oth3r

As a PM, though not one that works at Facebook, I would probably approach it something like, how do we ensure that our users stay interested in the homepage, coming back as often as possible and staying on it as long as possible?

There are lots of other sites competing for attention, and to sacrifice a good UX would be shortsighted, especially with all the “FB is dead” comments people have been making the last few years.

Though there is nothing terrible about your comment in itself, the fact that it is the most highly upvoted in this thread really shows how toxic this community can be. People here really seem to think that a company culture that tolerates or encourages sexual harassment is acceptable as long as it's not illegal.

I agree. Sometimes certain articles really bring out the worst in people that use this site.

It's strange to me that Google would go out of its way to implement such a feature for the UK. Google does censor certain videos for specific countries' sensitivities, simply because by not doing so, youtube.com will be repeatedly shut down by the respective courts.

But why the UK? It seems that they've committed to the path of censoring the Internet like some authoritarian regime, but it makes me wonder what happened behind closed doors between the parliament and Google management that would lead this to happen.

You're not required to use Facebook to donate. I just signed up and donated without using Facebook at all.

This is the most annoying, cringe-inducing post I've ever read on Hacker News.

The first thing I looked for on that page was an image showing the Start button they've added back. I guess it's pretty telling that none of those pictures include the desktop and everything is showcasing the tablet interface now.

I wouldn't really call it a "mantra" and I think it's a legitimate concern.

[1] Google already built a product similar to Keep, it was called "Notebook" and it was shut down after five years.

[2] If you really believe Google and think that declining traffic is a legitimate reason for closing Reader, then surely Google+ should have been on the chopping block much earlier than Reader.

The Economist does a much better job than I could of explaining why we should be worried about Google's willingness to close products as beloved as Reader: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/03/utilitie...

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/22/google-keep...

[2] http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/google-reader-still-sends-...

He doesn't do a very good job arguing his point which is basically "Google moves forward rather than maintaining the status quo, so they can't afford to turn into a big bureaucracy with aging products."

Google has lots of products that no one's using, why take one away that many people depend on every day? The reason Google's getting rid of Reader is pretty simple, they don't want their own products for consuming and sharing information competing against each other, namely Google+.

One thing that stuck out to me in the article is the whole concept of "anonymous reading."

When did the need to make the distinction of anonymous vs non-anonymous reading arise? Anonymity was assumed for something as simple as picking up a book or a newspaper. It sounds as awkward and unnatural to me as taking an "anonymous shower" or anonymously picking my nose. Pretty scary that we're headed down this path where fewer and fewer things are private.

I had an app called HandyLight that let you use 3G tethering without paying AT&T's extra monthly fee.

When I upgraded to the iPhone 4S from the iPhone 4, the .ipa wouldn't install. Even when I tried to add it through iTunes, it would immediately delete itself.

No love for Knol? I guess Sergey would like to forget that that venture ever existed.