the US which ruled that someone being trans is protected under title IX. When the law was first written, that certainly wasn't the intention. Yet, the law was written in regards to sex. Something that we as a society have had an evolving view on.

AFAIK, most legal systems (at least based on the British legal system) operate in a very similar manner. Laws may be written, but ultimately the courts have to decide what they mean. New laws can be written to correct for a courts opinion, yet the courts are free to evolve what they think things mean over time.

Laws are pretty much never as black and white as you might consider. There's the text of the law, which matters, but theirs also the courts understanding of the law, which also matters. In fact, prior court rulings on a law often matter MORE than the actual text of the law.

<comment> crooked-v I'd say the trans protections are one in a long-running series of examples of US law being written in a clear-cut way that should have protected a given group from the start, but nonetheless 'obviously' didn't at the time because everyone knew what the lawmakers involved 'really' meant.

This dates all the way back to the Constitution, which from the very start had a plain-text reading incompatible with slavery, and yet had a Bill of Rights conveniently not applied to slaves because everybody knew what the writers really meant by 'people'.

<comment><USER4> > This dates all the way back to the Constitution, which from the very start > had a plain-text reading incompatible with slavery,

Heh. No. Not only was it, from the start, not "incompatible with slavery", but it made direct accommodations for it and even explicitly protected the slave trade _even against Constitutional amendments_ for a certain period.

From Art. I, Sec. 2: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, _three fifths of all other Persons_."

Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1: "The migration _or importation_ of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

Art. IV, Sec. 2: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Art V: "…no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article;…"

> yet had a Bill of Rights conveniently not applied to slaves because > everybody knew what the writers really meant by 'people'

Every article in the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, none protects against the states or against private parties, nor does any contradict and thus overrule the direct and indirect protections of slavery (including of the property interests of owners of fugitive slaves) and the slave trade written in the plain text of the original Constitution. People sometimes _now_ , after the 14th Amendment, casually make imprecise reference to the Bill of Rights limiting the states, but it is actually the 14th Amendments limitations on the states that courts have interpreted to apply limitations equivalent to many of those in the Bill of Rights against the States.

<comment><USER5> Even back to the founding of the US slavery was a huge legal and moral problem. It's pretty clear to a disinterested party that the entire system is monstrous and incompatible with the concept of a free society, but at the same time it's a huge industry with enormous political sway. Trying to form the US without slavery means losing half of the states you are trying to pull into the union.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What I think is unfortunate is that the author doesn't compare the Roman system to that of other countries, and highlight an important underlying issue: state capacity. Early legal systems were not backed by capable and well organized executive branches. A huge range of things that now are a matter of law -- even contracts -- were basically left up to individuals to sort out for themselves. In tribal societies, all there was to settle differences was people's good credit with their neighbors; so you better be liked by everybody.

 _But it was not until the principate, when the stability and power of the Empire rested on the shoulders of a single man, that murder truly became a crime._

What does the author want us to draw from this conclusion?

<comment><USER2> Authoritarian dictatorships are bad for many reasons. Ineffeciency when compared with more collaborative decision making processes is often not one of them.

No need to go through a comitte or build consensus when there is only one person that needs to make a decision. On the other hand that often means the person making the decision doesn't need to consider the opinions of others when making decisions.

EDIT To clarify my comment I didn't say that dictatorships are better at making good decisions or result in a more efficient society simply that they are more effectient at making a decision. Whether they make good or bad decisions is much more dependent on the leader. It is a common pattern in the world the more constraints on a position the less autonomy an individual has the less impact they can have either for good or bad.

Probably is related to the fine line between idiocy and genius.

<comment><USER7> You can still have a powerful enough state to enforce laws and not be a dictatorship.

<comment><USER8> The question is for how long. Many states have had a tendency to grow over time.

<comment><USER7> Nothing lasts forever, and not everything is a slippery slope. Historical context is also important.

For example, some people have this notion that the Roman Republic was somehow "good" and the empire was "bad" solely because the Senate had power in the Republic, and voting = good. But in actuality it was a pretty messed up system of government because only Romans (literally people in that city) got a vote while the rest of the Italian peninsula got no say. And yes they fought a war about this and the "good" side lost. Voting was heavily weighted towards the upper classes, too. The empire wasn't all bread and circuses, but it did scale better, which had some pros and cons too :). But for your average inhabitant of the Italian peninsula you had no more or less say in how either government ran.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > After hearing the prosecution and the defence, they asked everyone to return > to hear their judgment in 100 years' time, neatly avoiding the need to ever > make a decision.

How delightfully unsatisfactory but a neat way to resolve it. If these things did get into history books, a consensus likely would have been reached in the collective minds by then.

<comment><USER10> That technique still exists today. When justices reserve judgment you find there is no mechanism to require they pass judgement.

The long grass is sometimes useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> >Therefore, if he punished a woman who had acted, in the depths of her grief for her children, to justly avenge their murder, then he would be passing judgment on all such killings and suggesting that vengeance killings were criminal.

Roman law was the precursor to civil law, so I wouldn't think a Roman judge's rulings would create precedent like it would in common law systems.

<comment><USER12> Roman Law is also the origin of the concept of the binding precedent: it is known as _stare decisis_ ("remaining resolved").

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I believe the prescribed punishment for parricide was not the bizarre menagerie suggested by the author but simply a cat, a cock, and the convicted. And the purpose of the animals Was no mystery: in their panic at confinement and then inundation they would flail about with their claws or spurs shredding the murderer and making the punishment more agonizing.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'd love to discuss with others here something related.

I have lately (to my surprise) been drawn by some talks of Antonin Scalia on Youtube. Far from being repelled (or amused at his standing alone) as I was years ago by his coming down on the opposite side of judgements I thought were socially just and good, I now come to understand better what he was doing. At least if you believe his talks.

After listening to his talks (and then thinking back to his opinions), I understand he was trying to make sure that the Constitution was followed to the letter of the law, and that if the people were unhappy with it, let them change it so that it reflected the popular desires. But let it follow that process. Not have social or political will creep its way in via individual judges' or courts' determination something was now "acceptable enough" that it could be ruled to have evolved and be constitutional at the present time.

And that the writers of the Constitution were trying to prevent disaster as much as trying to enable progress -- and that we should be careful when we stray from the words encoding that goal, because when you do that it opens up all sorts of unintended consequences.

(Hence the connection to this OP's story + comments about law as source code.)

This really opened my eyes about what that aspect of judicial conservatism is about. Not that I agree with all of its philosophy or tendency (in politics) to court a certain sector of the vote, for example. But it did arouse in me a respect for the guy, to know that for example:

If you start relying or putting upon certain institutions (the courts) in society responsibilities or goals to effect the change you want, that may not always be the right thing to do, although it may be the easy / politically expedient thing to do at the present time. Because there may come a day when that power might go opposite to what you wanted (or more importantly, what is right). And maybe what this country's founders set up was consciously a decision to keep things from going off the tracks when too many people thought some rules should simply be imposed by judges because it was the popular thing to do.

Other unintended side effects may include: politicization of the judiciary, which we know all too well today.

