NathanRice

Very pretty, but doesn't seem to be able to match the functionality of dygraphs, or the number of chart types in the google chart library (or similar).

I will definitely keep an eye on this project though.

Honestly, I would either choose Python or a JVM language.

The nice thing about Python is that the library support is amazing, and there is a fairly easy path to performance improvements using PyPy and/or wrapped C code.

Obviously a JVM language will have a huge ecosystem of libraries and good performance out of the box. I prefer Python as a language but that is entirely personal.

While Go is really popular around here, the language doesn't have a very ecosystem of libraries.

Personally, while I enjoy Marijuana, I have stayed away from it diminishes my ability/motivation to work, and I'm not completely happy with where I'm at in my life.

I think you can cut a lot of the fat from this:

There are people who think life is something they do and there are people who think life is something that happens to them.

That being said, at what point is relaxing and enjoying yourself with random hobbies ok? If you take the hard and fast line you have here, people would just work till they die. A large part of the point to success is so you can enjoy leisure time comfortably.

I do agree video games and TV are in a in a sense "bad" and it would be better if people engaged in creative hobbies.

That second question is kind of dirty. Pretty much all algorithms to find the median will perform a partial sort. Without any sorting at all, the only thing I can think of is some kind of statistical approximation based on sampling.

This sort of thing is really easy to do from a psql console; I don't think that should be a major point against pgadmin.

Wow. The marketers have done a good job to get such an insipid product so much attention in diverse media outlets. Meanwhile, there are probably dozens of more substantial products failing because their creators don't know how to sling bullshit. #FailuresOfCapitalism.

When I first saw the news of the rape allegations, my reaction was "eew, what a slimy fellow". I have only changed my tune after looking at the details closely.

I do feel that these women have the right to air their grievances publicly, and be afforded the opportunity for an impartial legal process. Unfortunately, I have very strong doubts that any impartial legal process will occur, but rather a highly partial extra-legal process.

I respect that you have observed situations where men have taken advantage of women, or a woman's rights have been disregarded; it happens with alarming frequency, and it saddens me greatly. I do feel that society in general (in the west anyhow) is very sympathetic to the woman in instances of sexual assault. Because of its horrible frequency, it is very easy for any man to imagine that the woman who was raped was his mother, his wife, his daughter, his sister or a close female friend. This fills us with wrath and gives us a desire for terrible vengeance; that is precisely why we must collect ourselves and be rational. did you know that rapists and child molesters tend to be treated so savagely by other inmates that special prisons (or special wings in regular prisons) are constructed to keep them alive?

My guess is to get America (and other highly corrupt imperialist nations) to show its true colors for everyone to see.

If this WAS a conspiracy, consider this: the folks at Langley aren't stupid, they know that killing Julian or tossing him in Gitmo would only throw a keg of gasoline on the fire. The best way to erase Wikileaks from existence is to make everyone look at Julian as an evil, nasty, vile person unfit to spit upon. What are the most reviled crimes available for this? Setting him up for murder is very tricky and could easily unravel. Child molestation would be great, but this would be even harder than murder. Rape on the other hand is REALLY easy, because people have been convicted of rape with ZERO evidence, in a he-said-she-said dispute. Additionally, even if someone beats rape charges, the aura of it will linger around them basically forever; Julian will ALWAYS be an accused rapist, until the end of time. The analysts at the CIA would have looked this over from a lot of different angles, and known that this would play out as a win pretty much no matter what. What they didn't expect is that powerful conservative civilians in the united states would run their mouths so much about extradition, tribunals and treason that it would give another sovereign nation grounds to protect him.

Did she attempt to remove his penis from her vagina? Did she attempt to push him off of her? Did he physically prevent her from doing so? Did he coerce her using a gun, knife or some other weapon which she identified, and the police have been able to locate? Is there any sign of a struggle?

If a woman lies naked and spread eagle, and a man begins to have intercourse with her, and she makes no move to stop it, but tells him to stop in a calm tone, but in a language he does not understand, is the man raping her?

The beauty of rape as an accusation is that it is so reviled that people tend to suspend their objectivity and take the view of guilty until proven innocent. Even people who are cleared of rape charges are viewed in a highly negative light, by virtue of association.

Even if the people who set this up drop everything and don't try for an extradition to the united states, they will have succeeded in thoroughly sliming Julian. They don't need to kill him or imprison him (that would probably backfire anyhow), they only need to classically condition people to associate JULIAN ASSANGE and RAPIST. You realize that the central intelligence agency actually had plans to make Castro's beard fall out because they believed that Cubans would view him as less virile and thus easier to depose? Or that they wanted to dose him with LSD so he would act crazy during a major speech? You really think the United States intelligence apparatus wouldn't try to break someone that burned them very hard by playing on views like "Personally I'd class it as the second most significant crime against the person that the law recognises after murder"???? Particularly given that rape can be her word versus his, and that can be sufficient to get a conviction? With murder, you need a body, and that can be hard to produce.

