The problem with the news feed is it assumes I want the same level of engagement with every project I follow. On my own repos, then yes, show me every comment and commit. But usually if I'm following a framework, I just want to know when something important happens, like a new version tag. And it's these larger frameworks that are usually busy and crowd out the other stuff.

You could chalk it up to stress testing that pointed out a flaw. And to GitHub's credit they provided a quick fix and a professional response, kudos to them. Peace has been restored in the Valley, and the trolls are left to twiddle their ASCII dongs.

Mafia thugs in Italy have been doing this for years.

I think his sentiment resonates with the numerous outsiders who are amazed that this kind of drama always seems to bubble up from the Ruby community.

  > bubble up from the Ruby community.

And somehow always involves Zed.

Zed has nothing to do with the ruby community - even he says this. He wrote a web server in ruby once.

In his post he even goes on to say how much he likes python.

Why would that be?

A lot of people can't resist the temptation to live at higher-and-higher means, so the quest for a "solid financial base" converges to the standard rat race.

It's hard to realize that happiness is everywhere, even in abject poverty, when you are financially comfortable.

It takes a lot of effort and a unique mindset to change momentum when you're on a successful trajectory; you're less likely to take a risk to discover a more meaningful life.

You will make connections and develop a lifestyle that keep you happy and comfortable enough that you will not want to make a change, even when that change would eventually be for the better.

Life will happen. If there's something you're curious about or otherwise want to do, why wait?

It doesn't. And it would.

I think it's a bit premature to suggest that either a) Facebook would move out of California or b) a new social network would start up outside of California and eat Facebook's lunch because it didn't have draconian laws. Surely there are easier ways to solve the problem at hand.

I'm only going from the article, which is evidently flawed (TechCrunched!), but it could effectively add a tax on social networking sites operating in the state. States compete for companies all the time and this could provide an opening for somewhere else to put together a more compelling package. Obviously the big drawback to leaving is the lack of tech people, so I guess you weigh your options. Personally, I feel like Facebook and Google would set up shop on the moon if it were in their financial interest and they could find someone to run it.

What you're missing is that the state the company is located in doesn't matter. In general, if it's doing business in California, it can be sued in California court. This has been the case for a long long time. Otherwise everyone would just set up in Delaware or whichever state was most inaccessible and/or sympathetic to corporate defendants.

How many unicorn dollars can I pay you to keep these posts off the front page?

I had to upvote this for the humor, but I have yet to flag a Bitcoin post. It's technology, it's interesting, and some are clearly interested in talking about it, which sounds on-topic to me. Funny, though.

For what it's worth, LifeHacker liked it: http://lifehacker.com/5800500/first-look-at-google-music-our...

From the Lifehacker review:

> It's also worth noting that they're looking to crack down on piracy, so depending on how well it works and how much of your music is illegal, that could be a deal killer for some.

This would be a deal killer for me and nearly everyone I know.

There aren't many better ways to ID people who've downloaded music illegally than to have them upload copies of those music files to a central location where they can be easily analyzed. Hell, I'd love a chance to run stats on that dataset and I don't even have any skin in the game. Some things you could look for:

- Files with the names of known release crews hidden away in an ID3V1 comment somewhere;

- Files uploaded by multiple people with identical incorrect (misspelled arists/titles) or unique (rip logs, comments, ratings) metadata;

- Files with timestamps earlier than the title's official street date (assuming the dedicated upload client preserves those dates);

- Multiple uploads of files with bit-for-bit identical audio content that doesn't correspond exactly to any official digital release (like identical MP3 encodes of a non-perfect CD rip, or identical versions of anything sourced from vinyl or cassette -- like a lot of the stuff on boutigue MP3 blogs);

- Files with audio data identical to anything ever subject to an official takedown notice, or downloaded by the RIAA from BitTorrent, Usenet or a Megaupload-type file sharing site.

Any given release will only have been distributed in a handful of legitimate digital versions -- basically the CD release(s) and any licensed digital download services. Any file uploaded to an online music locker that doesn't match those legit sources will be suspect, and any of those files what are uploaded to Google in bit-for-bit identical versions by multiple people will be a huge red STOLEN flag.

I have very little illegally-downloaded music relative to the size of my entire collection, but I still wouldn't go anywhere near a service like this. The data extractable from the audio files people upload would significantly reduce the effort needed for the record companies to go after even small-time downloaders. That's never really been feasible before.

Sure sounds like something a company that's still trying to make deals with record labels might say, but not necessarily do.

How can Google possibly know whether the files you upload were bought legally or not?

I would think the music industry isn't past seeding P2P networks with watermarked files and then suing Google to get a court order to scan people's collections en masse.

They can't tell if your copy is legal or not, but if your copy of an album hashes to the same as the copy found via TPB, they'd consider it suspect.

I think there's enough variation in CD ripping software and various encoder profiles that different rips of the same album using different software is not bit-for-bit the same. That would also be trivially defeatable, so I'm not sure what it'd get Google to do that.

hashes, ID3 tags, and distribution patterns?

Certainly a more "specialized" review, the VentureBeat review looks like it was done by a complete retard, seriously sync /= upload (and upload is slow if you have big files you know? audio snob, yeah right).

Dammit, I'd like an invite, specially since I wanted to build something similar for a while (not so cloudish though) Google got it right for me apparently.

So did NewsGrange :http://newsgrange.com/hands-on-with-google-music-on-the-web-...

This sounds more like an argument for open source. Ignoring efficiency issues, I'd much rather view a JavaScript framework on GitHub than in a View Source window.

This is probably way for them to aggregate potential exclusive story ideas. I'd treat it like you were going to speak to a reporter anonymously, they may have your back, they may not.

It's so sad to me that people think of it this way -- not guaranteed. You should always be able to trust a reporter who promises you that. The unethical ones really burn us all.

I don't mean to disparage all the good journalists out there, they certainly exist and I have massive respect for the ones that go to jail for their sources. But WikiLeaks has already built a reputation and technical infrastructure, important things that this new site doesn't have.