Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The obsession with next

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: The obsession with next

#41

Post by icefox »

icefox wrote: post #16
edw519 wrote: post #10

I dunno, 99% of the people I talk to (the rest of the world) is less worried about what new technology is next than when current technology will work right. What's next, according to them: - When will the website work for any browser? - When will the website talk to the fulfillment system? - When will I be able to log in with less than 14 passwords? - When will we be able to use our mouse on the Report Writer? - When…

You will never be able to stop spam (I assume you mean email). A few years ago I realized this when looking through my logs I saw emails to ... bob@domain.com ben@domain.com berry@domain.com ... etc Blindly trying the most common. I knew then that if I wanted the account name ben I could never 'solve' spam on top of our general email system we have today.

For all those who downvoted this how do you 100% 'solve' spam?

Re: The obsession with next

#42

Post by macrael »

regomodo wrote: post #37
macrael wrote: post #26

This is the oldest bias there is. Singling out technology is a bit myopic, because as far as I can see, every field is obsessed with what's next. The sciences are an obvious example, the whole point is to discover something new and present it to your peers. Fashion is another easy example, no one cares what happened last year, they want to see this year's collection. Art was the first example I thought of: I once vis…

"I once visited a museum in New Zealand filled with beautiful paintings." Was that in "Te Papa"? I saw an exhibition of local artwork, nothing ground-breaking but most were quite exquisite.

I'm pretty sure it was http://christchurchartgallery.org.nz/

I'm embarrassed that I don't remember for sure. I was mostly guided about by my friends that trip.

Re: The obsession with next

#43

Post by nhangen »

JonnieCache wrote: post #32
nhangen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not incredibly rich and many of those things have had a huge impact on my life. My brother surviving stage IV cancer, for example. Being able to build a business with nothing more than a domain name and a programming book, etc. If things keep moving as fast as they are, then my guess is that the trickle down effects will...well...trickle faster.

In global terms, you are incredibly rich. If you have ever owned a domain name or a programming book you are incredibly rich. Around half the world lives on less than $2.50 a day[1]. If you have one dollar a day that you can afford to waste on something you don't need to live, you're in something like the top ten or twenty percent of the world's richest. Sorry, I don't have a source for that last one, although the fi…

Right, but we're talking about innovation, not sociological issues, and I'm not ashamed to be given the opportunity to be on the forefront of that.

The best way for me, as an entrepreneur, to help those less fortunate is to make more money so I can build greater things, and that's at the core of the innovation we're seeing here.

Re: The obsession with next

#44

Post by [deleted] »

iamclovin wrote: post #4
nhangen wrote: post #2

I think the obsession with next comes not because we're obsessed with new, but because we're excited about it! New technology, new ideas, new innovation - it's all happening at lightning speed. We're part of the greatest time in the history of the world IMO, and that's why we love next - we can't wait to see it. We're inventing fire, the wheel, and the printing press back to back. Whether we like it or not, next is t…

I agree. I think the title of the article is quite unrelated to what comes after. What DHH is railing against is impatience and not about what comes next. After all, isn't Rails itself the result of DHH being fed up of the "now" and wanting to do the "next"?

[deleted]

Re: The obsession with next

#45

Post by _urga »

blehn wrote: post #3

The thing about software development is that the technology (tools) changes faster than you can evolve a product. Integrating new technologies into an existing product can be a real challenge. If all you do is evolve, there inevitably comes a point where your product is behind the curve. Basecamp and Fogbugz are good products that were probably great at some point, but now they just seem old and crusty compared to pr…

The tools to make Gmail and Asana existed when Basecamp was launched.

Specifically, the fallacies of distributed computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_Distributed_Comput...) and approaches to address them existed when Basecamp was launched.

That they are now starting to be addressed more and more by applications like Gmail and Asana are not a function of revolutionary advances in our tools, but of an evolution in the collective understanding of our tools.

It is not so much about keeping up with the pace of technology, as it is about understanding technology, and the advances already made.