I would encourage anyone curious to listen to some of his talks (especially the Q&A). Honestly, it really did open my eyes to hear about it. Maybe I'm getting more conservative in my old age, but when you're a person responsible for others and some process, you start to appreciate this kind of thinking.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd-- UO0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd--UO0)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRS- jdgHok4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRS-jdgHok4)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkChru9L3xA&t=4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkChru9L3xA&t=4s) (skip all the preface, to his speech at 4min, or skip to the Q&A as the talk is mainly about what the role of morals is in the judiciary/government)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXSGDXbc9ZA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXSGDXbc9ZA) (very entertaining)

And besides all that, what a personality and entertaining figure, and powerhouse of knowledge. I wish I had appreciated more of this thinking earlier.

<comment><USER15> I used to be a great admirer of the US constitutional arrangements (even though I'm not an US citizen and I've never been to the States), in fact I have a paperback edition of the "Federalist Papers" on the bookshelves that sit just behind me as I'm writing this comment, but lately I've come to see things in a very different manner.

More exactly, I've come to realise that a legal/constitutional arrangement that supports actual human slavery for 70-80 years after having been put in place is maybe not that great to begin with, and I've also come to realise that one of main reasons for its "PR success" during the last two centuries was the fact that the US as a country got to be economically (and then militarily) successful. It is a perfect example of "might makes right" (in this case economic might). As a (failed) counter-example the legal system of Haiti from the late 1790s-early 1800s was a lot more "illuministic" and "human friendly" but because Haiti failed economically (and then politically) as a state all that didn't matter in the end.

<comment><USER16> > More exactly, I've come to realise that a legal/constitutional arrangement > that supports actual human slavery for 70-80 years after having been put in > place is maybe not that great to begin with

The alternative would have been forming the United States without the southern states, because they would never have agreed to join. Then the Americas would presumably have been too weak to win the War of 1812.

<comment><USER17> To be fair, the british had plenty of other things on their plate in 1812 (consider Tchaikovsky).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent#Background](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent#Background)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not a lawyer, but I guess a committee (don't ask me who or how many) should evaluate the 'justifiability' of a crime: Let's suppose:

\- random kill, no reason at all, psycopathy: 20 years in jail

\- justified kill: 5 to 20 years in jail

I remember the dad that killed the Karate's instructor of his son, who was raping him during 'classes'. The dad killed the guy. For many people, it was a kill and he should be in jail. However, put yourself in his shoes, wouldn't you do the same (or near the same)?

In this case, you couldn't say: "oh, that's ok, just go home, we'll sort things out", because a crime was committed.

Maybe, and I'm being extremely naïve here, maybe, that could act as a deterrent when people are thinking on committing unjustified violence against others.

Again, I don't know nothing, I'm no lawyer.

<comment><USER19> > For many people, it was a kill and he should be in jail.

For who not? I get that you might get angry and do something regretful like beat them up, but the justice system is there for a reason. If you start killing whomever you feel justified to kill... You say "many", perhaps because you're in favor of capital punishment carried out by the assumed victim before any trial, but I sincerely hope that you're wrong or the countries we've been building for thousands of years are doomed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This reminds me of the eerie feeling of despair I get when thinking about Godel incompleteness. Any axiomatic, logical system will have true statements that cannot be proven. This implies that even a perfect system of laws would carry out injustice, whether they are false, or failed convictions.

<comment><USER21> That's not what it means. It means there will be things not covered by law, which is probably fine. There is no need for law to be all covering. I posit that the set of things that is desireable for law coverage is finite.

<comment><USER20> I think it raises a really interesting question. Since our legal system is based on rationalism and the scientific process, and we know that an axiomatic, logical system cannot completely describe all truths within its domain, then how can we hope to provide a fair judicial process, or to make sure that our collection of laws actually disambiguates rules in concordance with their supposed ethical justifications?

<comment><USER22> Our laws are not so rigorous a system that we need to be worried about how to handle determining whether or not a computer program halts for the purpose of enforcing a law against writing programs that don't halt. Enforcement frequently differs based on whether laws are even _remembered_ , and the last time the US federal government attempted just to count the number of laws they failed and gave up. Remember, the incompleteness theorem says that a _consistent_ system can't prove its own consistency. Amidst the mess and imprecision of any legal system there's no chance that consistency is preserved anyway.

<comment><USER20> Yep, you are right that the way our laws are enforced is irrational and renders many of these concerns moot in practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> For those interested in different legal systems and how they operate, I really enjoyed "Legal Systems Very Different from Ours" ([https://amzn.to/35r1ooP](https://amzn.to/35r1ooP))

Here's a draft version published online: [http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_sy...](http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_12/LegalSystemsDraft.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> >For most of Republican history there was no formal law criminalising homicide: the Roman government was so deliberately decentralised that it did not see itself as a state which was harmed by private homicide. The murder of a private person did not affect the various magistrates' power, and therefore the state need not interfere.

This is absolutely beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER25> "After hearing the prosecution and the defence, they asked everyone to return to hear their judgment in 100 years' time, neatly avoiding the need to ever make a decision."</comment>


React vs. Vue (vs Angular) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/fundbox-engineering/react-vs-vue-vs-angular-163f1ae7be56 <comment><USER2> React is a piece of candy sitting on top of a mouse trap. Vue is how to build apps for the a Web.</comment>


Using Magic on the Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dwmerriman/the-best-app-for-the-apple-watch-c974325c9096

<comment><USER2> $20.11 for a box of vegetarian chow mein. Are magic adding a massive premium to the prices or is the restaurant they chose expensive?

<comment><USER3> Probably both, they definitely add a service fee on top of the retail price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It looks like magic, but I heard it's not AI but human manpower that powers Magic.

How does Magic scale? How many human employees do work behind the scenes? (5, 20, 50)

<comment><USER5> "Do things that don't scale"

[http://paulgraham.com/ds.html](http://paulgraham.com/ds.html)

<comment><USER6> "Use services that don't scale" \--no one

<comment><USER7> Well, in reality a lot of food delivery services are being served by people, who answer phone calls. Not very scalable way, but it works :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Too bad I'll never be able to use Magic (for free) since I'm 33,037th in line to get access to the service.

<comment><USER4> There is only a non specific fee on every bought product, the full price (without details) is mentioned upfront though.

I am in the queue behind you (at 45,xxx afaik).</comment></comment>


Introducing dumb-init, an init system for Docker containers - <AUTHOR> http://engineeringblog.yelp.com/2016/01/dumb-init-an-init-for-docker.html <comment><USER2> The actual reason you really need a proper PID 1 is not explained in this post, but a couple of clicks away at [0]:

      >[...] the init process must also wait for child processes to terminate,
      >before terminating itself.
      >If the init process terminates prematurely then all children are terminated uncleanly by the kernel.

0: [https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the- pid-1-zomb...](https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the-pid-1-zombie- reaping-problem/)

<comment><USER3> Considering phusion/baseimage has been around for more than 2 years and plenty of people have been using an init system inside their containers that contain multiple process, why didn't Yelp just pick something up off the shelf? Why not use runit or one of the plenty of more mature lightweight init systems?

