Thank! In v1.0 most of the things that were deprecated from Express 4.0 [1] (and a couple more) work out of the box. On v1.1 you get websockets for free[2] as a router method and a plugin system that goes way beyond what is possible with express middleware so other integrations are possible (think about passport, aws' s3 and the likes).
Truth be told, for the initial release I only expect 2 groups of people to truly benefit from this: those creating new projects on a regular basis and those getting started with Node.js. I've taught to some people how to get started with Node.js and since Express 4.0 it's been quite challenging so I expect this to really help.
For developers is a bit harder, as sometimes a project requires the Facebook API and you only can use it if you have an account there. And what about the events and groups created there to organize meetings, manifestations etc?
Not to mention releases and announcements that industry folks release on twitter. For me, it's usually JS related, and I hope that js.org becomes the go-to resource that it has the potential to be.
It doesn't need to be framed as "silencing yourself". It could be framed as "withdrawing from the clusterfuck" or "preferring other mediums of information exchange".
It's kinda cute that he thinks that "marching" is where change happens. Marching is just a mildly evolved form of impotently virtue signalling on Twitter.
Virtue signalling is a valid idea, but it has become a way too easy way of dismissing things without proof, and acting superior at the same time. Just like invoking Dunning Kruger at the drop of a hat is in, so is labeling things virtue signalling.
Getting on your twitter soapbox and expressing your opinion does sway people. Two years ago, people who would say, "The damn mexicans need to get the hell out of our country" was limited to a very limited, and marginalized, corner of the internet. Over the past two years, it became acceptable through twitter, and now it is a cornerstone platform of the Republican party.
If twitter can have that effect, why do you think it can't have the opposite effect of making it known to your social circle that those ideas are not acceptable to you?
Or are you saying that tweeting "Mexicans, get the hell out" is legitimate, but "I find those statements incompatible with my idea of being a US citizen" is not legitimate?
> Journalists need your technical expertise to secure their devices, set up secure drops, and understand the data coming out of the countless leaks that are sure to come.
This strikes me as hypocrisy seeing as almost everyone, including the media, threw WikiLeaks under the bus last year.
That is because WikiLeaks decided to become politically opportunistic with what they chose to leak and when they chose to leak it, instead of simply leaking everything immediately after receipt.
It was the content that did the damage not the timing. There was a lot of unethical and illegal activity that was exposed. Those implicated are are not fit to hold office.
I agree with you that the content was absolutely damaging.
The Podesta leaks began 1 hour after Trump's pussy-grabbing video was published, and continued every single day until November 9th. The timing was absolutely strategic and politically motivated. If you still think the timing wasn't relevant, I have a bridge to sell you.
Is it because they were politically opportunistic, or because their leaks went against the media's politics?
Without question Assange was against HRC and Obama. The latter kept him as a political prisoner for 6 years despite UN rulings, "War on Whistleblowers", etc., and the former had already made an appearance in Cablegate and no doubt was not going to let him walk free either.
Even if there is a (legitimate) political motivation, facts and misdeeds are facts and misdeeds, and leakers should be protected regardless.
I believe there is also another angle that should not be ignored. Now, I sure as hell agree with your sentiment. I just don't think it's the whole picture.
In addition to trying to play a kingmaker, WL has become an unwitting subtle propaganda outlet. In an interview with Risky Business (a podcast), the infosec and opsec veteran The Grugq pointed this out. And it's an interesting chain where individually rational decisions have produced an irrational result.
1. WikiLeaks became the target of a witch hunt because they had become politically inconvenient.
2. Their resources were cut (eg. the VISA embargo), which greatly limited their ability to do good journalism. People associated with WL were routinely harrassed, which I also equate with cutting into their resources - Assange turning out to be a less-than-likeable personality further contributed to the attrition. Individuals simply started to make their own rational decisions.
3. In order to remain relevant at all, WL needed to publish more leaks.
4. Due to resources being scarce, they would have to do this in a way which carried the biggest potential payback. In other words, time the leaks to provide maximum visibility and downstream reporting.
5. Since there were less resources to expend on journalism aspect, the leaks were more and more "dump it all out, and let the audience sieve it through". Practically everyone on HN will agree that quantity over quality is a self-enforcing cycle. Surprise, surprise: downstream reporting suffers.
