5l

This definitely has applications beyond coding: http://imgur.com/62335fX

Why? Because they can, and the school environment often actively encourages the kind of power hierarchies that result in this sort of bullying.

See also: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

It's great, but as you have both domains now, you should really just run with codeAcademy.com if at all possible (which is what everyone remembers it as) rather than orienting your branding to deal with the name confusion (box around the code etc).

It doesn't give you everything on the same screen but if you can't live without the automated filtering of a tabbed inbox, try the "Quick links" Gmail lab rather than multiple inboxes for fast access to Needs Action / Awating Reply (essentially you can save searches to the stars which appear as a set of links below your categories on the left).

So the question is: what is the biggest killer of startups? Practicalities (I can't go to this meeting because I can't afford the coffee) or psychology (the funding killed my sense of urgency?)

While I have sympathy for your point of view, as a founder hitting the practical issues every day the idea that all financial support is toxic just doesn't wash with me.

The point is rather than these bodies acting as gatekeepers deciding what they think will work or not, funds should be distributed via a lottery subject to some basic criteria.

In fact, that is rather the point of the matching funds you mentioned - they let the private sector decide the winners and come in on the same times. That said, there's still a checklist of what sectors they will and won't fund - and it so happens that some startups get unreasonably pigeonholed.

Exactly. I understand where the article is coming from, but I couldn't disagree more. Competition is both inevitable and a force for innovation.

Even if we were all to rally behind Webkit (unlikely), what happens when a significant portion of the community decide they don't like the direction of the project (and they will, sooner or later) - we'll get a fork, and be back to square one, only with a huge amount of damage done to the open ecosystem we have now.

I'd attempted to do this before but got stuck formatting the cards. Going to give it another shot with your examples - cheers!

I got a screen resolution error at 1280x1024, but clicking onto the demo video and then hitting back in my browser got me to the app (which looked absolutely fine at my res).

Other than that, looks awesome, and really responsive on my slow netbook which is great for an app like this.

Same here, so I switched over to Chrome (Canary) and got exactly the same error. This is why UI sniffing is such a bad idea.

Maybe not important for everyone, but tambur supports SSL for all pricing plans

Well it's won you one customer here at least. I'm really sick of companies charging extra for security.

Thank you, both of you, for such a relevant and intellectually stimulating discussion.

It's a bad thing - effectively it gives a few search companies control over the entire namespace. ie. if it's not searchable, it doesn't exist.

What Twitter seem blissfully unaware of is that they've traded download speed for rendering speed on lower end devices.

Re: the link headers, see the HTML 4 spec [0] & RFC 5988 [1]. They're only supported by Firefox and Opera at the moment [2] though.

[0] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/styles.html#h-14.6

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988

[2] http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc/httplink/

1.2. Existing Work.

[...]

Microsoft did some early work on HTTP access to email. The Outlook Express client application uses a fully HTTP-based interface to do all mail functions on Exchange mail stores as well as Hotmail. At the time, Hotmail could or did not support IMAP. The Microsoft API uses PROPFIND to list mailbox contents (this mechanism predated Atom by several years).

> it seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

To heavily paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: those who would give up privacy to obtain moderately more relevant search results, deserve neither privacy nor relevant search results.

Privacy is freedom, knowledge is power, convenience is safety.

> Maybe where we differ is that I sort of see the end of privacy as a foregone conclusion

It might well be, but that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for in the meantime. I don't believe human society is evolved enough to handle a complete loss of privacy quite yet.

> Credit card companies [...] [sell our] data with absolutely no compunctions

You've just reinforced my earlier point. This is precisely why we don't want Google to profit from our personal data. I want Google to stay on my side.

> I don't think it's fair to call Google "evil" until they actually do something evil

I didn't. But as I said earlier, if they allow themselves to enter into a situation where they're either forced to do "evil" or can't tell if what they're doing is "evil" or not, they are not adhering to the spirit of their motto.

However I think at this point we should call it a day and agree to disagree as we're starting to go around in circles. I did very much enjoy the discussion though and it gave me much food for thought.

I'll leave you with this:

Privacy has to be viewed in the context of relative power. For example, the government has a lot more power than the people. So privacy for the government increases their power and increases the power imbalance between government and the people; it decreases liberty. [...] Privacy for the people increases their power. It also increases liberty, because it reduces the power imbalance between government and the people. (Bruce Schneier)

...and the last word, if you want it!

> The occasions of Google's data being compromised are notable for being exceptions

So far, but the risks are only going to get worse. Eventually the value of our data, at least in aggregate, will exceed the costs of defeating Google's security (assuming it's even as good as the money they put into it). And please don't forget, the government can take a peek anytime for free.

> Google makes money by keeping that private data confidential, while Facebook makes money by selling the data

They use it for exactly the same purpose. To sell ads. Neither platform has, or likely ever will, sell our data outright. That is absolutely the last thing I'd be worried about.

Of course, like the government, you don't know who will be in charge tomorrow or what their intentions might be.

> These are the companies' respective structural traits. And I think that's what makes Google unique.