Thanks for the unique perspective Mike :) Next time I'm in NYC I definitely need to buy you a beer.

I agree that world champion level aspirations are not realistic for everyone. This doesn't mean the people who do not have innate talent are leagues below world champions though. In my observations, talent causes an athlete to become proficient faster, and to end up being very slightly better than untalented people who work very hard. Of course, at the level of world champions, very slightly better is the difference between first place and middle of the pack.

Natural advantages are typically a fairly small boost. In most cases it is possible to modify the way you do things to take advantage of your anatomy and physiology. File this one under "know thyself".

Also, don't forget that there are enough people out there that someone with all the natural advantages is going to be working insanely hard. This is why having olympic aspirations is unrealistic; in a realm where a few tenths of a second is the difference between gold and going home empty handed, natural advantages matter.

Don't just work hard, think hard, explore all your options, understand what you are trying to do on a deeper level, then attack it as if your life or death depended on the outcome. Failure cannot be an option.

People who are motivated primarily by profit have missed the bus and are sitting in the terminal at 3 AM in the shivering cold.

Create something beautiful, and learn how to package it. By starting from the premise of "how do I make money" you ensure that you will merely be spewing more inane filth into the world. This is why I hate the internet marketing jerks who spend their days making landing pages for affiliate marketing products while performing SEO to pollute keyword index rankings. People like that might as well not exist, and in fact it would be better if they didn't.

I will be a dick repeatedly and to the greatest of my ability to people who create only to make money. Create something beautiful and figure out how to market it, don't find a market and try to capitalize on it. Steve Jobs called people who try to squeeze markets rather than create great things "sick," "demented," and "parasites." In this case I think he's right.

It is very easy to find a niche related to something you actually like. The title of this article is a troll.

But, that being said, all you people who can't do market research, please follow this advice to try and chase the low hanging fruit. I'll continue turning over rocks to find gold. Stuff like this just keeps you the hell out of my way.

You need a learning partner that will hold you accountable. Self study courses are a horrible fit for you, and traditional education is a great fit. Find a "hack night" and make a learning buddy, or enroll in programming classes at a local community college.

Good engineers like solving interesting problems. You didn't talk about the problem you solve at all. You didn't talk about how your approach is interesting at all. Big fail.

As a result, people like myself who have your needed skill set covered (and then some) have no reason to be interested at all. In actuality I'm not really on the market (I have a sweet job!), but I'm sure other people feel the same way.

As someone tangentially involved in the administration apparatus for large, well utilized clusters, I have to dispel some myths related to "Cloud" services and Amazon EC2 for computation. First, if your school has institutional cluster services, these are FAR cheaper than cloud options. Secondly, the type of systems that are good for scientific computation are not the type of boxes typically deployed in the cloud; try to find a 48 terabyte memory node in the cloud.

OSG/Teragrid are much better options than the cloud, though you do have to jump through some hoops to access them. Believe me when I say it is worth it though.

It is true that if you were born hideously disfigured, money can get you out of that jam (to some degree, anyhow). I feel that the common thread here is that money can be a huge boon to those who are impaired in some way, and is nice to have in general, but there are rapid diminishing returns with regard to happiness. I agree with the sentiment that you should take care of yourself and provide for your loved ones, just don't lust after money for its own sake or neglect the finer things in life because of it.

My experience (having gone to a good school) is that the most valuable thing they have to offer is contacts. The actual education is vastly overrated. The bulk of my knowledge came from figuring out a problem I wanted to solve, then learning everything that was required to solve it.

Their whole hypothesis is that money can buy happiness, but there is a weak correlation because people have poor consumption patterns, and if people just had better consumption patterns, money would correlate strongly with happiness. There are a couple of assumptions baked into this hypothesis that I can tear apart on the spot:

1. This assumes that consumptive happiness is additive and unbounded, i.e. if consuming A makes you X points happier, and consuming B makes you Y points happier, consuming A and B makes you (X + Y) happier, ad infinitum. There is no evidence of this, and this is such a strong assumption that to assume it in the absence of evidence is fallacious.

2. Their data surrounding giving does not control for interpersonal interactions, and personality characteristics. Since these two variables are both strongly confounding, their results are weak at best.

Beyond that, this is a review paper containing no new data. They are essentially taking isolated data points and playing connect the dots to generate their own pet hypothesis.

My "pet theory" of happiness is actually the distillate of the idea of happiness as established in a variety of neutral literature (from Aristotle to moderns like Layard and Lyubomirsky), informed to a degree by evolutionary biology. Do you really trust the impartiality of people publishing in journals for "Consumer Psychology"? That reminds me of health studies commissioned by cigarette companies.

Down-vote away, it only saddens me to the degree that it makes people less likely to be exposed to a dissenting but informative viewpoint. I don't care a whit for the popularity contest aspect of it.

