Discourse 1.0



  • So... they bit the bullet.



  • I wonder if they had a cake. It's not a real release without cake.



  • The thumbnail of the embedded video clearly illustrates Discourse's current state.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I wonder if they had a cake

    Jeff shat on a plate, stuck a candle in it, and told them it was "Cake 2.0"



  • We (TDWTF) should send them a cake.


  • SockDev

    building a simple, satisfying user experience has always been our number one priority

    THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?!



  • We totally should send them a cake, I am not even kidding. What are the logistics of that?

    EDIT: Wait a minute, there's no address on any of the Discourse home pages. Does... Does Atwood even have a business license?



  • It is simple. It doesn't work, what could be simpler than that?


  • SockDev

    That's not what I'm getting at.

    I was quoting Jeff. What was provided fails that quote on every conceivable level.



  • Why should we send cake? They didn't include TDWTF in the "thank you" list, for all the bug reports.


  • SockDev

    They would prefer to disown us than that.



  • @Arantor said:

    What was provided fails that quote on every conceivable level.

    I know. It's hardly surprising though is it?

    @cartman82 said:

    Why should we send cake?

    We could send them some "Cake 2.0"



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I wonder if they had a cake. It's not a real release without cake.

    Oh, there will be cake. This one:

    MySQL Bug #20786 gets cake – 01:06
    — Ada Pascal



  • Ok well I give up. I guess here's a virtual internet cake: :cake: or whatever. Whee.



  • So, time to break something?



  • I don't know how this works in the US, but "Civilized Discourse Construction Kit, Inc." appears to be registred in Delaware, CA.. It lists an address, would it accept cakes?



  • @Wukl said:

    It lists an address, would it accept cakes?

    Kind of tempted to send it from Poland. Knowing our postal services, they're in for a cake worthy of their product.


    Filed under: in three to six months



  • @Wukl said:

    registred in Delaware, CA.

    TDEMS. Delaware and California are entirely separate jurisdictions. Maybe it's a corporation located in California and registered in Delaware. A lot of companies do that, because Delaware has very favorable laws for registering corporations. But Delaware, CA is not a thing.



  • @Wukl said:

    I don't know how this works in the US, but "Civilized Discourse Construction Kit, Inc." appears to be registred in Delaware, CA.. It lists an address, would it accept cakes?

    Delaware has very friendly business laws so it's a common state for business registrations. You don't actually have to live or operate in the state where you're registered, so the address is most likely a proxy address of some kind. There are actually businesses there founded solely to act as the proxy/registered agent for out-of-state businesses that want to incorporate in Delaware.

    EDIT: Didn't see the CA part when I wrote this. So ignore what I wrote, but I'm leaving it here just in case.



  • Whoops. Assumed that it was some strange naming due to the fact that the website falls under ca.gov. My bad

    It's all much easier in Europe!

    EDIT: And thanks for not appending the 'YR' part



  • How do we not have Jeff's head photochopped onto Milton Waddams' body in the cake scene yet?



  • I found an address but it's just a kind-of junky-looking house. So I don't think it's correct...



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I found an address but it's just a kind-of junky-looking house. So I don't think it's correct...

    Really, would you be surprised?


  • mod

    @Arantor said:

    building a simple, satisfying user experience has always been our number one priority

    THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?!

    You missed the fine print. Let me blow that up for you:

    satisfying user experience as defined by Jeff has

    Better?



  • @discourse.org said:

    Discourse logo and “Discourse Forum” ®, Civilized Discourse Construction Kit, Inc.

    @http://www.trademarkia.com/discourse-forum-85795120.html said:
    Word Mark: DISCOURSE FORUM
    Status/
    Status Date:
    ABANDONED-FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE
    12/2/2013

    Serial Number: 85795120
    Filing Date: 12/5/2012
    ...
    Last Applicant/Owner: Civilized Discourse Construction Kit, Inc
    El Cerrito, CA 94530


    Also this:
    @discourse.org said:
    Search that actually works

    ROTFLMFAO!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I found an address

    Where? Best I have found is just City & ZIP.