<comment><USER4> I can't speak to the others that have been mentioned in this thread (tini in particular seems to be identical), but the solution used by phusion/baseimage is written in python[0] - a C-based solution allows for lighter-weight containers

[0]: [https://github.com/phusion/baseimage- docker/blob/master/imag...](https://github.com/phusion/baseimage- docker/blob/master/image/bin/my_init)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> stephen-mw Very nice! I see this as the next evolution to the phusion's custom init system[0], which was created to solve largely the same problems.

I should be able to take Yelp's dumb-init and add it easily to any linux container I want -- including things such as Alpine[1]

[0] [https://github.com/phusion/baseimage- docker/blob/master/imag...](https://github.com/phusion/baseimage- docker/blob/master/image/bin/my_init) [1] [https://github.com/gliderlabs/docker- alpine](https://github.com/gliderlabs/docker-alpine)

<comment><USER5> s6 and s6-overlay were also created with the same goal: [https://github.com/just-containers/s6-overlay](https://github.com/just- containers/s6-overlay)

I use it in my Alpine containers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If I understand correctly, the main goal here can be summarized in the quote below:

 _" The motivation: modeling Docker containers as regular processes_

 _[...] we want processes to behave just as if they weren't running inside a container. That means handling user input, responding the same way to signals, and dying when we expect them to. In particular, when we signal the docker run command, we want that same signal to be received by the process inside. "_

and that seems to me as the core reason why they can't just use a simple init system (like e.g. runit I suppose?)

</comment><comment><USER7> > Having a shell as PID 1 actually makes signaling your process almost > impossible. Signals sent to the shell won't be forwarded to the subprocess, > and the shell won't exit until your process does. The only way to kill your > container is by sending it SIGKILL (or if your process happens to die).

Noob question. Why is it impossible? You have the PID, no?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question! The problem is trying to signal it from outside the Docker container.

If your container has a process tree like

        PID 1: /bin/sh
        +--- PID 2: <your Python server>

then if you use `docker signal` from the host, it will only send a signal to PID 1, which is the shell. However the shell won't forward it on to your Python server, so nothing happens (in most cases).

dumb-init basically replaces the shell in that diagram, but forwards signals when it receives them. So when you use `docker signal`, the Python process receives the signal.

Alternatively, just eliminating the shell (so your Python app is PID 1) works for some cases, but you get special kernel behavior applied to PID 1 which you usually don't want. This is the main purpose of dumb-init.

<comment><USER7> Ah that makes sense. I did not realize how docker-signal forwarded signals. From its perspective using PID 1 makes sense because that's where the "application" should run as specified in your dockerfile.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks to be an alternative [https://github.com/krallin/tini](https://github.com/krallin/tini)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, tini is really really similar and looks pretty cool! They're solving much of the same problem. It's unfortunate that we didn't find tini before we went and wrote dumb-init.

There are some minor differences (dumb-init looks like it's probably a bit better for interactive commands since it e.g. handles SIGTSTP). You can also get process group behavior at run-time with dumb-init rather than compile time, and it's on by default unlike tini (as far as I can tell from a brief reading). But for most cases it won't make a difference.

<comment><USER9> Quick disclaimer: I'm the author of Tini (thanks for the hat tip, by the way!).

Note that for interactive usage, Tini actually hands over the tty (if there is one) to the child, so in that case signals that come "from the TTY" (though in a Docker environment this is an over-simplication) actually bypass Tini and are sent to the child directly. This _should_ include SIGSTP, though I'm not sure I tested this specifically.

That being said, both tools are probably indeed very similar — after all there is little flexibility in that kind of tool! Process group behavior is probably indeed where they differ the most. : )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another alternative, for what it's worth: [https://github.com/rciorba/pidunu](https://github.com/rciorba/pidunu)

I've created an Ubuntu PPA packaging of it ([https://launchpad.net/~danieldent/+archive/ubuntu/pidunu](https://launchpad.net/~danieldent/+archive/ubuntu/pidunu)) and you can see an example of it in use at: [https://github.com/DanielDent/docker- powerdns](https://github.com/DanielDent/docker-powerdns)

For situations involving multiple processes, there's also [https://github.com/just-containers/s6-overlay](https://github.com/just- containers/s6-overlay)

Example use: [https://github.com/DanielDent/docker-nginx-ssl- proxy](https://github.com/DanielDent/docker-nginx-ssl-proxy) (automated Let's Encrypt SSL front-end)

</comment><comment><USER8> If it's such a straightforward fix, why isn't it part of the docker core? I'd love to hear from the docker team why it's not a concern for them. Presumably if it was they'd have addressed it by now.

From my own experience with docker in production, I'm yet to see any of the described scenarios crop up. Has anyone else, or is this solving an extreme edge case?

<comment><AUTHOR> > From my own experience with docker in production, I'm yet to see any of the > described scenarios crop up. Has anyone else, or is this solving an extreme > edge case?

The biggest issue we see at Yelp is leaking containers in test (e.g. Jenkins aborting a job but leaving the containers it spawned still running).

Depending on how you orchestrate containers, you might not encounter the issue in prod. If you're using something like Kubernates or Marathon or Paasta, they're probably going to do the "right thing" and ensure the containers are actually stopped.

We also use containers a lot in development. For example, we might put a single tool into a container, and then when developers call that tool, they're actually spawning a container without realizing it. For this use case, it's really important that signals are handled properly so that Ctrl-C (and similar) continues working.

<comment><USER11> Why did you not use something like supervisord? I run a few containers (obviously not at yelp scale) and supervisors has been spectacular at restarting, managing,reloading,etc. It handles nginx,gunicorn,puma,tomcat, etc pretty well. Yes its python - but was that the motivation?

Also,you guys should comment on [https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/5773](https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/5773) which is work on unprivileged systemd in docker. I think you guys can influence the bug with your experience in this.

<comment><USER12> some of us don't want systemd and it's tag-alongs ruining our docker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is cool, but you can solve the same problem with a single line of bash

        trap 'kill $(jobs -p)' EXIT

<comment><USER14> No you can't. It _looks_ like it can, but there are various edge cases that aren't handled.

See [https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the- pid-1-zomb...](https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the-pid-1-zombie- reaping-problem/), section "A simple init system".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there any reason you wouldn't run normal "non-dumb" init for this using

        CMD ["/sbin/init", "2"]

and start your app using init.d scripts or supervidord as usual?

I feel like logrotate, cron, etc, are worth having inside container no?

<comment><USER16> Generally accepted practice is no - they aren't worth having. Containers should only contain a single process. That process shouldn't be writing logs to disk (hence no logrotate) and timed tasks would generally be done outside the container rather than in it (though there are a lot of ways to skin that cat).

Single process containers generally don't need all the baggage of a full init system or other dependencies - hence this project.

<comment><USER17> At my current job, we're basically using Docker as a sort of package manager and deployment script runner. Our containers are very fat, things are installed with apt. One of them has GCC in it but I'm not sure why. One installs Node and runs a few js scripts during the build process, then never runs it again but keeps it around. It's obviously wrong, but I think it's just a new set of bad ideas that this software has allowed people to have.

