6cxs2hd6

It seems to be worthwhile to post it again. Nate Lawson wrote:

> I made JS crypto a very minor part of the talk because I thought it would be obvious why it is a bad idea. Apparently, I was wrong to underestimate the grip it seems to have on web developers.

That was in 2010. Judging from many of the reactions here, today, web developers still very very very much want to believe it's possible.

Although smart people sometimes feel silly repeating themselves, some messages need to be delivered at regular intervals, especially messages most people don't want to hear.

Well if you read a few paragraphs into the article, there are examples like Code for America doing an adopt-a-fire-hydrant app in Boston. Which gets repurposed as an adopt-a-tsunami-siren in budget-strapped Honolulu, at a cost of ~$20/month. I don't think people need to be rabid nerds to see processes in government that could be improved. The article is about more people having the general mindset about how they could be improved.

In the middles ages, maybe some scribners thought the world would be a better place if everyone were literate? That doesn't mean everyone should be a professional author. But they should be able to participate in a world full of writing and reading.

By the way, the article has a comment by rms, so it's worth at least scrolling to the end, even if one lacks time to read the whole thing.

Although this is a long article, it's one of the best things I've read about computer literacy, diversity, and being prepared for the future. The main point seems to be that we should teach "computational thinking", first and foremost. Not everyone needs to learn how to "code", in the sense of learning Java syntax or whatever. Even if they couldn't implement the program, it would be helpful if more people in all professions were more comfortable with generally how computers could improve a process in their government or community. Plus, it seems that if you start with that, learning to code per se will be more appealing to a broader group of people. So in that sense it's win/win.

As to why I submitted that way:

I couldn't recall the norms here. I figured a mod could always un-G-rate the title (as they did).

Plus, I felt a little uncomfortable because the title "Bullshit" could seem link-baity (although the content is worthwhile) so I felt better submitting it "toned down".

Those are my stated reasons. Of course you may call bullshit.

After reading tourist books about how Japanese people think it's rude to blow your nose in public... it is slightly disconcerting to visit and see a guy hawk up some phlegm and spit it on the street. And/or, you step on a frozen goober, sparkling in the sun.

Even to the extent the generalization about a culture is true, there will always be interesting exceptions.

From the article I understand the suit is by LinkedIn members whose contact book was (in their opinion) abused to send these invitation emails to non-members. On the face of it that's a reasonable claim and seems they should prevail.

But also: How about the recipients -- who are getting repeated unsolicited commercial emails? How does this activity not violate CAN-SPAM? Shouldn't LinkedIn be subject to fines?

Edit: Although I don't terribly mind the downvote, especially if it was accidental -- I did read the whole article and had a genuine question.

Speaking of name and shame. People sometimes bring a lot of intensity to bear on a single statement or campaign contribution. It would be great to see similar intensity for acts of omission. If someone leads an organization that hasn't made even a weak effort at improving accessibility or diversity, that deserves some gnashing of teeth.

I think what accessibility and diversity both have in common is that the problem can seem overwhelming. Progress needs to happen step by step, organization by organization. We should encourage and compliment people who are taking even small but meaningful steps -- and "shame" the ones who are making excuses for not even trying.

I'd go that far. Making the busses "free" would have a number of benefits:

1. Drivers might be in less of a hurry. MBTA busses frequently run red lights and/or sit in the middle of intersections creating gridlock. [Source: Pick any busy downtown intersection during rush hour and wait <15 minutes. Watch.]

2. In my (admittedly limited) observation, Boston bus riders tend to fall into two groups.

(a) Relatively affluent riders connecting to the T (the subway or trolley). The MBTA will still get some money.

(b) Relatively poor riders commuting solely by bus to one of the multiple jobs they're holding down per day. Consider this a kind of reverse sales tax.

This gets into the ridiculously strict standard for "obviousness" -- requiring written evidence -- which is relevant to the third claim of the Amazon patent.

Discussing a hearing-aid patent that depended on the idea of using a plug as being "non-obvious":

> The Federal Circuit essentially expected a written document describing a wire attached to a hearing aid and ending with a plug with multiple prongs. What are the chances that a written reference will say this? What scientist would waste time writing an article entitled “The Benefits of Multi-Pronged Plugs for Hearing Aids”? What publisher would ever find such an article worthy of its journals? What reader would subscribe to a journal that published such banality? Yet such an article, such a simplistic, uninspiring, obvious article, is exactly what the Federal Circuit would demand to prove this claim obvious.

