That is the worst thing to happen to Web browsers that I can remember. When I type an address into that bar, I expect the browser to attempt to contact the server I specify. I do not expect it to decide that what I typed was a search term and send me off to Google.
Firefox had actual quick searches in the address bar years before. That is where you prefix what you type with something that unambiguously says where you want to search (e.g. I've had Wikipedia set up for many years now, I type "wp <search term>"). Having a separate search box, as Firefox always had as far as I can remember, has its virtues too as the box stays around between page loads.
Searching in the address bar does nothing but serve Google by making people forget about urls and having all Web access routed through them.
Back when IE was king and there were separate search/address bars, everyone I knew either went to search engine websites or used the search bar. Only those in my tech-literate circle occasionally typed in full domain names when they knew exactly what website they want to go to. The web was marketed as a place to "find anything", and the address bar didn't do that for the regular user.
True, and a big reason why Google effectively removed the address bar. People are now too dumb to type addresses? Let's them fall back to our search engine even more often than they originally did.
Now when I'm typing an URL, I must make sure it has a valid syntax, because otherwise I'm redirected to the search engine right away. Kind of annoying, since one reason I don't go through the search engine is to avoid being tracked.
(Less of a problem now that I use DuckDuckGo by default, though.)
This is unwarranted condescension. Many URLs are long and non-obvious — do remember that people usually want specific pages rather than a top-level homepage — and there's a thriving industry registering domains which are one typo away from something legitimate and loading them up with ads & malware. For the average person, it's safer and faster just to let Google figure it out.
> Now when I'm typing an URL, I must make sure it has a valid syntax, because otherwise I'm redirected to the search engine right away.
I don't know about Chrome but Firefox shows the status while you're typing so you can tell when you've entered something such as a space which will cause it to be treated as a search query instead.
> For the average person, it's safer and faster just to let Google figure it out.
Of course. Only a genius like me can use the address bar's auto completion. I know: even my programmers colleagues at work reach for the search bar, I must be a unique snowflake.
Seriously though, the difference isn't that big, barely a speed bump. But that speed bump is enough to cause people to go around it, and use Google even when reaching for something as simple as news.ycombinator.com!
I think it's less a matter of capability, and more a misunderstanding of the costs. Giving your search terms away doesn't seem like such a bad deal, considering the search engine is free to use. We just tend to forget that we pay with our data, and that data is valuable because it will later be used to sell us things we would otherwise not have bought.
But such a cost is so indirect and so removed from its actual cause that we tend to just ignore it. I know I often do.
I agree that there's a downside to having search as a fallback to locations but try to be a bit more empathetic for the people who might type something like “support.apple.com” as “supportapple.com” and end up somewhere sketchy.
If they've previously hit the site before, autocompletion will work but lots of people hear about sites in contexts which don't give them a direct clickable link on the computer they want to use and they're a lot more likely to have a negative outcome from that than Google's data mining.
I still keep my search and address bar separate, mainly because the search bar is static across tabs, whereas the address bar loses information whenever I click away. I like a bit of both styles, though I generally use the search bar.
By "someone else's" you surely mean "the bank's money". I don't think individuals are going to benefit from this, just a few large players around the world.
A large percentage of it is entirely their money. And in fact, not even actual money somebody at the bank owns, just numbers on their ledger (that they still make interest from borrowers off).
In fact, there's most of the money the banks loan is not "somebody else's" at all, it's "loan money".
Banks are not like a giant piggy bank with your savings in it. They create money when they create loans. They're not protecting "your money" with things like this, they are protecting their profits.
If they're also afforded the same responsibility, sure. Because if people had the same rights as banks, I'd be free to gallavant down to Vegas, blow all my money on slots, and expect the government to vacate my debts and pay for my steakhouse dinner
And how would people get services typically offered by a bank? Sorry but most of people on this planet need banks because they don't have enough cash to buy real estate. Are you suggesting that people should not own their homes?
I read this thinking it might be interesting because I'm organising a book club at work. But it's more "how to make a safe space". No. My book club will not be a safe space, it is open to everyone who reads the book.
" I'm sorry why are you kicking me out? I read the book and I'm not doing anything wrong! I guess I'm talking a bit more than some other people but they are just quiet and I'm an outgoing guy. "
"Are you seriously implying that I'm not a decent human being because I talk a little more than Bob? "
edit: Since some people seem to disagree, why not? I fail to see how its any more complicated then those two words. You put in the effort to organize the bookclub, you have the prerogative to say who can participate. If you dont like that make your own bookclub. Forums have thrived on this concept for decades and it only got complicated once they became business enterprises.
Maybe to phrase it more broadly outside of the organization aspect and for general social interaction. You dont have a right to be part of a social group or go to a certain party. If I dont like you I likely wont spend time with you.
This is a way any and all small-scale social interactions work, and have worked since forever. Pushing a CoC onto this is trying to override the natural way small groups of people form, replacing it with a formal structure that's not fun for anyone except people better at lawyering and - to borrow FakeComments's excellent term - social LARPing, than actual interpersonal skills.
EDIT: oh, you are a different commenter than black-tea.
Well, the points still stand. Your position is different than his.
———
> flame-bait
I’m not trying to divert the conversation to pointless angry arguments. I’m trying to direct attention to the core thesis of the post.
Genuinely. I don’t know how to persuade you that I’m not trolling, but I’m not. I care deeply about this topic.
> implicit, obvious rule
The rules which people call obvious are often very hard to learn because people are unwilling to give clear feedback about them. If someone grew up in a boisterous family from New Jersey and who learned that people speaking over each other is fine, why would it be obvious to them that what they were doing was rude?