<comment><USER18> Under a time crunch I've not found a way to use language-package managers and not wind up with gcc in the container.

The problem is apt does a poor job of letting you setup something like build- essential and then remove it and leave just the runtime shared libraries you need for the other things you build to actually work.

<comment><USER19> I kinda solve that by doing something like this:

        # install runtime deps
        dpkg -l | awk '{print $2}' | sort > old.txt
        # install build deps
        # build software
        dpkg -l | awk '{print $2}' | sort > new.txt
        apt-get -y remove --purge $(comm -13 old.txt  new.txt)

Probably a better way to accomplish that, but it was the easiest way I could see to implement an 'undo'

<comment><USER20> If doing this sort of thing, make sure to accomplish it in a single step (image layer) in the Dockerfile. Otherwise you won't be doing any good as the "removed" files actually persist behind a layer which specifies them as removed.

<comment><USER19> I've been using docker-squash for that. This way I can take advantage of layer caching during development, and still have a small image for uploading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Reminds me of RancherOS that also have Docker running as PID 1: [https://github.com/rancher/os#how-this- works](https://github.com/rancher/os#how-this-works)

</comment><comment><USER12> Another sign that systemd is not going to infect docker any time soon.</comment>


Show HN: The correct way to solve problems with Selenium. - <AUTHOR> http://elementalselenium.com/

<comment><USER2> It might help to pull a few of the headlines from the tip archive and put them in the Tip Archive section on that main page. The main page is rather content free, so showing some highlights from that content (and/or showing people's opinions of that content) might be a good thing.

<comment><USER3> Good thought. Thanks for the feedback! Does this mean you up-voted this post? :-P

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Be sure to check the tip archive for all the historical tips: [http://elementalselenium.com/tips](http://elementalselenium.com/tips)</comment>


Dynamic DNS Resolution in Nginx - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/driven-by-code/dynamic-dns-resolution-in-nginx-22133c22e3ab <comment><USER2> I'd rather reccomend using the "valid" parameter for resolver than using a variable.

Like: resolver 10.0.0.2 valid=30s;

<comment><USER3> By default, the resolver directive should honor the TTL of the DNS entry it resolves ([http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_core_module.html#reso...](http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_core_module.html#resolver)). The load balancer DNS TTL of 60s is a value we didn't feel we needed to override.</comment></comment>


The Skype sex scam – a fortune built on shame - throwaway-hn123 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37735369 <comment><AUTHOR> > I chose not to go down the route of scamming because I consider it > incompatible with our Moroccan and Islamic values

Or... with basic human decency, whether you're Moroccan and Islamic or not.

<comment><USER2> I spent six weeks in Marrakech over the summer. The attitude among the locals is basically this: it you're a Muslim, you're "one of them" so you don't get scammed. If you're not a Muslim, you're fair game for everyone from small boys on the street to shop owners to obvious thugs to sex scams.

This is especially the case if you're a non-Muslim woman. I can't count the number of times men made crude comments to my gf. On several occasions shopkeepers sexually assaulted her with me standing right there!

I've been to some shitty places in my time, but none of them have been quite so horrible as Marrakech. Having said that, I also spent a couple of weeks in Fez and that was lovely — completely different atmosphere and attitude.

Edit: Just to be clear, I don't think this attitude is necessarily a Muslim thing. I think it's more to do with poverty and tourism. I live in Eastern Europe at the moment and there are plenty of scams here too, although not at the same level.

<comment><USER3> Moroccan here and I found the first paragraph of your comment appaling. So you spent 6 weeks in a foreign country and that makes you now somehow a "subject matter expert in how moroccan think".

> "The attitude among the locals is basically this: it you're a Muslim, you're > "one of them" so you don't get scammed. If you're not a Muslim, you're fair > game for everyone from small boys on the street to shop owners to obvious > thugs to sex scams."

Thank you for letting us know about your insight. I'm not saying you didn't experience this, I'm saying that you are making a dangerous generalization about all people of morocco/muslims. This scams by the way target wealthy people from the gulf, this has nothing to do with you being the "infidel" and being fair game. There are good and bad people everywhere. Your comment hints that moroccan only care about other muslims and would scam others because it doesn't matter. Well I can tell you it matters, we are human beings. Islam as any other Abrahamic religion, does not give you a free card cheating/scaming people just because they are not muslims.

<comment><USER2> I understand how what I said might offend you, but I clearly said It was more related to poverty and tourism than Islam and that my experience of Fez was completely different, so I wasn't generalizing about Muslims or Morrocans.

But I stand by what I said: Marrakech, particularly the Medina is occupied by scam artists, thieves, thugs, and scum of every stripe. Perhaps this is based on an unusual and unrepresentative experience, but after six weeks of being harassed, conned, and abused I'm unlikely to return to find out different.

Your contention that they treat everyone this way, regardless Of race, religion, or nationality, isn't comforting.

<comment><USER3> >I clearly said It was more related to poverty and tourism than Islam

No you didn't.

>But I stand by what I said: Marrakech, particularly the Medina is occupied by scam artists, thieves, thugs, and scum of every stripe. Perhaps this is based on an unusual and unrepresentative experience, but after six weeks of being harassed, conned, and abused I'm unlikely to return to find out different.

And that is fine with me, it's a tourist city and you would find similar cities around the world. I personally tend to avoid Marrakesh and Casablanca.

> Your contention that they treat everyone this way, regardless Of race, > religion, or nationality, isn't comforting.

I still don't think you understood what I was saying. You are generalizing and tend to jump to conclusions quickly. I said scammers generally don't care about your religion, they only care about the money. Which happens surprise suprise everywhere in the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've dealt with a ring like this when ww.com was still active, a bunch of Romanian women had begun targeting the men on there. In the end I set myself up as a potential victim to see how they went about their business and sure enough, a couple of hours of chatting later the requests for nudity started to roll in.

The girls were all real, I figured out some of their moves and got rid of all of them, it took a while to puzzle out the extent of the whole thing. Likely they made 1000's if not 10's of 1000's of euros before we got wind of it because the victims were extremely reluctant to contact one of the moderators or the authorities.

The simplest advice I can give to anybody that is being propositioned by some girl online is to simply _not_ get undressed in front of your webcam.

It's sad that technology that I had a hand in creating is abused like this, and it _really_ pissed me off that my website was a direct tool for blackmail.

But at least that particular ring got shut down, however it is likely they moved on to other ways of reaching their victims.

</comment><comment><USER5> Spam bots have added me on Skype before and I've occasionally tested out how they respond to certain things. Usually nothing interesting but if you mention calling the police they say this (copied from a log):

"hahaha! call em! and tell them you are reporting a felony... YOUR HAIRSTYLE!! You might wanna get that looked at!"

All the bots I tried it on did that same thing, so apparently they're all from the same software, and maybe even the same organization.

</comment><comment><USER6> >Intelligent, articulate, and technologically adept, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that in a place with more opportunities a young man of Omar's talents could find a legitimate way to earn his $500 a day.