> With this law, the Federal Circuit has created a world in which the most obvious ideas are the hardest to prove obvious

Warning: If you spend any time looking at the The Surf Office site[^1], you're likely to be ruined for normal coworking spaces. The quality of life and affordability... wow.

[^1]: http://www.thesurfoffice.com/

That's an interesting question.

I can imagine this push resulted in some positive refactoring of Google's internal systems, which they would like to retain.

However I can also imagine it resulted in some layers of duct tape (very much like the rush job after a merger or acquisition), which they'd love to rip off.

It would be interesting to hear a Google insider talk about this. Meanwhile, my guess would be it's a mix of the above, and they'll be stuck with that mix for years to come.

IANAL and I'm not in the deal flow lately, but:

There's usually some leeway in the strength of the representations and warrants. As seller you want them as weak as possible. You want minimal grounds for the buyer to come back later and claim, "You promised X would be true but it turned out not to be; and you agreed you'd make us whole". Instead you want the deal to be done so you can move on with your life.

The more complete your due diligence materials, probably the more you can negotiate the R&Ws to be milder and more reasonable for you. Or even if you can't, at least the R&Ws are covering less unknown territory.

Whereas if you have big holes in your documentation, naturally the buyer will want you to be on the hook for surprises, and may require some proceeds to be set aside in escrow, or whatever.

Although I like using Uber as a customer:

> "Uber is creating 20,000 jobs per month, the company said in a blog post."

Really? "Jobs" as in W-2 forms and health benefits? Or independent contractors?

Not that the latter are necessarily bad, but they're fundamentally different. It is misleading to call them "jobs" in their blog headline, then switch to "partners" and "small business entrepreneurs" in the text.[1]

I understand that traditional taxi drivers don't have "jobs", either, and Uber might be a better client for a contractor than traditional taxi companies. But that's beside the point I'm talking about, which is unwelcome and deceptive PR spin.

[1]: http://blog.uber.com/uberimpact

> I don't know anyone who has been requesting a 3D display on their phone.

Well, 7 years ago I didn't know anyone who was asking to eliminate physical keyboards from phones.

I'm less skeptical of the merit of the idea (whatever exactly it turns out to be), than I am of Amazon's first generation implementation (based on owning 1st gen versions of Kindle eReader and Kindle Fire).

As just one example, you could live in Rochester MN. Nice 4 BR house <= $150,000 [1]. Medical care: The Mayo Clinic. Schools: AFAIK very good. And more culture and more liberal than you probably imagine.

There a dozens of places like this between the two insanely expensive coastal zones of the US. Places where things like housing cost nearly an order of magnitude less.

[1]: http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Rochester-MN/26791_rid/...

And, even among those people who do use it, a big percentage of their email will remain unencrypted. Transactional email like flight or hotel booking confirmations sent from the airline or hotel. I have to think that's the valuable stuff to Google in terms of selling ads, not the topics you would choose to encrypt.

So the downside to them is not that big. And it's offset by the upside of user trust and confidence being maintained, or at least eroding less.

Agree that highest priority should go to the "serious" stuff. However the most interesting part of a really old magazine or newspaper, for me, is the advertising. For example an early 80s computer ad, or a 50s railroad or airline ad. I find that stuff really fascinating, and it gives more of the flavor of the era. It might have a surprising amount of value to a historian or anthropologist.

Maybe I'm contrarian, cynical, and/or old, but I never fully understood the compulsion to advance an alternative mobile ecosystem in the form of iOS and Android -- at least not with the mission of eradicating OSX, Linux, Windows on laptops.

A tablet with a keyboard is a poor laptop replacement -- slow, limited, and in an awkward form factor.

Most "native apps" are CRUD apps that are better on mobile than web apps mainly just because mobile web browsers need to improve. (Admittedly possible big exception to that: Games.)

So if, after a couple years of experimenting, it turns out many people don't love tablets as laptop replacements, after all? I think -- that's fine. Experiment done. It didn't pan out. Let it go. Let's move the effort back to improving and innovating with "conventional" laptops and OSs, as well as trying things more inherently new like wearables or whatever.

