dos1

So you don't take pride or feel a sense of ownership over your code? That would put you in the minority I surmise.

Fact: The vast majority of people would take the twitter conversation Heather posted as a personal attack. Not many people are able to separate attacks on their work product from attacks on themselves (for good reason - since I feel like most people derive a sense of pride from their work).

I dare say it would also take an asshole to not recognize this fact and make rude comments and not realize someone would be personally offended even though "it's just some code".

He didn't merely say the project "wasn't good", he implied it in a snarky, very unconstructive way.

Here's his quote from twitter:

>Ever wanted to make sed or grep worse? http://github.com/harthur/replace

In the world I live in, that's called being an asshole.

Look, I'm not saying these guys should apologize (in fact, if this is how they apologize it's probably best they don't), I'm simply stating that they're dicks. I know a lot of computer programmers just like them.

Edit: And I hate working with people like them. I don't care how brilliant they are, programming is a team sport in most places. If you're a jerk I don't want you on my team, no matter how many awesome sed scripts you can whip up.

No, Steve Klabnik being an asshole makes it so hard for him to not accidentally be an asshole.

Look at this quote:

> nothing's _wrong_ with it, but I don't want to build my app on top of others' code who are at this level of understanding

What a prick!

Wow, David Cramer is a total asshole! That Steve Klabnik guy is also an asshole. The only one who doesn't appear to a complete dick is Corey Haines, whose apology was better. Not great, but better.

Here's the thing - if you ever even consider saying things like this to someone on the internet, you're an asshole. It's not a one time accidental thing. Nope, it's in your personality. I hope I never meet either of these two individuals, but if I ever meet them face to face I will make sure to tell them exactly what I think of them.

This is the money quote:

>The prevailing scientific view of the exclusion zone has become that it is an unintentional wildlife sanctuary. This conclusion rests on the premise that radiation is less harmful to wildlife populations than we are.

I don't consider myself an environmentally focused person, but the effects humans have on the ecosystem cannot be overstated. I'm not saying the effects are negative or positive, just that we as a species need to be very cognizant of the changes we cause, and we need to think critically about what ramifications those changes have.

> I just think you should appreciate them ruefully.

This is a perfect description. I agree completely with the "ruefully" portion. I will still support his quest to raise trouble at the DoJ, but I do not support many of the other things for which he stands.

Yep. It sure seems like no one in Washington plays the game fairly, so you might as well score what points you can in any way that you can.

I know there are many who disagree with that.

> what do you honestly think Aaron Swartz would think about this clown using his name to score political points?

I'm not sure I understand why the "clown" scoring political points is so bad. Where in the rulebook does it state that doing the right thing must be completely devoid of agenda or beneficial byproducts?

Take, for example, volunteering. There are many who "volunteer" because they have to - whether it be for school, punishment, whatever. Do you think the volunteer organizations care why the volunteers are there as long as they work and do their jobs? No. They're just happy they've got people to help.

I think the same thing applies here. I never met Aaron nor do I know how he would react, but I know many folks who care deeply about this issue. They really only care that someone is asking the pointed questions and holding the DoJ accountable. They don't much care who it is or why he's doing it. If the end result is the same, what does it matter anyways?

I'd say Minnesota and the midwest states take it for worst roads, especially in the city areas. The freeze/thaw and snowplows decimate our roads every winter.

Completely agree. I'm a consultant and this is very intriguing. Sure, the money is low and the equity is high, but I have a ton of side projects that never get finished. If this offer was what it took for me to finish something, I'd say 50% of a company and rent money for a month is worth a lot more than an idea that's just languishing.

Couldn't have said it better. My father was never one to give demonstrative praise in the typical sense, but it was clear to anyone who saw that he was one of the most caring and loving parents. And even though praise may not be explicit, it's certainly possible to tell when someone is happy with you or takes pride in your accomplishment, even if they never actually mouth those words.

> I sometimes felt angry about how we were treated until one day I realized that they made a great parental sacrifice, exchanging their own popularity for our potential.

This is the best line I've read in a comment here in some time. I had this same epiphany once I went to college. My father and I had never really gotten along. I had tremendous respect for him (and a mild bit of fear), but I never really "liked" him. He preached personal responsibility and hard work. Over and over.

When I was in karate as a 10 year old, we would work in the basement for hours every night. Perfecting every move, learning all the forms. He would sit there and critique. I hated it. I won a lot of trophies in competitions as a child, but I never cared. There was no praise for winning. I hated the constant practice, the drilling, the ceaseless work. As I got older I realized the message he instilled. If you want to excel at something, this is what it takes. This is the amount of effort required to be competitive. And you do things because you want to be good at them, not because someone will praise you for it.

Every day of my life I'm glad he taught me that lesson. I get so tired of self-entitled whiners like the author of this article. It's not fair of course, the author never had a parent that taught them what hard work and success really looks like. The real shame is that he's probably more the rule than the exception these days.

I'm all for innovation, but don't pretend that this is some altruistic plan by Google and Apple to move the web forward. It's about the same thing it was for Microsoft, keeping users tied to THEIR browser.

Let's take Google Chrome's NaCl. It's eerily reminiscent of ActiveX is it not? Sure, Google open sourced it, but Mozilla and others have repeatedly criticized it. The web is not about sandboxing native code and creating some kind of Frankenstein platform within a platform where one can execute "native" code in a web browser. I mean, it's friggin' stupid. But it's OK because Google open sourced it and proposed it as a standard, right?

Or how bout Dart? Let me rush out and build my next application in Dart, because it's going to be standardized right? I mean, Google open sourced it so everyone could implement it!

There are some good things (WebM, SPDY) that have come out of Google, but those were incremental improvements and they allowed for graceful degradation or were alternatives to existing things.