6. WL may have the brand name (even if their previous actions are turning the brand toxic), but are desperate to remain relevant.
7. At this point outside parties with their own propaganda motives have already tested the waters by feeding WL with minor leak archives. When WL actions show their desperation, these parties will slowly ramp up the drip in their leak feeds.
8. Grasping for straws, WL realises that the quality of the provided material is good enough to keep their brand alive and relevant.
9. Their biggest weapon is timing, but lack of resources (and possibly the timing of the leak material) means they have even less opportunities to do proper journalism. It's "dump it all out" all over again.
10. WL knows that they are being played, but they have no choice. The parties using them as their divorced propaganda outlet are also the source of their best leak material. If WL stopped publishing the leaks, they would not only lose any remaining impact but also risk alienating their remaining sources.
The steps 3-9 are repeated, and 7-10 are enforced.
Now, the really interesting bit in the interview was that The Grugq pointed out how steps 3-10 were inevitable even if the first two had never happened. WL was always destined to become an unwitting propaganda horn, simply by the nature of geopolitics. The need to remain relevant by any means necessary was guaranteed to result in this same chain, simply because international espionage agencies could, via third parties, flood them with more than enough low-grade but linkbaity material.
After all, the parties involved in this business have been honing their propaganda distribution skills for decades if not centuries.
EDIT: newlines to split each step into own paragraphs.
> "Ignore their false produce and read real news from a real source you trust. Pay for media."
Brought to you by the very people selling your data, infecting your computers with malvertisements, bowing to their corporate masters and shoveling you shill-dirt for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Don't do ANY of that bullshit. Use the tools available to you. If you don't someone else will, and they probably already do.
Don't go back to the way we were; it was horrid. Don't let the corporate hegemony rule you through news. They've been doing that for centuries. Fight back AGAINST THEM!
> Brought to you by the very people selling your data, infecting your computers with malvertisements, bowing to their corporate masters and shoveling you shill-dirt for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Buy a newspaper.
Edit: Or a weekly periodical which employs fact-checkers.
> If you're running a startup delete your account and look up from your laptop.
> If you're a VC cut ties from members of your class that actively destroy free speech and rant about the coming dystopia.
This is just pants on fire hysteria. Its destructive to productive communities where it takes a lot of silent toil and concentration by a varied group of people to get anything done. Programming is not political activism. Neither is starting a technology company. Neither is starting an open source project.
Software development is not exhibitionism. You can not have a few drinks and show up with a sign and snappy chant and build a database or compiler. You can not get a game engine working marching through the streets.
All of these Social issues have nothing to do with programming or computer science. Its just a obnoxious divisive distraction by people who looking for followers.
27 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 53.8 ms ] threadIt is working great, I am closer and closer to release server [2] and working on my Japanese which got rustly.
[1] https://medium.com/@fpresencia/i-am-not-superman-54b54e8ab49...
[2] https://github.com/franciscop/server
Truth be told, for the initial release I only expect 2 groups of people to truly benefit from this: those creating new projects on a regular basis and those getting started with Node.js. I've taught to some people how to get started with Node.js and since Express 4.0 it's been quite challenging so I expect this to really help.
[1] http://expressjs.com/en/guide/migrating-4.html
[2] Not yet available (and wouldn't work on jsfiddle anyway): https://jsfiddle.net/franciscop/6ca5gzn7/
I thought the idea of immigrants assimilating was considered "racist" nowadays.
Perhaps Trump really has moved the Overton window a bit?
Meanwhile, protests have actually spurred change throughout history. See Gandhi, the Civil Rights movement, Tea Party protests, to name just a few.
Getting on your twitter soapbox and expressing your opinion does sway people. Two years ago, people who would say, "The damn mexicans need to get the hell out of our country" was limited to a very limited, and marginalized, corner of the internet. Over the past two years, it became acceptable through twitter, and now it is a cornerstone platform of the Republican party.
If twitter can have that effect, why do you think it can't have the opposite effect of making it known to your social circle that those ideas are not acceptable to you?
Or are you saying that tweeting "Mexicans, get the hell out" is legitimate, but "I find those statements incompatible with my idea of being a US citizen" is not legitimate?