Pretty ridiculous statement there. Not many places on earth can a person earn that for simply being smart.

<comment><USER7> Presumably that's why it says "in a place with more opportunities"....

<comment><USER8> It could be a fictional place, they have plenty of opportunities.

I mean, this simple scam does not show much of a person. 1\. You can use facebook 2\. You know a weak spot in men that everyone knows about, and in countries that are more developed laws prevent companies to abuse men. 3\. You know how to match when you type with a video recording that you are showing a person/victim.

Edit: on a social engineering level this doesn't score that high.

And I'm not going to list the negatives that this shows right now.

<comment><USER6> Right, the main differentiator with a person who does this stuff is willingness to do this stuff.

Let's not glamorize it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > The next day she sends me a message: "Hi, how are you? I saw your profile > and I liked you." So I looked at her profile and, I mean, she was really hot

If that's all it took, Samir is an idiot.

<comment><USER10> Sure, so let's scam him. Idiots exist so we can explore them. The world is a place for the smart guys. We just have to hope there isn't someone smarter than us out there.

<comment><USER11> Our AI overlords are going to have a laugh scamming us

... creating a 20 year long world of relationships, work and virtual reality is all it took to fool sickbeard. He really deserved it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If a random girl asks you to show her your penis, first make sure you are doing it in person and she does not have any devices on her. How can people in this century not know that your stream (no pun intended) can be recorded.

<comment><USER13> Frankly, any photo or video on digital media is just a tiny little step away from being irreversibly published to the internet. People should never make photos or videos of that kind if they don't want it to be public.

<comment><USER14> > Frankly, any photo or video on digital media is just a tiny little step away > from being irreversibly published to the internet. People should never make > photos or videos of that kind if they don't want it to be public.

Alternatively, a photo of me in my nude being public should not mean that I am unfit for public office. Nobody would ban Jennifer Lawrence or Kate Upton if they wanted to be a teacher. Why should we fire our school teachers for sending nudes? Why should we refuse to hire people who have made sex tapes from teaching?

All this "think of the children" hysteria is pretty stupid.

<comment><USER15> There's a reason why they're targeting people of specific religious backgrounds. Religion has the ability to take garden variety embarrassment and passing judgments and turn them into suicidal embarrassment and public stonings, scarlet letters and the like. Obviously, the scammers doing this kind of crap are horrible excuses for human beings, but the organized religions of the world deserve some of the credit for creating such fucked up environments where scams of this sort can work so effectively.

<comment><USER16> They're also targeting prominent political conservatives like Ron Sandack, loudmouth State Rep. from Illinois. If you're one of the likely members of the lynch mob who would attack someone who has fallen for this scam, you're a likely target for this scam.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Two thoughts about this story:

1) Am I the only person who doesn't accept random facebook friend requests, ESPECIALLY from beautiful women? If I don't know you, I just assume that you are trying to scam me by becoming my facebook friend. Then again, there must be SOME people who just randomly friend strangers that they have no connection with (or half of the stories in MTV's "Catfish" would have never happened).

2) People really shouldn't freak out too much about there family seeing nudes/sexual pics of them. My mother actually has unintentionally seen sexually explicit photos of me, and it wasn't nearly as big of a deal as I thought it would be. I let her use one of my USB drives, but forgot that there were pictures of myself and ex-girlfriends involved in some more intimate activities.

The result was that my conservative religious mommy realized her then 34yo son was not her "baby" anymore and she called the photos vulgar and pornographic, but beyond that, the world didn't end. I was embarrassed for about 30 seconds, then realized that the only thing that has really changed is she has visual proof that I am sexually active. Well, I am LIVING PROOF that she was sexually active AT LEAST ONCE, so what is the big deal?

The only REALLY uncomfortable part was when the nurse in her came out, and she started grilling me on contraception and whether I was getting regularly tested for STDs. Then she started pleading with me to tell her if she had any grandchildren out there (she doesn't). That turned into the "you really need to settle down and give me some grand-babies" discussion. I offered to buy her a puppy instead, but she said that wasn't the same.

I guess the whole point of my post is that (at least in the West) photos like this might be a little embarrassing, but if your family and friends love you, they will STILL love you even after seeing a video of you doing something that EVERYBODY does, only in private.

</comment><comment><USER18> I guess those who are

1\. new to the internet 2\. Do not know many long time internet users

Are good targets for these scammers. There all over the place in dating apps... either the dating app's own inside scammers or the worst kind like this one.

Maybe there should be a quiz before you are allowed on the internet that's schools you on if a hot young chick is crazy eager for you but you never met and she's lives far away well then....ummmm.....

</comment><comment><USER19> Well, i guess the day is not far away where a NN dreaming your face into a homemade porn move, could automate this sort of scam. But if everyone is scamable- noone is.

Problem solved, next low point of the species.

</comment><comment><USER20> >And what if my mum sees this?

First, why is she watching unsolicited "porn" if it's so bad? Second, what kind of parent watches a sex video of their kid? Should be obvious what's happening pretty quickly and then Alt-F4. And then why would a relative share the video?

I get there's a different cultural standard and not everyone can just shrug and say "ya well I don't know why you're watching videos of me".

It just seems like a serious deficiency if relatives are watching and sharing private media.

<comment><USER21> If I had a video of a relative like that come into my inbox my first reaction would be to close it right away and act like it never happened.

<comment><USER22> Almost certainly, but I might also let the person know, discretely and in careful language, depending on how close our relationship is.

<comment><USER23> I've been in a similar position; a relative overshared something on Facebook. (You know those facebook "Like" buttons on Pornhub? Yeah, turns out they work.)

We quickly and discreetly contacted the relative, and let them know what they'd done, and they removed the evidence from Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think this is posted with the recent Black mirror episode as context. Scary.

<comment><USER25> True, but it's not a new thing and the BM story was far more elaborate than "guy does naughty thing, gets blackmailed".

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> [http://abc7chicago.com/politics/i-team-ex-state-rep- sandack-...](http://abc7chicago.com/politics/i-team-ex-state-rep-sandack- resigned-after-sextortion-with-woman-in-philippines/1514604/)

>Newly obtained police documents suggest that a cybersex blackmail scheme was behind Rep. Ron Sandack's (R-Downers Grove) resignation from the General Assembly.

> According to Downers Grove police reports, in early July Rep. Sandack was > engaged in a video conversation via Skype with a woman "in her early 20's > with long black hair." The woman, whom Sandack told police he didn't know, > had originally contacted him on Facebook.

> Rep. Sandack, 52, and the woman had several text exchanges on Facebook that > "could be characterized as friendly conversation, like two people getting to > know basic information about each other" investigators say.

> A short time later, the Downers Grove father of two connected via Skype > video-where internet users see and speak to each other on their computer > screens. Although the nature of the conversation between Sandack and the > woman is blacked out in the Downers Grove police report, similar blackmail > schemes have resulted in disrobing and sex talk between the participants.

