HN user
"Revelations" is not emotional, it's a form of "reveal".
"After PRISM Revelations" simply means "After PRISM was revealed", since it was hidden from the public before. So, Snowden revealed the existence and scope of PRISM to the group of people whose search behavior this study is analyzing (the general public).
Not an emotional word and, overall, not bad writing in the study.
Don't lie and pretend to be an individual just making a reservation for a night out on the town.
Maybe this has value, is good or bad, whatever: but be clear with restaurants that you're a for-profit scalping business making money off their inventory.
The douchiness of scalping reservations can be argued....
But there is not a single logical defense for LYING to the restaurants about being an individual. Writing a blog post about why you're lying doesn't make it okay, either.
Be clear with businesses about what you're doing with what THEY broke their backs to build, and let them opt in if they want. Cool, could be a good service and help some restaurants out or something.
But stop lying. That is douchey, is unethical in every way with no justification, and is worthy of all negative media — regardless of how overkill SF media can be sometimes.
Stop lying.
It can't still be illegal here in the United States if it wasn't overlooked; ask the average person if non-psychoactive marijuana was used to make cars at one point and most will look at you with confusion, if they even answer.
The history and incredible, incredible use of hemp is extremely overlooked in general. Good luck finding it mentioned more than in passing in a high school text book, or finding a politician aware of the fact that it's almost incomprehensibly better for paper, clothing, and could create - oh my god - so many jobs, the thing a lot of politicians seem to be talking about and promising; but directly preventing (this is both parties, by the way).
There are a lot of shitty survey-type studies, but there is some good mechanistic research you can turn up just by searching the specific chemical names on Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)
Who cares if thinkers use drugs? They have since the dawn of time, and it's helped all of us by letting already brilliant people get an extra boost. Whether it's psychedelics, marijuana, or nootropics, we know substances can not-insignificantly impact our creativity and inspiration.
Nevermind what a specific college or professional sports organization has to say about this; maybe someday they'll start thinking themselves, perhaps with the help of some substances, and realize that maybe the "college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions" are themselves a bit silly in the context of trying to truly find important ideas.
Sad that hemp is overlooked, it's truly a wonder material. So much so that it sounds fake.
anyone more interested in the "brain hemispheres" bit (http://f2em.com/#brain-hemispheres) should check out Miyamoto Musashi's collection of writings called "The Book of Five Rings" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Five_Rings
Just some great writing on this idea of being a "balanced" human, and how that influences, informs, and improves your skills. His skills were as a samurai, but the principles apply pretty universally. I got a lot out of the book, you can find it free on iBooks, Kindle, etc.
EDIT wow, I actually didn't find a free version on Kindle, but here's a few formats for free from Archive.org -> http://archive.org/details/MiyamotoMusashi-BookOfFiveRingsgo...
You can definitely be mad at them.
If they're stupid and sacrificing the quality of the actual art/software/website/thing, that's not good. It's easy to get mad at this.
And when there's so many of these types of people doing so much damage and causing so much waste, that's really not good. It's very easy to get mad at this.
When, specifically, did taking another company's data and trying to build your own company around it become "innovating"?
I am not saying such apps are useless; I'm building one now for a marketplace with pretty shitty UI.
But it's not an innovation.
The last thing the tech world needs is people walking around calling themselves "growth hackers".
Actually, the last thing the tech world needs is stuff like this, from the article:
If a startup is pre-product/market fit, growth hackers can make sure virality is embedded at the core of a product. After product/market fit, they can help run up the score on what’s already working.
Stop making up "markets" and "niches", then making crappy products to try and be "viral" in these areas, then calling yourself a "growth hacker" or something as ridiculous and valueless.
Build something because you love it, not because a "growth hacker" determined that it was a "pre-market fit".
I think algebra is necessary, and calculus, and geometry, and trigonometry, and everything else I don't understand in the realm of mathematics.
But they're important in the context of real life.
So, yes, we should keep these classes, keep having kids go through algebra and calculus and geometry...
...But you shouldn't be bound by arbitrary rules. Algebra is important, but if you find "x" by doing something other than some arbitrary thing where you subtract both sides, etc., you shouldn't get an F in the class.
Same with calculus, geometry, everything. The importance is the thinking and the logic, and what real-life application you can take from your knowledge. Making hard rules for these math courses, for example, definitely hurts this and does some of the things this article claims.
But true, honest exploration in math and thinking about it is very important, and if it's free and done in an honest way there is no question about whether it's necessary or not.
Richard Feynman covered this better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZED4gITL28
Sleep, stress, and enormously increased sugar consumption.
But psychology has only recently begun seriously investigating how having money, that major marker of status in the modern world, affects psychosocial behavior in the species Homo sapiens.
No. Two things. First, taking this study and applying it to "money" is very correlative, and a decent leap considering the methods for the study. The real value of this study, if there's any at all, is about someone having huge unfair advantages in a general sense; having freedom to treat someone however you want because they don't have the means to rebel.
And second, the examination of this isn't new at all. Heart of Darkness, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Apocalypse Now, King Leopold's Ghost, tons and tons of artists have examined what happens when someone has an unfair advantage without consequence; those are just some I plucked quickly, but there are so many.
I'm not saying the point is completely invalid. In a lot of cases, money gives people the exact freedom, privilege, and less-restrained power that leads to this behavior.