Re: The obsession with next

#46

Post by mgkimsal »

Nitramp wrote: post #30
smikhanov wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of hottest web startups out there that use LAMP as their primary stack. Even more, first version of Mint.com was written (horror!) in Java. The technology stack has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to keep the pace with competition.

I'm still pretty sure that if you pick your frameworks and tools right, Java can be a competitive development framework. If you go all Java Beans, EJB, etc, you might be in trouble, but it's not so much the language per se.

Grails FTW :)

Re: The obsession with next

#47

Post by derefr »

icefox wrote: post #41
icefox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will never be able to stop spam (I assume you mean email). A few years ago I realized this when looking through my logs I saw emails to ... bob@domain.com ben@domain.com berry@domain.com ... etc Blindly trying the most common. I knew then that if I wanted the account name ben I could never 'solve' spam on top of our general email system we have today.

For all those who downvoted this how do you 100% 'solve' spam?

Public-key channels over e-mail. Think about how your body works: each cell has certain receptors (a key) and only reads data from objects that are shaped to plug into those receptors. Thus, random messages can float around in the bloodstream without every random cell trying to interpret them. Similarly, we could have an actual "inbox" (a bloodstream) that never gets displayed, and then channel-specific inboxes that are.

When a spammer begins to spam on a certain channel, a message can be sent via a secondary channel (maybe a special control channel, or just any combination of other known channels that hits everyone who had authorized access to the original channel) to automatically shift just the valid users over to a new channel, and discard the original. It could be completely invisible from a UI perspective, with the new channel retaining all the old channel's metadata.

The nice thing is that it's almost entirely compatible with all the e-mail infrastructure we have now, but also allows for a very convenient use-case if you're willing to switch to a new UI. The only problem is in people's current knowledge of, and access to, public-key encryption. If Facebook or another major identity provider started pushing people to send them public keys and set up a queriable API for them, that'd be a nice first step toward solving that.

Re: The obsession with next

#48

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

derefr wrote: post #47
icefox wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all those who downvoted this how do you 100% 'solve' spam?

Public-key channels over e-mail. Think about how your body works: each cell has certain receptors (a key) and only reads data from objects that are shaped to plug into those receptors. Thus, random messages can float around in the bloodstream without every random cell trying to interpret them. Similarly, we could have an actual "inbox" (a bloodstream) that never gets displayed, and then channel-specific inboxes that…

I didn't fully understand that explanation, but I'm trying to see how a potential client can contact me using the system you suggest.

And if a potential client can, why can a spammer not?

Re: The obsession with next

#49

Post by jbri »

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #48
derefr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public-key channels over e-mail. Think about how your body works: each cell has certain receptors (a key) and only reads data from objects that are shaped to plug into those receptors. Thus, random messages can float around in the bloodstream without every random cell trying to interpret them. Similarly, we could have an actual "inbox" (a bloodstream) that never gets displayed, and then channel-specific inboxes that…

I didn't fully understand that explanation, but I'm trying to see how a potential client can contact me using the system you suggest. And if a potential client can, why can a spammer not?

Here's one way: The guy that tried adam@example.com, anna@example.com, berry@example.com etc., sending basically the same message to each, before trying ben@example.com is probably not a "potential client".

Then you get into the spam-filtering based on content, which is already successful at preventing massive amounts of spam.

Re: The obsession with next

#50

Post by RiderOfGiraffes »

jbri wrote: post #49
RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't fully understand that explanation, but I'm trying to see how a potential client can contact me using the system you suggest. And if a potential client can, why can a spammer not?

Here's one way: The guy that tried adam@example.com, anna@example.com, berry@example.com etc., sending basically the same message to each, before trying ben@example.com is probably not a "potential client". Then you get into the spam-filtering based on content, which is already successful at preventing massive amounts of spam.

So I don't see what you're adding. You guarantee that people I know can get through, which I already do with whitelists, and you require content based filtering on the rest, which I already do.

So I don't really understand how what you're proposing makes a difference.

Post reply on HN