> In Sandack's case, the woman on the other end of the Skype hook-up told him > that she had made a video of their encounter and would distribute it to all > of his Facebook friends...unless he paid her a sum of money...which he did. > This scheme is fairly widespread in the U.S. and well known to federal law > enforcement officials. Authorities have screenshots of Mr. Sandack's > communication with the woman.

</comment><comment><USER26> Another BBC article - this time the scammers are from the Philippines. [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27249926](http://www.bbc.com/news/world- asia-27249926)

<comment><USER27> This is a series of reports from BBC2's Newsnight weeknightly current affairs analysis show. Been a flagship show for decades, and has as times been very good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> $500 a day, and it takes an hour per victim, and they're asking for thousands?

Then "they all pay" can't be true. Either it takes longer, or the payment rate is lower. The numbers don't add up.

<comment><USER29> ... or he just doesn't work his ass for 40 hours per week ;)

<comment><USER28> If you're making thousands per victim and it takes an hour, yes, you'd work as much as you can manage.

<comment><USER30> I'd imagine looking for victims is the hard part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is this illegal? I guess it's a form of blackmail (thus illegal) right?

<comment><USER32> Yes. And there's a good chance that now that it's in international media and the scope is so large the king will catch wind of it and the repercussions for these guys will not be good.

In Nigeria you might get away with stuff like this. But Morocco is besides an Islamic country also one with ambitions, good ties to Europe and increasingly modern infrastructure (as evidenced by their Internet racket). If I were them and I read this news article, I'd be putting my Japanese motorbike and German car on the boat and cross gibraltar. I bet it's not too hard to become a Spanish citizen if you have money.

<comment><USER33> Nobody cares.... He'll even scammer in the USA are pretty brazen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> There are much more sophisticated versions of this where the girls are real and they embroil men in months long relationships and gather much more...ahem...extensive material. They also seek out high value targets, not necessarily millionaires but people in a high middle-income bracket.

The case that I am personally aware of the scammers were based in Ukraine and despite the person being quite cool headed about it, it did cost him severely.

</comment><comment><USER35> I remember a french teen got scammed like this online, the scammer threatened to release nude videos of him if he didn't pay, the young man committed suicide because of the shame.

</comment><comment><USER36> There is a similar scam in the US, but it collects differently. After tricking the mark into interacting with the "beautiful girl", the scammer contacts the mark claiming to be her father (or sometimes a different role) and saying that the girl is under 18, and to pay a ransom or be reported to the police for sex crimes. This scam is so common that it is a "sticky thread" for Reddit's /r/legaladvice .

</comment><comment><USER8> The 1 mysterious view was the youtube moderator Im guessing.

</comment><comment><USER37> I just recently left Morocco after spending some weeks there with a group of travellers. The high incidence of catfishing on Tinder was a bit surprising to us. I wonder if it's a related branch of the sextortion trade.

</comment><comment><USER38> very hard to fool a Chinese, there are tons of professional liars. The last time when someone using a pretty pic and ask for video chat and much more. I told him it is a fake video, and he is not good at it, then he shut down xD</comment>


IPhone Dev Team releases 3.0 Jailbreak and more. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.iphone-dev.org/post/126465561/trois-drei-h-rom <comment><USER2> _SIM Free/SP Unlocked/Factory Unlocked iPhone 3G This model of iPhone 3G doesn't have an Service Provider lock (aka factory unlocked) and you are able to put any SIM card into the phone and get service._

Where can you buy these? Iphone + anyone but ATT would be heaven.

<comment><USER3> In the UK, at www.play.com

They're taking pre-orders for the 3GS at £999 for the 32GB version. Ouch.

<comment><USER4> is there any way to get one in the us? could someone provide me with a list of websites?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just updated. Went really smoothly.

</comment><comment><USER5> Where is the 3.0 ipsw download?

<comment><USER6> Just download it from iTunes when you autoupdate.

<comment><USER5> PwnageTool asks for the firm bundle.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you've downloaded it through iTunes, PwnageTool will find it, and allow you to pick it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> worked for me, now i just need to install winterboard again</comment>


Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294904575385241453119382.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews

<comment><USER2> The discussion is over here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1639679></comment>


Noam Chomsky and the Bicycle Theory - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/education/edlife/on-being-noam-chomsky.html <comment><USER3> Chomsky has interesting ideas whether you fully agree or not.

On language, human language has intricate rules that we can't fully explain in terms of the underlying neurobiology. But Chomsky's assertion that this implies some sort of underlying mechanism in the brain strikes me as excessively reductionist. Maybe neural networks are inherently capable of learning arbitrary rules, and the kinds of rules that comprise natural languages are constrained not by the brain, but by something else, e.g. maybe only some kinds of grammatical rules are stable over time as languages are subject to random drift.

On politics, Chomsky gives a very thorough critique of US foreign policy, but it is excessively materialist, i.e. it assumes the main driving force in politics is money and power, not ideology. Often this seems far fetched, e.g. US politicians are clearly very eager to please the Jewish lobby (e.g. AIPAC) but according to Chomsky it's the Jewish lobby that has been co-opted by the US in order to use Israel as a tool for US foreign policy. And yet in all the private discussions of all US presidents, all we hear is them being pushed to the right by the Jewish lobby. We never hear them saying "the Middle East is too stable, Jews and Arabs are starting to form solidarity and oppose US imperialism. Quick, pressure Israel to take a harder line".

<comment><USER4> How "powerful" would the Jewish lobby be if support for Israel among Americans was not at 62%[1]?

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/189626/americans-views-toward- isr...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/189626/americans-views-toward-israel- remain-firmly-positive.aspx)

<comment><USER5> It's kind of chicken and egg though, isn't it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >How do you account for your amazing stamina and energy level at age 87?

>The bicycle theory. As long as you keep riding, you don't fall.

<comment><USER7> Talk about burying the headline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving."

― Albert Einstein

[http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/28/bicycle/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/28/bicycle/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I have listened to hundreds of hours of Noam Chomsky lectures and talks on Youtube. Even if you don't agree with his politics seeing what his perspective is on issues is always interesting.

Its funny to see this as Noam often remarks that there is an active ban on him being mentioned in the New York Times newspaper.

<comment><USER5> I agree, but it's also very depressing. He lays bare all the ugliness in our current system, but suggests no solution. Which is ok, it's good to separate the two things, or perhaps there simply isn't a solution. But still, I always need to cheer myself up after listening to him.

<comment><USER10> He does suggest a solution, it's just not an easy one. But it is simple: Organize and get shit done. He often uses the womens liberation movement, civil rights movement and anti-vietnam-war movement as historical examples. There's still work to be done, and it takes a lot of effort and a long time to get anywhere, but we continue to progress towards the better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >Chris Knight explores "the Chomsky problem" — the paradox of a thinker who belongs to the "professional and scientific elite" even as he espouses populist political ideas.

Ok, this work is not the substance of the interview, but what is the paradox? Should I believe that it is strange that scientists studying fluid dynamics use conventional toilets and sinks outside of the lab?

