I like 37 Signals. I like Joel Spolsky. I like Paul Graham. I occasionally even read Techcrunch. However, I believe all of these people (and many others) tend to occasionally overstate and undersupport their positions. I can’t blame them for it. After all, shoddy generalization provokes snarky rebuttal, which leads to counter-rebuttal, which leads to increased exposure. It’s a great play for the writers; unfortunately, while the writers are busy racking up traffic, readers are unwittingly pissing away the hours spectating a geekier version of Jerry Springer.

I would pay good money to obtain access to a stream of intrinsically interesting content without any of this overstated, undersupported crap.

Edit: My (overstated? undersupported?) assertion that this article is overstated, undersupported crap is now the top comment. The irony is disturbing. I hope someone builds a product that eliminates these frustrations for me (and others) in the future.

Off topic: It's really distracting when a site overrides the default cursor for no reason.

  html, body {
    cursor: crosshair;
  }

Don't do that!

> They're risking their own wellbeing.

For a good cause, that is. One that benefits us all.

success is a great thing, but this constant "we're the only ones that are doing it right" attitude is getting old.

Two reasons:

First, the "confession" -- whosever they are trying to elicit -- has more value if given out of paranoia.

Think about it this way: you have a brief glimpse into something wrong that happened, but you don't know the full story. Let's say you know 10% of the full story.

If you come forward with the evidence, the accused party need only acknowledge or refute the 10% that you've divulged.

However if you make them think you know a whole lot more than 10%, you might end up pressuring them to give a confession that will reveal a much larger amount of the wrong deed.

Second, pressuring a government to admit wrongdoing is better PR for Wikileaks than disclosing leaked information. Wikileaks is treading on delicate territory already with their mission statement. When classified information becomes whistleblower-deserving information is a debatable topic. Because of this, Wikileaks has to manage their PR very carefully, lest they be viewed as the enemy-to-all, friend-to-none. By pressuring organizations to admit wrongdoing rather than publicly accusing them of it, it's a win-win: the information gets out, and WikiLeaks doesn't have to be in the press again for leaking "stolen" information.

Another relevant example would be the voting arrows here on this site. I don't know about anyone else, but I have voted comments the wrong way on a number of occasions. Having some sort of obvious undo vote feature might be nice as well.

With all the crap Adobe gets for Flash, this is where their primary area of expertise lies. I've been using Photoshop from when there were no layers and very limited number of undos. They never fail to deliver something incredibly useful and time-saving with each iteration.