The internet is a quixotic place.

I have known homeless artists, poets and musicians who were much happier than some very wealthy people I've met. Creative endeavors are the most common, with lots of genuine friendships being high on the list as well.

Giving a gift to someone buys you their attention for a period of time, and some degree of positive predisposition under circumstances of ambiguity. Respect still has to be developed based on observation of character and discernment of intent. A rich heir who gives to generously and has a negative character is probably attempting to buy influence or assuage a guilty conscience. A guy buying drinks for every attractive girl in a bar is probably slimy. Those acts have no payoff unless someone responds in the manner that the act was performed to induce.

My hypothesis here is that the happiness is coming from creation and strengthening of interpersonal connections as a result of post giving interaction, not from the act of giving itself. I would be interested in studies where someone spent money on others in versus themselves without the opportunity for interaction or feedback upon giving. I suspect that would confirm my hypothesis.

Hiring good teachers and going to good schools only provides an environment slightly more conducive to success. Motivated people can succeed without these things, and the prodigal will fail despite them. These things are mainly valuable to those around the median of intelligence/motivation distribution.

It is easier to find a relationship with money. The person you are in a relationship with will love your money, and tolerate you. Women do love successful/capable men, but in my experience it is the success that is attractive, not the money. As an example, a bankrupt but famous actor or rock star will massively out-compete a rich hedge fund manager. This definitely isn't just about looks, I once met a very attractive girl who waxed poetic about her desire to thoroughly ravish Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

This article is bullshit. Money can't buy achievement. Money can't buy competence. Money can't buy respect. Money can't buy love. Money can't buy wisdom. Money can't buy knowledge. Money can't buy creativity.

The things that make people truly happy are internal, and must be constructed by the person experiencing them. Money can remove discomfort or provide passing distraction from existential malaise, but it can never make you truly happy.

The problem with encapsulation is that invariably you will think something is an internal detail, and "protect" it. Later, I will come along and want to use your code to do something you did not envision, and the "protected" status of some part of your code will greatly complicate my life. I don't have a problem with separate name-spaces for "public" code versus "implementation" code, but limiting my ability to re-use implementation code is just plain wrong.

Ultimately, if someone uses something that is part of a transient namespace, they are responsible if it breaks at a later time. You should not handcuff everyone to save stupid people from themselves; stupid people will always find a way to shoot themselves in the foot.

I don't much care for trendiness or bandwagon hopping, but there are a few things about lighttable clearly hit on the future of computing (though quite by accident, I imagine).

First, programs and databases will grow together continuously. The missing piece of the puzzle here is that currently most people view databases as a single correct representation of the world, and assume that whether you have an acid database or a nosql solution, all transactions must eventually be reconciled, and a single truth must emerge. This is patently false. In actuality, database systems will begin to resemble distributed version control systems very closely over the next five to eight years, until they are almost indistinguishable. The two will meet in the middle as all distributed revision control systems end up using off the shelf graph database systems, and these graph database systems incorporate additional functionality to support one them. At some point most editors will be capable of speaking directly to the database systems without file intermediates, and if we need to transmit program data from one place to another, it will be via cloning/replication, or a textual dump and restore in some (rare) circumstances. Make no mistake about it, the key-value and column based architecture of current nosql solutions is going to transition to graph databases in the not to distant future - the algorithms to make efficient use of graph databases aren't quite there yet but it is getting very close. The idea of a single consistent world view is going to shift to various contexts and sub-contexts where consistency need not hold throughout the hierarchy (exactly in the manner of forks and branches). We will share data by establishing contextual nesting and hierarchies of information primacy.

Files are an artifact of early computing architecture, and holding on to them beyond their useful lifetime will only anchor us.

Sorry, I'm a math person, I use math terms out of habit :)

Your initial statement was that if you take a single threaded program and run multiple instances of it in a single process (composition of sequential software), concurrency issues appear even for programmers working on sequential processes. I wanted to clarify that this is only the case when variables that are modified as part of execution are shared between them. If no variables modified as part of program execution are shared, this is equivalent to saying the data of the programs are disjoint.

To get down to web-level nitty gritty: If you modify global or module level variables, you will run into trouble. If you keep variable that will be modified in a scope specific to the request you are currently handling, and persist objects using an information store designed for concurrency, you will be fine. Avoiding mutable global variables and using specialized data stores have been best practices in coding for a long time.

If you're talking about single process cgi/wsgi/node-style-eventloops, the composition of sequential software is still effectively sequential if the data is disjoint. If you have non-disjoint data and a single process environment, then you do have to consider shared mutable information at some point in your architecture. This is mitigated by the fact that shared mutable information in the web domain is typically handled by a database or information store of some kind designed for concurrent use. I am going to make the somewhat bold claim that if you store shared, mutable data in the web application process you are doing it wrong (and for other reasons besides just this one).