obviouslygreen

And really... do we need to make everything about something Jobs said? The only part I'd agree with here is that "foolish" might apply if they drop the ball by making the UI less usable/intuitive, in which case "stay foolish" is horrible advice and will negatively effect a whole lot of users.

If not, if you can point out the weaknesses in (the rest of) what he's saying, I'm sure a lot of us (myself included) would be interested to read your counterpoints. I for one don't know enough about the relevant topics to debate this piece, but it would be great to read what more informed HN'ers think about his assertions (and why).

Also, the admin app isn't supposed to be client-facing; it's a very effective but not-extremely-user-friendly way to view data without having to resort to SSH'ing in and running ORM queries on Django's CLI (or, worse, the database's CLI).

You can use it that way (and many of us have; I'm not innocent), but encouraging that with a pretty application of Bootstrap will likely give a lot of new developers the wrong idea on the tool's purpose.

If Google ran its ship the same way with regard to hammering UI guidelines down everyone's throat, this would likely happen there as well. I don't know which is better or worse, but the two are certainly different, and it's either created a divide or pointed out a difference between people who strongly prefer one over the other.

Possible? Absolutely. Likely? That's impossible to know without knowing him and his motivations, and I would not call it a reasonable assumption given the generally self-serving state of US politicians (most others as well, but in this case they're the most relevant).

It's definitely nice to see other responses here that are from people who are, first hand, using Flask in high-traffic live deployments. I'd just be careful about drawing conclusions based on who has it somewhere in their stack without any context.

This is a really disingenuous generalization. If it's not Flask, it's messy and confusing? Telling every framework developer who's not the author of this one library that their code is crap not only isn't a great way to be taken seriously, it's wrong and just kind of mean.

The amount of trust we grant these people and companies in the first place may not be the root of the problems we're facing lately, but our collective naivete about other people's motivations and scruples has most certainly contributed to the lengths at which our rights and privacy can readily be violated by both the people we're throwing our data at and the governments that want access.

This is the sort of painfully anti-male rhetoric that makes actual feminists cringe. I don't identify as one of those -- I think it's more constructive just to make gender-neutral decisions and leave the activism to activists -- but those I know and have known cited people like this as a difficult obstacle to their cause: How are you supposed to engender trust, respect, and understanding, when the people who are most easily identified with your cause are irrational ragemongers?

Misogyny, misogynistic, misogynists. Repeat it long enough and maybe someone will start to feel bad. Don't give in to this crap; it's exactly the kind of prejudice it rails against, except what it's railing against isn't even the right thing, as instead of taking a realistic approach to real issues it has created a fictional monstrosity by blowing real issues out of proportion for the author's own gratification.

To be sure, there are likely people who think this way. But after reading this article it's pretty clear that even if this were a prevalent stereotype (I haven't seen enough to think it's even close), this in particular is not a good reference for it.

If the service were "weapon specifically designed to kill large Rhinoceri and then instantly sever their horns" or "phone that will encrypt and forward only narcotic-trafficking-related conversations," this point would be valid.

Why should it matter? Was I born a programmer or did I choose to become one? I was born physically (to satisfy the gender-sensitive) male. I was born human. I was born with blue eyes.

Beyond the physically obvious, if you're OK with persecuting people for a choice that does not affect you (e.g. "that guy is a blue-eyed human, and that's fine, but he CHOSE to be a PROGRAMMER, and that's just wrong!"), then you are making things worse.

"It's not a choice" doesn't make it more or less right or wrong. It's how people are. The failure to accept that (or at least ignore and tolerate it) is the problem, and it will not be answered by "well it's genetic."

[edit: Full disclosure: This post was made while listening to Queen, but I didn't CHOOSE to do that, the restaurant did that to me; please judge appropriately.]

...but... come on.

Aides say the general often scores over 1 million points on the "Bejeweled Blitz" online puzzle game.

