Doing this properly would be complicated, messy and expensive but if Facebook is going to be part of our society going forward I think its something they will have to deal with somehow or some other change will be forced upon them.

As I write this I realise that perhaps the ruthless arithmetic of a publicly traded company whose business model is web advertising, with shareholders to endlessly appease is probably by definition an entity that is fundamentally unable to make the above choices in the same way that I couldn't just decide to breath underwater.

1) no one is actually implementing these changes; this is just a design exercise from someone who has no connection or influence with Github other than I presume being someone who uses it. My reading of this design work up is that it was just a fun exercise for someone with design skills; design kata if you will.

2) as a programmer who has occasionally tried my hand at a little bit of design; to my mind the design process is somewhere between fricking hard and near impossible and I appreciated the article taking me through his thinking and the incremental changes along the way. I may not like or agree with all of his choices but I really liked the insight into the process.

Obviously it's fine to not like the final design he ended up with, but given the above context I think the level of harrumphing discontent of some comments is not really warranted.

I had a quick search around to see what I could find, and I did find a recent tweet from Wikileaks showing a clip from some pundit on Fox News called Bob Beckel calling for exactly that: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656/vide...

But a little further checking showed that despite this being tweeted in August this year with a headline and hashtag suggesting a link to the leaked emails, this video is actually from 2010, moreover from my exhaustive five minute search (it wasn't exhaustive really) I couldn't find any evidence of a link to Clinton's campaign, in fact according to Wikipedia the last campaign this strange chap worked on was Walter Mondale's in 1984.

Thought experiment: think about how the article would have felt had it been titled: "Why American immigrants are giving up their passports". I think it would have felt different, and I wonder whether an American reader might have felt slightly insulted by that change.

I'd be interested to know whether other languages/cultures draw that same subtle distinction between "immigrants" and "expats", or whether it's just some vestigial remnant of the UK's colonial past.

That said the tone and approach of the original poster's blog posts leave an unpleasant taste in my mouth in that way that something can be technically correct, whilst simultaneously feeling morally repugnant; more self aggrandising than injustice fighting, and it's interesting how keen the original poster is to explicitly name and shame the random dude from Google, while remaining conveniently anonymous himself.

Bah, I feel grubby just from having commented on this.

But basically this comes down to what other people have already noted: Google+ Circles != Facebook Groups

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2615888

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Which non-native english speakers are you talking about?

My pronunciation (as a native english speaker) is pretty much like the spanish version I guess.

That said I don't think it's a particular fantastic name.

For example in the UK no coins are 'legal tender' as they can be refused as payment for a debt, but still all shops will accept them as they have a fixed value relative to legal tender.

Alternatively my watch is not legal tender, but if I offered it to a shop keeper in exchange for a newspaper, there is nothing stopping the shop keeper from accepting it.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1558035

Points: 1

# Comments: 0