Getting kicked out without clear feedback just conveys “people don’t like me”. Nothing obligates you to teach them, but its nice to. And I think “this person isn’t willing to listen to/adjust their behavior in response to feedback” is a very reasonable line to draw for kicking someone out.
But I’d ask you to you recognise the differences among “everyone who in my honest judgement isn’t rude”, “everyone who is open to feedback”, and “everyone who has read the book”
So... can you explain more what you mean by “my book club will not be a safe space. It will be open to everyone who has read the book” means in practice?
Do you mean, “we’re going to discuss Huck Finn and not worry about which words offend the sensibilities of liberals and be annoyed at those who want to prohibit certain words. We expect you to bring $10 for your share of the barbecue.”? Cause thats still kinda a code of conduct, its just a different one than the author would have.
It means that if someone says something controversial and you get upset, it's your problem, not theirs. Basically, it will be the type of discussion that adults have always been having together.
Would you please follow the site guidelines when posting here? They include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
If you're doing this at work, or even among primarily co-workers outside of work, then your organisations policies on harassment and (to a certain extent) physical safety apply. It's a safe space whether you like it or not.
(I am unclear on why people want to organise unsafe spaces; nobody puts a trip hazard and a couple of exposed electrical wires in their office to make it feel more welcoming)
I don't think a website can decide to use public key pinning can it? But the client/browser can. Google won't let you route their traffic through a proxy (chrome does public key pinning for Google).
Websites can but apparently Chrome and Firefox ignore incorrect certs when the presented cert is from a user installed CA [1]. I guess this is to allow firewalls to MITM the traffic.
Yes, I think it's absolutely about securing profits. I've been downvoted to oblivion before when speaking out against it on HN before, though, so it may already be too late to stop this.
What planet are you people living on? It's like you just whack the word "modern" on the front, stick your hands up and say "haha, you couldn't understand, grandad". Programmers have been doing these things since the beginning of time.
I programmed exclusively with text editors for a number of years. Of course you can do anything in a text editor that you can do in a modern IDE as long as you have patience. I would even go so far as to say that having the experience of using a text editor instead of an IDE is a valuable one; certain types of edits really can be done much more efficiently in vim than an IDE so it's an excellent tool to have at your disposal. But text editors simply can't match the sophistication and efficiency of a good IDE that is built to interact with your code programmatically from the ground up. For example, here is a list of refactoring operations that IDEA provides as atomic operations that can be done in a few clicks/keystrokes and instantly, safely undone with a single keystroke[0]:
* Change signature
* Convert Anonymous to Inner
* Convert to Instance Method
* Encapsulate Fields
* Extract refactorings
* Extract constant
* Extract Field
* Extract interface
* Extract method
* Extract Superclass
* Extract variable
* Extract parameter
* Extract into class refactorings
* Find and Replace Code Duplicates
* Generify Refactoring
* Inline
* Invert Boolean
* Make Static
* Migrate
* Move and Copy refactorings
* Pull Members Up, Push Members Down
* Remove Middleman
* Rename refactorings
* Replace Constructor with Builder
* Replace Constructor with Factory Method
* Replace Inheritance with Delegation
* Replace Temp With Query
* Safe delete
* Type Migration
* Use Interface Where Possible
* Wrap Return Value
Meanwhile, merely performing a simple pure-text find-replace across multiple files using vim and emacs is a chore. And better hope you don't screw it up because there's often no easy way to safely undo such a change, especially not with a single keystroke. The idea that even master-level users of vim/emacs could begin to hope to replicate the operations listed above with the depth, accuracy, and user-friendliness that IDEA offers is simply laughable. Any granddad worth his salt is perfectly capable of understanding that advancements in software have yielded tools that are by far and away objectively superior for a wide variety of development tasks.
> Meanwhile, merely performing a simple pure-text find-replace across multiple files using vim and emacs is a chore.
It is not, i do that fine in emacs. Half of your list can be done with regex replace. Things like extract and refactor needs language specific tooling that can be done with text editor too(see LSP). And some stuff on your list doesn't even apply to other languages that they have community support for e.g. Rust.
But sure Jetbrains has put lot of effort on these tools for a few languages that you can certainly benefit for a large project. Outside of that good luck using it for any other language.
Good luck with regex replace for most of these operations. Seriously, you're gonna need a lot of it to do these things correctly and consistently, if you can even do them at all. And even then it will be about 10-100+x the time and mental overhead that it could be with an IDE.
I don't see how they could be done with regexes. It seems to me that most of them require class hierarchy analysis so that you don't touch the wrong method that just happens to have the same name.
Yeah, exactly. Every time I try doing these things with regex there winds up being some edge case where something that should have been picked up isn't or vice versa. Then there are ambiguous cases of references in comments and non-code files for which IDEA provides a very straightforward UI experience to include or exclude by various categories or on a case-by-case basis.
Even in the best case scenario where regex works, you've still spent unnecessary mental overhead writing regex, a tool that is so difficult to use properly that it is the textbook example of being a 'solution' that causes more problems than it solves. Why subject oneself to such unnecessary hassle?
That's cool, if you plan to work on the same technology forever.
I think why vim/emacs users have over IDE users is that when you change technology or company or team, you can just change some things about your config and keep working. Try replacing a cool IDE for assembly with a cool IDE for PHP and then a cool IDE for Clojure.
In terms of undoing, I use git and I could undo it with just a few keystrokes. As for the refactoring, yeah, you're right, that stuff would be difficult. I'll keep it in mind if I ever do need to do that stuff. It hasn't happened yet, though.