Yes, this came second hand (if it was said at all). No, he did not say it himself, and no, playing games is neither a crime nor a failure of character... but come on, guys that is not the way to promote your boss' image as a highly-educated security expert (which his credentials suggest to at least some extent).

Based on the article, I think a very informative perspective could be that of someone who heard him speak at Defcon. Anyone?

Ridiculous. Call yourself sexist if you'd like. And if the day comes when the Singularity puts us all closely in touch with each other's psyches, then you're free to tell us how sexist we've all been and we'll cry about it over a collective mug of chai.

Until then, perhaps you should go apologize to some women on behalf of the detriment all of us that have had on their lives today. I'll go let my girlfriend know what a pig I am (after I'm done cooking her dinner).

Opinions are opinions. They should be stated and treated as such. If your "opinion" is stated in the form "x is y," then maybe you are the one who should be more conscious of the way people communicate. Sure, it's just an opinion; that's fine. Just don't expect anyone else to take it as a fact or agree that it's at all meaningful outside of your own head.

I don't agree with this assessment of the problem. Some people want to participate in discussions about how things are or how things work or why things were done or what actually happened -- discussions of fact and logic -- yet they want to inject anecdotes, generalizations, metaphors, analogies, and other abstractions.

It's irritating and intellectually backwards. But it's not going to stop, because most people less interested in what a discussion is about than they are about making sure people pay attention to their contribution, whether it's valuable, on topic, or other.

For people who don't understand it yet, this post is unlikely to help (but then, nothing will, and I won't fault the author for trying). For those of us who do, though, it's almost comically self-evident.

However, I will have to inform Mr. Cruise that his e-meter will not, in the near future, be able to predict his website's uptime.

Ahh, the tribulations of modern development.

My initial reaction is that this is the same kind of knee-jerk reaction that says Facebook is somehow doomed and irrelevant.

I think this is good and worth reading, but the title is hyperbole, and if they're actually concluding that Zynga is done, it's premature. The term "right-sizing," used in another article quoted here, is at best manager bullshit; however, it's not necessarily wrong in this case.

I dislike many of the things they do and have done, but "napkin math," particularly prefaced by "basic," is pretty much Tarot card valid. Like so many unsavory companies and ventures of questionable value before them, Zynga has a serious user/cash/revenue base, and it entirely remains to be seen whether they're just hemorrhaging value or whether they're actually making moves that will keep them solvent and push their business forward.

If both of these were the case, I imagine there would be no reason at all for articles like this or most of the comments here. As it is, there is fraud and there are other issues at work making this riskier than it should be (from a prospective donor's point of view).

It doesn't matter what you paid or what the blue book value is. You will only ever get what the person willing to pay the most for it that you're able to sell it to will pay. I didn't like it or agree with it the first time I heard it (from someone who ended up not buying a car I was trying to sell) but, years and many experiences later, I understand that it's true.

This is the more important lesson.

Replace clever code with unremarkable code.

Go has nothing to do with it. PERL has nothing to do with it. Switching languages most certainly has nothing to do with it. Keeping yourself in check and stepping back from your problems to understand their fundamentals, then looking for more appropriate and elegant methods of dealing with them in any language is what does this.

If this is the question, then the emphasis needs to be on who "we" is. If it's developers, then yes. If it's an ephemeral "the world" we, then no, I don't think this is the case; people were making beautiful (subjectively, of course) websites before bootstrap, and will continue to do so afterwards. Most of the designers I know don't use it as a basis unless they're coming onto a project that used it to start with.

Note: I accidentally either upvoted or downvoted you while copying the text to quote... if it was a downvote, I apologize.

Like at least some other recent articles, I have to assume that most of us already know (or at least have our own opinions, which are only half likely to match up and unlikely to be changed by articles like this). In which case this is not for tech people, but ancillary staff that like to think they're tech people (...VC's? PM's?).

I'm not sure why these keep getting upvoted.