I understand that each generation wants to reinvent all the wheels, but it seems like an unfortunate, wasteful diversion of resources.

If I correctly understand you to be saying that record labels and artists have aligned interests? I don't think most artists would agree. Not due to any techie meme. It's a musician "meme", or rather ~50 years of history of labels screwing the vast preponderance of musicians. (Short version: Paying tiny advances, followed by no royalties due to creative accounting of supposed expenses.)

It might be the case that a few platinum artists have more in common with their labels. As might a bestselling author like Gladwell with his publisher.

Agreed, and I don't love that label. In my experience, when someone uses the term "lifestyle company", nearly always that someone is incentivized by funding businesses. Translation: "A company that won't butter my bread, so meh". Insinuation: "People who don't pick up what I'm laying down are second-rate; not alpha entrepreneurs".

So I find the term somewhat derogatory. Instead, I would call a profitable, sustainable company, a "company" -- the presumed norm.

There's nothing wrong with getting on the other-people's-money treadmill, but there's nothing inherently superior about it, either. It's one choice, and AFAIK a relatively unusual one in the wider world.

> Improper joinder can be solved by just not joining defendants

Isn't joining defendants part of the economy of scale in being a copyright troll?

(Not a rhetorical/argumentative question; I'm genuinely curious.)

The slide that shows them #1 share in "Cloud"... does anyone know what that actually means?

I'm pretty sure it's not a violation of immigration law to visit the US briefly to do some meetings and/or free promotional events. People do this all the time. It's called a "business trip". Just be honest and check business instead of tourism on the immigration form, and be ready to answer a few questions about your job and company.

Fortunately overall it worked pretty well for me in Firefox. Very fun!

Not to get too far OT, but, I like "Built for Chrome" about as much as I liked "Built for Internet Explorer". This is a very cool app. If it needs to be built-for-x, then we all have more work to do.

Call me cynical but I can imagine a golf-course deal where Comcast and AT&T agree to this. Theory being, AT&T+DirecTV will seem like a more-meaningful competitor for Comcast+TimeWarner.

> In the new draft, Mr. Wheeler is sticking to the same basic approach but will include language that would make clear that the FCC will scrutinize the deals to make sure that the broadband providers don't unfairly put nonpaying companies' content at a disadvantage

Granted this is a non-quote from a source, so maybe that's the muddle. But muddled it is. If Comcast/Verizon are allowed to demand that some companies pay, then they're paying for... what? More bandwidth than companies who don't pay. It seems like the weasel word here is "unfair".

Look, Comcast/Verizon are already getting paid by consumers to deliver whatever data their consumers request. It's not as if Netflix is pushing the stuff unsolicited, like spam. So, how about Comcast/Verizon just do what the fsck they're already being paid to do?

OP says that CC didn't reply. At all.

If true, I think it's totally reasonable to complain about that.

You donate to an organization because you want to support them. You responsibly report a data breach because you want to support them. And in response? They can't be bothered to take 10 seconds to type "Thank you! We'll fix this ASAP." Really?

My advice to OP: Next time you're fortunate enough to be able to donate to an organization, pick another one. It's not just about supporting good causes, it's about supporting effective organizations.

That's interesting. I almost always time-shift sports. Stuff like American football is otherwise interminable.

Even when I want to get to the finish, live, I just start watching an hour after the recording begins. Fast forward through commercials and head-under-hood challenges, etc.

If it's a game I'm only semi-interested in, I'll wait until it's completely finished. Then just FF until I notice a score change, back up some reasonable number of minutes. Voila, personal highlight reel.

>>> Politics in a democracy of 180MM people is really, really messy.

>> It seems messier than politics in a democracy of 300MM people or 70MM...

> Snark serves no one well.

FWIW I didn't see it as snark. You seemed to imply the size of the democracy mattered. His/her response was a couple counter-factuals. Then you seemed to acknowledge it's not the size, it's the age of the democracy (which is a great point).

In any case I found the rest of your original post really helpful context, explaining why a "life" sentence probably won't turn out to be that. Thanks!

That's what burns me. We already pay ISPs to deliver the data that we request. They should take our money and improve their infrastructure. Instead, they want to get paid again, by e.g. Netflix, and the result would still be basically the same shitty third-world service we get in the US today.

Many of us already get a Slow Lane Demo every day during "prime time" evening hours.