Personal bias much? I see you work on Safari at Apple.

How come it's OK for WebKit to extend the spec with non-standard features but it was not OK for IE 6? Sure, some of the features have been standardized and included in other browsers, but the same thing happened with IE! You can thank IE for the XmlHttpRequest after all.

I can literally see no difference between IE6 adding non-standard features vs. WebKit doing it. You just have personal stake in WebKit succeeding and don't want to admit it's basically the same thing.

See the rest of the comments in this thread about why the fallback can be painfully slow if the CDN is down. I saw your previous comment about making an ajax request with an adjusted timeout, but this is not ideal for making cross domain script requests for a number of reasons. For one, CORS needs to be enabled. Another is that you now have to create a script tag and take the responseText and jam it in there. This is going to be slower than just creating a script tag and setting the src attr.

If you are going to have a fallback, and that fallback may take seconds to activate if the CDN is down, why not just make the fallback your primary?

I agree completely that your average website will have less uptime than the CDN. The problem isn't that the CDNs are less reliable, it's that it's VERY unlikely that your site will experience downtime at the same time as the CDN. This means your site reliability is the combination of the downtime of the CDN as well as your own.

I figure most content sites that are including jQuery are likely including some other third party libs. In the case of more than one external lib I think bundling makes sense and has a positive impact.

Yeah, I know - but why bother? Just host the libs yourself and be done with it. Plus that way you can bundle them with your other scripts and save a request.

Edit: To clarify - the reason I don't like the above solution is because if the CDN is slow to respond for some reason, you've just wasted a bunch of your user's time before loading your self hosted version.

More generally, I have never understood why people use these third party CDNs for important sites. Don't get me wrong, I understand the bullet points that the Microsoft's and Google's trot out: User more likely to have it cached, more simultaneously open connections since it's a different domain, perhaps less latency etc.

But the simple fact of the matter is if the CDN goes down, your site essentially goes down. Everything else might be up and working great, but how well will the UI function if the user can't pull in jQuery? I just don't see any value in taking a dependency on these third parties for hosting JS libs and the like.

As I understand it the mobile SDKs Xamarin releases use the native UI widgets for each platform - allowing you to get native look and feel with one code base.

(I may be wrong on this, but I thought this was one of their major selling points. However, never having used the SDKs I don't know how well it works in practice)

LINQ is just another tool in the toolbox. Like any tool it has the potential for misuse. Ultimately the skill of the person wielding the tool will decide whether the outcome is good or bad. It sounds like you've mostly seen the bad. In the right hands, LINQ can make things more readable and concise.

Take another example, anonymous functions in Javascript. I've seen plenty of tremendously horrible JS code bases that were just a deep series of nested anonymous functions. Almost impossible to debug or maintain. However, when used appropriately the anonymous function is very powerful and can make certain things much easier.

Who's their network switch vendor? I'm not a networking expert, but boy - it sure seems like their switch vendor has screwed some things up royally. Or perhaps this is common with all complex network topologies regardless of hardware vendor?

EDIT: I would just like to say, along with others, I greatly enjoy their postmortems and I feel as though I learn something every time. Kudos to them for being forthright. I host my personal and professional projects with them and am supremely confident that my data is as safe with them as it is with anyone.

Disclaimer: This is my own personal experience and opinion. I've dealt with substance abuse issues for many years and I've known several people for whom substance abuse exacted the ultimate toll.

The short of it: There are no reliable solutions. There are no good answers.

People with depression and substance abuse issues don't think the way non abusers do. They know what they're doing is wrong and that it could lead to death or going further down the spiral, but their ability to rationalize their behavior is all powerful. It has nothing to do with will power or motivation. There's something wired differently in the brain.

Medication, AA, NA, inpatient treatment, religion are all good things to try. Sometimes one of them sticks. I wish you the best of luck. The only advice I can give is this: If something bad happens with your father, it is not your fault. There is nothing you can do to change his behavior. All you can do is be supportive if he recognizes the need to make a change.

If you look through my past comments I've been very critical of his "disclosure plan" myself. I agree with you completely. This blog post did nothing but reinforce my belief that he made a mistake. He wrote a lot of words that weakly defended his almost indefensible position.

I can only conclude he really does believe he did the right thing. I hope the people who's rooms were broken into see it that way too.

As with most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Not having a coding standard at all is just as bad as having a very rigid standard with no room for free expression and where nobody can remember all the rules.

See StyleCop (for MS languages) for examples where "coding style guides" can go overboard.

Holy shit. I can't remember a time when a website had an immediate impact on me like this. I mean, literally 5 seconds after landing on the site I got what they were trying to do and couldn't click the fund button fast enough. Such a simple idea but maybe that's what makes it so damn brilliant. So cool.

Edit: When I first went to the site 15 minutes ago there were two profiles of people in need of medical care. The total outstanding balance for both treatments was around $650 USD. In just 15 short minutes both treatments have been fully funded according to my inbox. That's just phenomenal, and I bet this story on HN has a lot to do with that!

This looks fantastic. Do you know if there's any kind of similar implementation for Ruby? Would it be terribly complicated to do something similar for Ruby or a different dynamic language?

The author mentions jQuery's broken promises implementation and how it prevents the excellent chaining feature. I definitely see how jQuery's implementation differs from the Promises/A spec. However, doesn't .pipe() in jQuery basically allow for the same chainability as .then() from Promises/A? Is there a difference I'm not aware of?

I was hoping this would be the outcome. I could not believe that anyone would seriously try and enforce this statute.

As a Minnesotan I still suffer the shame of electing Jesse Ventura, but at least we're not the state that said "no" to free education - yet.