All institutions will try and do terrible things if you set up the wrong incentives.

> Can you elaborate as to how this new strategy no longer aligns our interests with Google

We are paying for this with our privacy. I'm not sure how much clearer I can get. Improvements to Google's index used to cost us nothing. Now they cost us our data. The more data they collect, the more money they will make. That sets their interests squarely against ours; yes, true, we want good search results. We also want the government to arrest all the terrorists. I'm not prepared to live my life as an open book to achieve these results.

> to me the benefits far outweigh the risk/cost.

You've asked me a lot of questions, let me ask you some. What happens when the benefits no longer outweigh the risks but Google tell you sorry, our profiling isn't finished yet. What if through some change in your personal circumstances the data they hold suddenly becomes damaging to you. What will you do if they go too far? Will you know straight away? Will you have time to make a decision? Will you be able to tell them to stop? How will you get Google to delete your data if you want them to leave you alone? Are you expecting the government to step in and help even though they're directly benefiting from all this data collection? Are you perfectly happy that they have access to it all? Would you so willingly hand over the same data to them directly?

> Could you point me to the obvious internal disquiet?

It was to this [0] article I was referring. I don't think he was misrepresented, but the Larry Page quote was really beside the point.

Edit: reworded the paragraphs below for clarity

> impending but vaguely characterized misuse of that data.

There have already been a number of occasions where either Google's network was compromised [1], a rogue employee has misused data [2] or users have had their accounts hacked [3] en masse. And of course, on top of this, various government and intelligence agencies have had access to your data [4].

None of that should be the least bit shocking or surprising, because such outcomes are inevitable when a large company holds so much data. I'm not going to blame Google; none of those incidents served their interests and indeed compared to most companies Google are unusually transparent and responsive about these issues. But knowing that these things will happen regardless of their good intentions, Google should seek to minimise and not maximise the amount of data they hold on us.

> > Once they have the data and it's been mined for further meaning, it's inevitable they'll find new uses for it.

> This does not seem at all self-evident to me.

Perhaps I should have said, "it's inevitable they'll find new ways to make money from it". They're a company, after all.

> In fact, it seems to me that Google's incentives are such that it's pretty much in their interest to use the data well. [...] And they have every incentive to keep their users' trust.

Well, we could say that about any company, and yet abuses occur regularly. If you set a companies profit motive against the best interests of it's customers, the cost of a breach of trust will simply be factored into the equation. Unfortunately it is frequently the case that while a breach of trust may be costly, it's not always costly enough.

I don't think there's anything exceptional about Google here. They're not immune to corruption. Google has served us so well so far because our interests are aligned; it's the surest way to prevent an abuse of trust in the future and why I'm so concerned about their new strategy.

[0] http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/24/larry-page-to-googlers-if-y...

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01...

[2] http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-14/tech/29992918...

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/01/google-hack...

[4] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/

> First, I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm glad it remains civil. Thanks!

Yes, me too!

> I don't see these as divergent.

Not divergent in the sense that one precludes the other, but where one doesn't involve me, the other is all about me. The old Google cared only about my search terms, the new Google seems to want to climb in my bed with a notepad and figure me all out.

> Does Google have to not be evil in the eyes of every one of its employees?

Google, the institution, just has not to be evil, as they have defined evil. That there's obvious internal disquet about their new direction should be fairly disqueting to you.

> Could you describe in what ways you think Google is building an institution that leads them inevitably toward doing evil?

It doesn't matter how many websites Google crawl or books they digitise, we don't have to trust them or their intentions or any of their staff. But our personal information can be used both for us and against us, and it's eventual misuse is inevitable whether by the institution, corrupt agents within it, or parties outside of it. The only thing we can do is limit the potential damage by limiting the data they hold on us.

> Maybe the part I don't understand is what lies at the bottom of the personal data mine.

That's part of the problem, I don't think anyone does really. We're in uncharted territory and part of the reason it's so tricky is so much can be inferred about you from seemingly innocuous data, or from analysing your social graph.

> Is it a matter of how much data they collect? What they do with the data?

Well they have a loosely defined need which is pushing them to collect this data. It seems fairly benign; to improve search. But where does it end? Larry Page doesn't seem to have drawn a line anywhere. Once they have the data and it's been mined for further meaning, it's inevitable they'll find new uses for it. So one leads to the other, leading back to the first.

Google is staffed by thousands of very clever people. I don't want them spending their days trying to figure me out. They're not uncorruptible. It's bad enough Facebook is at it; we really don't need Google competing with them in this endeavor. If we allow the situation to get out of hand, the winner will be the company that holds the most complete portfolio of information on us. Are you comfortable with that?

> Why do you think Google considers its actions evil?

I don't want to sound prickly but you keep putting words in my mouth.

As I said, it's less about the specifics of what they're doing now, and more about the apparent switch of focus from "organising the world's information" [0] to "deliver[ing] online experiences tailored to each individual's interests and social circles" [1] which, I believe, may lead to a bad outcome. And it's obvious many people within the company are uneasy about this too (and do, arguably, think it's wrong) [2]

Does this mean "Google" thinks itself to be evil? Well it becomes meaningless to talk about Google as a monolithic entity at that point because it's made up of individuals.