This strikes me as hypocrisy seeing as almost everyone, including the media, threw WikiLeaks under the bus last year.
The Podesta leaks began 1 hour after Trump's pussy-grabbing video was published, and continued every single day until November 9th. The timing was absolutely strategic and politically motivated. If you still think the timing wasn't relevant, I have a bridge to sell you.
Without question Assange was against HRC and Obama. The latter kept him as a political prisoner for 6 years despite UN rulings, "War on Whistleblowers", etc., and the former had already made an appearance in Cablegate and no doubt was not going to let him walk free either.
Even if there is a (legitimate) political motivation, facts and misdeeds are facts and misdeeds, and leakers should be protected regardless.
In addition to trying to play a kingmaker, WL has become an unwitting subtle propaganda outlet. In an interview with Risky Business (a podcast), the infosec and opsec veteran The Grugq pointed this out. And it's an interesting chain where individually rational decisions have produced an irrational result.
1. WikiLeaks became the target of a witch hunt because they had become politically inconvenient.
2. Their resources were cut (eg. the VISA embargo), which greatly limited their ability to do good journalism. People associated with WL were routinely harrassed, which I also equate with cutting into their resources - Assange turning out to be a less-than-likeable personality further contributed to the attrition. Individuals simply started to make their own rational decisions.
3. In order to remain relevant at all, WL needed to publish more leaks.
4. Due to resources being scarce, they would have to do this in a way which carried the biggest potential payback. In other words, time the leaks to provide maximum visibility and downstream reporting.
5. Since there were less resources to expend on journalism aspect, the leaks were more and more "dump it all out, and let the audience sieve it through". Practically everyone on HN will agree that quantity over quality is a self-enforcing cycle. Surprise, surprise: downstream reporting suffers.
6. WL may have the brand name (even if their previous actions are turning the brand toxic), but are desperate to remain relevant.
7. At this point outside parties with their own propaganda motives have already tested the waters by feeding WL with minor leak archives. When WL actions show their desperation, these parties will slowly ramp up the drip in their leak feeds.
8. Grasping for straws, WL realises that the quality of the provided material is good enough to keep their brand alive and relevant.
9. Their biggest weapon is timing, but lack of resources (and possibly the timing of the leak material) means they have even less opportunities to do proper journalism. It's "dump it all out" all over again.
10. WL knows that they are being played, but they have no choice. The parties using them as their divorced propaganda outlet are also the source of their best leak material. If WL stopped publishing the leaks, they would not only lose any remaining impact but also risk alienating their remaining sources.
The steps 3-9 are repeated, and 7-10 are enforced.
Now, the really interesting bit in the interview was that The Grugq pointed out how steps 3-10 were inevitable even if the first two had never happened. WL was always destined to become an unwitting propaganda horn, simply by the nature of geopolitics. The need to remain relevant by any means necessary was guaranteed to result in this same chain, simply because international espionage agencies could, via third parties, flood them with more than enough low-grade but linkbaity material.
After all, the parties involved in this business have been honing their propaganda distribution skills for decades if not centuries.
EDIT: newlines to split each step into own paragraphs.
Brought to you by the very people selling your data, infecting your computers with malvertisements, bowing to their corporate masters and shoveling you shill-dirt for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Don't do ANY of that bullshit. Use the tools available to you. If you don't someone else will, and they probably already do.
Don't go back to the way we were; it was horrid. Don't let the corporate hegemony rule you through news. They've been doing that for centuries. Fight back AGAINST THEM!
You heard me. AGAINST THEM, not with them.
Buy a newspaper.
Edit: Or a weekly periodical which employs fact-checkers.
> If you're a VC cut ties from members of your class that actively destroy free speech and rant about the coming dystopia.
This is just pants on fire hysteria. Its destructive to productive communities where it takes a lot of silent toil and concentration by a varied group of people to get anything done. Programming is not political activism. Neither is starting a technology company. Neither is starting an open source project.
Software development is not exhibitionism. You can not have a few drinks and show up with a sign and snappy chant and build a database or compiler. You can not get a game engine working marching through the streets.
All of these Social issues have nothing to do with programming or computer science. Its just a obnoxious divisive distraction by people who looking for followers.