    Edit: NVM; found it on USPTO.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    So, time to break something?

    I put a U+202C* in my description. Not sure if it will break something, though…

    *‮You know, the Unicode character for reversing text direction



  • It probably isn't useful. It certainly isn't Jeff's house and the only other possibility listed on the Discourse Team is just an advisor.


  • mod

    If I'm reading that correctly, then that means they missed something and therefore don't have the registered trademark they are claiming. snicker

    Or am I missing something?



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    >discourse.org said:
    Discourse logo and “Discourse Forum” ®, Civilized Discourse Construction Kit, Inc.

    FWIW, the logo trademark is also abandoned.

    I'm not sure, but I think it's probably illegal to use the ® with a trademark that is not actually registered.


  • mod

    @HardwareGeek said:

    FWIW, the logo trademark is also abandoned.

    I'm not sure, but I think it's probably illegal to use the ® with a trademark that is not actually registered.

    Hmmm, how evil would it be to register those marks and then sue CDCK for trademark infringement? After all, they did abandon them ... :smiling_imp:



  • Yeah, but to register them you have to be using them. And I suspect USPTO would not grant the registration. Their criterion for registering is, basically, not similar enough to any other mark as to cause confusion. Since they are identical to existing, in-use (although not registered) marks, they would certainly cause confusion. Although the non-USPTO site I linked to first did offer to sell me "discourse forum," so... maybe?


  • mod

    I'm just thinking, If we got something up that was using them and then filed for the marks, the USPTO might grant it as they are abandoned. For the marks to not be granted, the USPTO first looks for active marks that are likely to result in confusion.There's also an appeal window when third parties can object to the registration, but they have to know that the mark is being sought in order for that to work.

    There's probably more to it, especially with abandoned marks, but IANAL.


  • area_deu

    You know who's a lawyer? @apapadimoulis!



  • Yeah, but Jeff's his friend. I doubt he'd help us snipe his trademarks.


  • mod

    @HardwareGeek said:

    I'm not sure, but I think it's probably illegal to use the ® with a trademark that is not actually registered.

    I just did some research, and you are correct. Apparently, improper use of the ® symbol can be grounds for prosecution for fraud, lead to revocation of any related registered trade or service marks, and could make your mark indefensible in court. Basically, you could be criminally liable, lose any connected marks, and be unable to protect your marks against unauthorized use.

    - https://500law.com/the-consequences-of-using-the-trademark-registration-symbol-if-your-mark-is-not-registered-reprise/ - http://www.natlawreview.com/article/registration-symbol-misuse-trademark-fraud - http://www.kleinlaw.com/files/ART.MAY10.JMD.pdf - Google "improper use of registered trademark symbol" for more!


  • And as it happens, trademarks are my specialty!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    It's probably an idea to mention to Jeff if he doesn't already know, and then get us added to the thankyou list! ;-)


  • mod

    @DoctorJones said:

    get us added to the thankyou list!

    You're such a dreamer!


  • SockDev

    That wishful-thinking is actually kinda cute...



  • That's not as much fun as watching Jeff get himself into trouble.



  • Yes, a cake!

    Well, it should be more like a combination of 3 random ingredients, just like Discourse syntax is a random mix of Markdown, BBcode and HTML. We don't need a cake shape or any of the traditional cake ingredients, because it's a cake designed for the next 10 years, not an imitation of past cakes.

    Also 2 of the ingredients are not really available yet, we'll have them them before 2.0 is released, we promise. The other one might have spontaneously disappeared, don't worry, it's just a recent bug, we'll have it fixed soon.

    Oh, and we added some chocolate dressing. The chocolate is actually raw cocoa beans, because that's good enough for 99% of users and I don't see any reason why anyone would need real chocolate.