I'm concerned because going forward I think it's going to be much harder for Google to balance the best interests of their users with their mission and profit motive. When Google launched, our interests were more or less perfectly aligned with theirs. This switch in focus is one of the biggest upsets to that yet.

> Making life difficult for yourself requires no excuse.

If I gave you my word, and then through a series of decisions proceeded to make it almost impossible to keep it, perhaps you would say nothing all the while. At the very least, I think you would have an opinion on it.

But here we have an institution. People build institutions. We can build it in such a way that's it's likely to fail, or build it in such a way that it wont. Surely you can see it's important to make it as easy as possible for Google to do the right thing and difficult, if not impossible, for them do the wrong things.

If we don't, I think history is pretty clear on this one. Sooner or later, a bad outcome is absolutely inevitable.

> I didn't realize that mining personal data counted as evil.

I said a race to the bottom in mining personal data. Is what they're doing now evil? The consensus seems to be, no. Is there a point where we could all agree they've gone too far? Absolutely; obviously, even. So naturally you're going to ask me where the line should be drawn. Well, I honestly don't know and unfortunately I think we'll only know after it has been crossed, by which time it may be far too late to take meaningful action.

Google doesn't need to go down this route. If they choose to they're going to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to hold onto their values.

Me, I think there are plenty of other things they could be getting on with. They haven't finished organising the worlds information yet. Maybe when they've done that, we can talk again about them "deeply understanding" who I am [1].

[0] http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/google-ceo-larry-pa...

[2] http://pandodaily.com/2012/01/24/larry-page-to-googlers-if-y...

> I'm not sure where coercion comes into it.

Sometimes you find yourself in a moral quandary through no fault of your own.

But if you're going to say, "I wont do evil" (whatever it is that you actually mean by "evil"), it would be wise not to put yourself in a position where you're either forced to do evil, or worse, can't tell if what you're doing is evil or not.

> evil isn't always easily discernible

So you're right; it isn't always discernible, but that's no excuse for making life even more difficult for yourself.

> They said "Don't be evil," whereas you're interpreting that as [...]

Not at all. They explained what they meant by it; I think it's perfectly reasonable and understandable so that's what I will hold them to. Indeed, I think it's clear that's exactly what they wanted us to do.

> I also totally get why Google would want to add social signals: to improve search.

Yes, I understand it too, and as I said elsewhere, I do find it rather convenient. I wont pretend it doesn't improve search, because it does.

That said, I don't want Google locked in a race to the bottom with Facebook to mine our personal data. I don't think it would serve any of us very well in the long term even if it would improve our search results and Google's profits.

> what alternative does Google have?

Find other ways to improve search.

Nobody coerced them into any of this. The founders of Google can steer their company in all sorts of directions.

If they choose to take their company to a place where they can no longer easily discern 'evil' from 'not evil', then I think it's fair to say that they're not adhering to the spirit of their motto.

To be honest, my main concern is that they seem to be driven primarily by commercial considerations in dealing with Facebook, rather than serving their users best interests. That, more than the specifics of what they're doing, is what really worries me.

> If we know something of your interests (based on G+ and/or search), isn't suggesting more relevant content to you on Youtube (as a purely hypothetical example) a good thing?

Yes (it's certainly convenient), but:

a) People will naturally question your motivations for these changes

and b) they will wonder at the privacy implications

The problem is (especially from the perspective of the tech press) you appear to be primarily motivated by "beating" Facebook, and people are now looking uncomfortably at their personal data juxtapositioned with public search results.

It may be that you held all this data already, and it may be that it's just as siloed off and protected at the back-end as it ever was, but the public is slow to wake up to the implications of the data you already hold. What might have flown below their radar yesterday, they're increasingly worried about today. Naturally the tech community who are better informed and think about these things much earlier are going to be amongst the first to start questioning you.

You're really shoving it in everyone's faces, so don't be surprised that there's some backlash.

I find it interesting that a motto so straight forward a child could understand now requires knowledge of the context and history in which it was coined in order to interpret it correctly.

From the Wikipedia article[0]:

Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent."

a letter from Google's founders:

"Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."

The intent seems quite straight forward to me, but if we're actually at the stage where we're debating the meaning of "Don't be evil", then perhaps it's already too late.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil

Do you have a reference for this?

I think he means there's no chance $1M could be mistaken for $1000 in this context.

Do you wear contacts? I've had the same problem with dozens of floaters swooshing around and got to the point where I had custom dark-background stylesheets for everywhere, but found that I could mostly tolerate white backgrounds again with glasses.

Needless to say I still use a dark background in my editor.

Personally I'd not reply because I'd be worried it would subscribe me to a premium-rate text service.

Present being the operative word. Plus cashiers don't rub the receipts against their hand for long periods of time building up sweat, as you might if you were filling out a puzzle.

Anyway I did say potential, but as the researcher suggests pregnant women working as cashiers should be careful and err on the side of caution.