<comment><USER12> I think one of the preeminent examples was his initial and sustained support for Pol Pot [ignoring evidence of wrongdoing [1]] while there existed much evidence for not supporting them [the KR] because it clashed with his sympathies for the Communist movement in SEAsia at the time.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman)

<comment><USER13> This is a total mischaracterization and unsupported by the citation. Chomsky and Herman examined mass media coverage of U.S. enemies vs friends, finding that similar atrocities by enemies would be trumpeted and exaggerated beyond their already atrocious reality (e.g. Cambodia), while those by friends would be ignored or downplayed (e.g. East Timor). To call this "support" or "sympathy" for enemies is a commissar mentality.

<comment><USER14> >> Chomsky and Herman examined mass media coverage of U.S. enemies vs friends

That is not exactly how Wikipedia discuss the Pol Pot and Chomsky subject?

(Also, a later quote by Chomsky, at the end of that discussion of him, notes that Pol Pot's atrocities were "I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury." which directly contradicts comparing with East Timor. But sure, during the Cold War lots of dictators that was needed got off easy for human rights violations.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman)

<comment><USER13> You misunderstand. That directly _supports_ the comparison with East Timor. When enemies commit atrocities there is outrage and fury in the mass media, and when friends commit similar atrocities there is silence and downplaying. Also, the Wikipedia article does not support the claim that Chomsky offered "support for Pol Pot".

<comment><USER14> What?!

This is the early international reaction of Pol Pot criticism:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#Internation...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#International_reaction)

Chomsky, according to the w-pedia link I gave in the GP, criticize that and call it probable anti communist propaganda. And then they write supportive/neutrally of communist Pol Pot defenders.

<comment><USER15> Mind the context: The Vietnam invastion of the U.S. happend just then, with massive atrocities committed by the U.S. (2 million civilians were killed in North Vietnam alone, Agent Orange killed an _additional 400000_ after the war ended). At that time, that was hardly mentionened in the press, or, if mentioned, framed as a necessary price to pay to archieve freedom.

In 1969, Nixon also dropped over 100.000 tons of bombs over Laos and Cambodia (Operations MENU and Freedom Deal), killing many thousands of civilians.

Even now, 40 years later, the English Wikipedia entry for the Vietnam War and the casualities portrays a completely different image than e.g. the German entry ([https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzt...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzte)). The english entry downplays the U.S. atrocities and e.g. doesn't mention the Agent Orange aftermath. The majority of pictures in the U.S. entry show Viet Cong victims, despite the fact that the U.S. killed way more civilians.

Of course Chomsky and Herman, being aware of that, were sceptical about the Pol Pot press coverage in 1977. And, according to your link, they reverted their scepticism when the facts became clearer, calling it the "great act of genocide in the modern period".

<comment><USER16> Context is very important in understanding commentary written in the 1970s. In today's world, people on various parts of the political spectrum are writing things about various Middle Eastern actors which they are sure to regret in future. I have a certain degree of sympathy for someone like Hildebrand - <USER2> coauthor of a book heavily dependent on Khmer Rouge sources which one of Chomsky's more controversial articles on Cambodia praised - who subsequently admitted that he'd been guilty of "intellectual arrogance" in being too quick to assume based on his Vietnam experiences that popular media accounts were fabrications and Southeast Asian leftist groups were relatively honest about the situation. I have somewhat less for Chomsky, who switched from insisting that Cambodian refugee reports were unreliable, casualties owed more to US bombing than the Khmer Rouge and that nitpicking over mainstream estimates of death tolls was entirely appropriate if they were out by a "factor of 1000" to accusing the CIA of Cambodian genocide denial (by deliberately misrepresenting a report which actually attributes 1.2-1.8m deaths to "the savagery of that regime") almost as soon as Cambodia was successfully invaded by North Vietnam, and who continues insist to his commentary in the 1970s was entirely balanced and justifiable.

<comment><USER14> >> people on various parts of the political spectrum are writing things about various Middle Eastern actors which they are sure to regret in future.

Interesting, what do you think will be heavily reevaluated? Frankly, I have no clue. The whole place seem too complex to have a serious opinion.

Do you expect that ~ friends of different democratic groups will do genocides? [Edit: It ought to be quite a time before a US president flirts with the Brotherhood in Egypt again, right?]

Do you think the acceptance of extremists will be embarrassing? When the whole "don't be a friend of a non believer" etc gets through to the left?

Or the opposite, that the Middle East will be less intolerant and easier to live with and gets modernized?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find linguistics one of those topics that I have questions about but don't know enough to use the correct terms to find an answer. \- Is there an objective metric for 'efficiency of communication of an idea'? If so, what is it? \- Are some languages more efficient at communicating ideas than others? \- What is the most efficient language? \- Are there any attempts to create a new language using all the best features of historical languages? like how programming languages take the good features from one another?

<comment><USER18> As far as efficiency in communication, there is a metric, though I can't recall the name.

There's a general idea that less information dense languages lead the speakers to talk faster (e.g. Spanish vs. English) implying that humans have a type of ideal information density regardless of how that information is packaged.

/Not a linguist. Took a class once...

<comment><USER19> Apparently, they're is a time article about it

[http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,0...](http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,00.html)

They talk about information density:

With this raw data in hand, the investigators crunched the numbers together to arrive at two critical values for each language: the average information density for each of its syllables and the average number of syllables spoken per second in ordinary speech. Vietnamese was used as a reference language for the other seven, with its syllables (which are considered by linguists to be very information-dense) given an arbitrary value of 1.

For all of the other languages, the researchers discovered, the more data- dense the average syllable was, the fewer of those syllables had to be spoken per second — and thus the slower the speech. English, with a high information density of .91, was spoken at an average rate of 6.19 syllables per second. Mandarin, which topped the density list at .94, was the spoken slowpoke at 5.18 syllables per second. Spanish, with a low-density .63, ripped along at a syllable-per-second velocity of 7.82. The true speed demon of the group, however, was Japanese, which edged past Spanish at 7.84, thanks to its low density of .49. Despite those differences, at the end of, say, a minute of speech, all of the languages would have conveyed more or less identical amounts of information.

Further googling got me this PDF [http://www.ddl.ish- lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/pellegri...](http://www.ddl.ish- lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/pellegrino_to%2520appear_language.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Time for another Noam Chomsky AMA?

</comment><comment><USER21> Is there any way to read the article without logging in?

<comment><USER22> For NYT, just open the article in an incognito tab. They're nice about it. I ended up subscribing because I read so many of their articles and I like their coverage.</comment></comment>


Google+ Exodus (FB app) - <AUTHOR> http://cirbio.com/exodus/index.php

<comment><USER2> The great thing about Google+ is that you don't _need_ your friends to move there to derive value from it. Rather, it seems to be designed to follow a three-phase growth process, first supplanting Twitter, and then Facebook and Foursquare.

The asymmetric connection model makes it easy to fill your stream with enough signal to be useful, much like Twitter. This allows individuals to discover and begin using the service independent of their broader social network.

Which is where circles and check-ins come in: If you and enough your friends are already visiting Google+ of your own volition, why go elsewhere to share something with them? If enough folks in the area are already paying attention to Google+, why not check in there instead of on Foursquare?