  • One of the ingredients should be gluten-free flour, just because it's hip and trendy among people who don't understand why most people don't need it, not because it makes a good cake.

    Actually, that might not be terrible. Cake flour is (relatively) low in gluten, anyway, compared to bread flour, that's one of the things that make the difference in texture between cake and bread.

    Discourse's vision for cake:

    Discourse's implementation of cake:

    Pro tip: Google image search for cake with safe-search off is not a good idea. :(



  • Incidentally, it's also not a real bug without a cake.



  • I was honestly terrified when he brought out the canned air that it would turn in to a blow torch due to the compressed air chemicals.

    After, I was just left with a slight disappointed feeling that it didn't.



  • You would want to register something that's associated with this mess? I think it would sully YOUR name.



  • We’ve been working on Discourse in public for about a year and a half
    now – since February 2013. Turns out that’s about how long it takes to
    herd an open source project from “hey, cool toy” to something that works for most online discussion communities.

    MOST.

    I think this is perhaps a tacit concession?
    It’s a bit like building an airplane in flight.

    I think this is an apt analogy, as aerodynamics are a system-wide parameter, and if you screw them up, the plane don't fly. Unless you're playing Kerbal Space Program, where you can fly the brick-shaped glider of your dreams

    We believe Discourse is now ready for wide public use.

    Even with all the exploits our "security researchers" keep finding?

    That’s not to say Discourse can’t be improved – I have a mile-long list of things we still want to do.

    On this list, is "PAGINATION" written in letters a mile high?

    But products that are in perpetual beta are a cop-out.
    Google's done a pretty good job of it. Managing expectations and all.
    Eventually you have to ditch the crutch of the word “beta” and be brave enough to say, yes, we’re ready.
    Yes, that sounds like a good plan for the future.
    In working with the community, in working with our
    Uh oh. I see text in the hyperlink color. This can only mean one thing...
    **[blog.codinghorror.com][1]**
    Thank goodness. I was afraid we wouldn't be meeting our shameless-plug quota.
    in working with our early customers, we’ve gained a lot of confidence that we’ve refined Discourse into something that is safe,

    Ha.

    complete
    Haha.
    has all the rough edges smoothed
    Psh.
    and is finally ready for use by everyone:
    Except people who want pagination or can find CSS/XSS exploits.
    If you’re looking for a world class host to get started with Discourse, why not choose the people that know Discourse best?
    I seem to remember @morbiuswilters saying something like [that's like hiring Bill Gates to set up your Windows computer][2].
    Here’s to the next 8½ years of our 10 year plan to raise the level of discourse on the web.
    It takes some serious ambition (or Dunning-Kruger) to believe that the seas of Youtube comments and /b/ can be tamed.


  • @Groaner said:

    >Eventually you have to ditch the crutch of the word “beta” and be brave enough to say, yes, we’re ready.

    Yes, that sounds like a good plan for the future.

    I'd like to go through this and highlight all the points I particularly like, but that would be pretty much all of them. I'll settle for just praising this one, because it pretty much sums up the rest.


  • SockDev

    Btw, it's not ambition. Dunning-Kruger has nothing on Jeffpidity.


  • :belt_onion:

    [quote=""]
    Turns out that’s about how long it takes to herd an open source project from “hey, cool toy” to something that works for most online discussion communities
    [/quote]

    So just because that's how long it took them, that's how long it takes in general?

    [quote=""]
    It’s a bit like building an airplane in flight.
    [/quote]
    i hate this analogy. bosses love using it. especially that stupid ibm commercial.
    But guess what, while the boss is loving his fancy flying-under-construction airplane, us programmers doing the real work are scared shitless because we know that working in those circumstances generally has one outcome - it's only a matter of time before the entire flying piece of shit goes down and it's taking us (the programmers) with it, regardless of how many times we tried to tell them that we need to finalize and test before we just start throwing people onboard....


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.