It strikes me as less of a Facebook killer than Buzz 2.0, but with vastly broader institutional support and the tools to scale from that _into_ a Facebook replacement, once your own social graph is sufficiently on board. All it takes is time.

Edit: Oh, and sparks! Sparks are great if you want to use Google+ but can't find enough users to fill your stream, yet. It's like googlebot-curated RSS. Again, it gives users a reason to come to Google+, even if their friends haven't.

<comment><USER3> My main feature request is the ability to select which circles are included in my main stream, or alternatively being able to create multi-circle streams. My problem is that the high output public twitter-type stream overwhelms my friends and family, so I'd like to exclude the Scobble-types unless I want to specifically look at their feeds.

The circles concept is really setup for set arithmetic, I guess they're trying to figure out a good UI for it.

<comment><USER4> I believe that is slated for he update that is due this week. It is one of my "wants" too.

Also, apparently better text chat support is turning up soon which is another of my key wants.

As "version 1"s go, the current Google+ is decent, a few features and tweaks and it'll be great (though not too many tweak please Google, particularly please let keep Facebook keep the 3rd party apps and all the associated scum).

Now if only more of my contacts cared to give it a try...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems to send an email to all your facebook friends that have a *@facebook.com email (about half of my friends).

Did not give me the opportunity to review nor edit the email before sent. Be careful if you have business contacts as Facebook friends!

<comment><USER6> Sending out spammy emails on my behalf is the absolute best way a company can end up on my shitlist. It's so.. violating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why would I want to have all my crufty 'friends' from facebook on G+? I added most of them out of politeness. Let them find me on G+ on their own.

<comment><USER8> Because you can put them in a "Waste of Space" circle.

<comment><USER9> Even in a "Waste of Space" circle, they will be able to pollute your stream.

I sincerely hope we can prevent some circles from appearing in the stream. This missing feature is the main reason why I still use Twitter. On Twitter I have the people I follow so I can get information, while I use google+ to see what my _real_ friends want to share with me. Therefore, If I could hide the "Following" circle from my stream, I would spend less time on Twitter.

<comment><USER10> The trick is to create a circle of people you want to follow, and then click that circle on the left side of the stream page to see only what they think. I submitted a request for a main stream editor but I doubt they'll implement it.

<comment><USER4> Apparently you will seen be able to mark circles as not appearing in your default stream display. It might not be flexible enough to do what everyone wants by way of controlling the streams but we'll see when it arrives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a clear case where 'Exodus for Google+' would have been a _much_ better name.

</comment><comment><USER12> The name suggests people are leaving Google+ not leaving for Google+.

</comment><comment><USER13> I just executed an "Exodus" request from this service, and it is still up and running and working as of 4:41 PST.

Since Facebook hasn't blocked this application as of yet, I wonder if Facebook is taking the stance that the more people that see Google+ now, the more people might see that Google+ isn't as useful and polished as Facebook.

I love Google+ and am an active user, but they still need quite a few more features (checkins, business pages, iOS integration etc) before they'll be hitting their stride for the masses.

Regardless, this has been a fun month of July!

<comment><USER14> I'm actually enjoying the lack of features. No ads, no Zynga, no events, no business pages. And fewer friends who aren't really friends.

<comment><USER15> "fewer friends who aren't really friends", that's a feature ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Facebook will ban this app from FB Connect in 3.. 2.. 1..

</comment><comment><USER17> Fuck you, Facebook. Seriously. __Fuck you. __

Sorry, just frustrated about them terminating this app. I was just about to try it out, too. :(

</comment><comment> robert-boehnke Where does the app get the google+ invites from?

</comment><comment><USER18> The Facebook Autobot is going to kill this app..hell Zuckerberg will do it himself..careful guys

</comment><comment><USER19> Aw, it's shut down now.

Maybe it would be good to open source this thing and get lots of people to host their own. Distributed Exodus.

</comment><comment><USER20> make it open source</comment>


Europe, long counted out in high-tech startups, has become a major player - <AUTHOR> http://startupsusa.org/global-startup-cities/ <comment><AUTHOR> Via [https://twitter.com/richard_florida/status/10558811125039431...](https://twitter.com/richard_florida/status/1055881112503943169?s=21)</comment>


I just released an eBook about exceptions and failure handling in Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://exceptionalruby.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm loving the recent explosion in self-published books, but as a (general) request: they are so, so much more useful when they come in multiple formats (mobi, epub and pdf).

<comment><USER3> It's shameless self-promotion, but my startup Leanpub (<http://leanpub.com>) lets you write in HTML or Markdown, embed external code samples, save your files in Dropbox and produce PDF, EPUB and MOBI with one click. We sell all 3 formats, with automatic update distribution to existing readers when you publish a new version (so you can sell your book while it's in progress). You keep the rights to your book, etc.

<comment><USER4> Uh... That's actually awesome. I'll start writing a book now, and that's where I'll publish it.

<comment><USER3> Great! Let me know how it's going, and if there's anything you need us to improve...

<comment><USER4> I definitely will! Right now I just wish you supported LaTeX, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here are the slides from the presentation on the same topic given by Avdi.

<http://avdi.org/talks/exceptional-ruby-2011-02-04/>

<comment><USER6> Saw Avdi do this talk at Magic Ruby. It was really nice, and in depth, and answered quite a few questions. I bet the book is well worth the money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Bought the book, found out Ruby has retry. Money well spent.

<comment><USER8> Wow, the timing could not be more perfect as Im trying to deal with a validate_uniqueness race condition :)

<comment><USER9> validate_uniqueness is a system that is completely broken once you have more than 1 ruby process running against the same database. It just can't work the way you want it to.

You must add constraints to the database and handle the resulting exceptions to ensure unique values.

They really need to kill validate_uniqueness since it is so totally broken

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> After seeing Avdi talk about this at Ruby on Ales, I've started using `fail` almost exclusively instead of `raise.`

It's the little things.

<comment><USER11> I quick check of the Ruby documentation (<http://www.ruby-doc.org/core/>) suggests that raise and fail are the same method.

Is there an actual difference between these methods?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope! It's strictly a style issue. As I explain in the video (or the book if you buy it), as a result of a conversation with Jim Weirich I'm starting to use "fail" once again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just read the sample pages and already learned something I am going to start using.

</comment><comment><USER13> is it too late to suggest an epigraph?

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett

</comment><comment><USER14> Anything like this for Python?

<comment><USER15>
        try:
            your code
        except:
            handle the exception
        finally:
            clean up

<comment><AUTHOR> That's all you'll find in my book, I just made the font really big and quintuple-spaced it.

;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Check out the talk that that inspired the book" <\- Find the the redundancy.

<comment><USER16> Now, if pointing out syntax errors on a commercial frontpage doesn't help the author, then I don't know, guys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I want to read this book because I'm curious as to how you can stretch this topic beyond two pages. But I don't want to pay $15 for that. Any ideas?

<comment><USER17> "I think your book is crap. Give it to me for free?"

<comment><USER15> Not what I said at all. I am honestly intrigued, but not because I care about Ruby.</comment></comment></comment>