But saying "Research suggests more money makes people less human" based on a rigged monopoly game where the other person is severely relatively handicapped is...a bit of a leap, to say the least.
The other studies mentioned in the article don't sound very convincing, either.
quizzes, online games, questionnaires, in-lab manipulations, and field studies that living high on the socioeconomic ladder can, colloquially speaking, dehumanize people
Quizzes/questionnaires are notoriously prone to being bullshit, like the China Study's questionnaires including "Pizza" as meat and the book going on to draw correlations between its definitions of "meat" and diseases like cancer. I'd way rather see more info on the "in-lab manipulations and field studies", it was only touched on briefly, it seemed.
It's exactly what I'm arguing above; college doesn't matter.
By saying it "doesn't matter", I'm saying that the ability of a person to produce something good or provide a good service to others does not require a causative relationship with that person's level of organized education (college, grad school, high school, two-year degrees, etc.).
You've said twice that I'm incorrect, without explaining why you think so.
I'd never use a doctor, they're not tools.
But I'd absolutely seek the advice of doctors who never had formal education. In fact, based on hard evidence and history, I'd be more interested in what some outside-the-box professionals have to say about a given condition than to have someone recite a textbook paragraph to me that I could read for myself for free at the library.
I can't think of one profession or activity that requires a college-level education in reality, though there are plenty that legally you need licenses, etc. for.
How does the fact that it positively impacts some people mean that it matters or is important?
This article is talking about money, employment, status, etc., in the context of education and college. I'm saying that going to college does not in any way mean that someone is more qualified, smarter, capable, productive, etc. than someone who didn't go to college.
I'm saying that if you went to college and discovered, for example, a passion for graphic design, the idea that you'd inherently be better than a self-taught graphic designer is 100% ridiculous. And that if an employer chose you over that person solely because you had some extra letters after your name and could tolerate 4 more years of schooling, that employer is dangerously stupid.
What does that have to do say about the value of college? And how, specifically, does that add to your statement "but it matters..A LOT"?
I'd highly recommend Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan", that's a useful tool for reminding you how little you know and how little everyone else knows.
Personally, that's a motivator to build a product without being concerned about what all the other products are doing / how they look. It's also a great reminder of the importance of empiricism in some parts of life, which is great to keep in mind with something as simple as debugging your code or doing customer support...coming at a problem like an experiment, from the position of knowing nothing, means you can get to the answer faster (usually) and with more accuracy and precision.
College doesn't fucking matter in any way, shape, or form in the context of reality and actually doing good, productive things. Nor do people who base hires / who they like on where those people went to college.
Uptime is something users love regardless of the size of the company whose product they're trying to use. Investing in uptime is always worth it.
Cool, thanks man. Can't really pick classes now but heading into college I can.
Seriously, what's up with bloggers wanting credit from old media?
I'm shocked that such a poorly done study is front page news.
76 people, comparing to a simple average, "no way of knowing" the actual results...Come on, seriously? I love science and give credit to everyone working to understand things; but labeling this as a new understanding (even a potential understanding) of psychological incentives is ridiculous.
So every single computer owner will be a criminal?
I'm a senior in high school and building my own product, and this is very inspiring. My only question is about how you manage your school work with your, well, "actual" work. It's an issue I've had and after getting your hands on a real product and being able to build something cool, school work just seems so uninspiring and dry.
Thoughts?
I appreciate how this post doesn't posit that introverts "don't want to be around people", like many articles and essays do. I'm an introvert and love being around people; just not all people all the time. It's an important distinction.
However, something in this article that I pick up, and I see it in other writings, is that introverts like to think while extroverts don't.
Just as extroversion is dressed up in socially-positive words like "outgoing", "friendly", "life of the party", etc., it seems like more and more introversion-related articles are using equally seductive and over-the-top words like "deep", "intellectual", "pensive", and more. Just pointing out that a lot of extroverts aren't the former words, and a lot of introverts aren't the latter words.
I just seem to notice this in articles about intro/extroversion. People keep using words and terms to make it seem like there's a huge difference in intellect, etc. between the two groups. I don't think that's true.
So how does it generate profits?
This doesn't bother me. Or, I should say, I'm not inherently opposed to it.
Microsoft is a private company acting on their own will. This censorship is one I might not agree with, but it could just make the case for another uncensored client to become popular.
As long as this type of behavior isn't forced by a government, I actually like it in the long run. I think companies should take a stance on things, and seeing Microsoft act this way just makes me more happy with companies who take the opposite stance. If that favorability change happens with enough people, theoretically Microsoft could hurt financially. This would then make it more profitable to be open and uncensored.
So, in a nutshell, I've seen comments elsewhere about this that were SUPER negative and hateful. I understand them, but at the same time, I think this is just another signal to instead focus on and promote those platforms that focus on and promote freedom. And a big signal, to boot.
I, too, am excited to see what happens with jQuery. It's gotten to the point now (between the main lib, jq UI, and jq mobile) that the little snippets people extract from jQuery are becoming their own micro libraries, which is super cool. I've seen some things on github start as simple jQuery plugins and then be extracted into their own smaller library, basically. It seems like jQuery will become like a launchpad for developing smaller, as-needed libraries/frameworks. It'll provide the groundwork of something, and then once that something is perfected, all the rest of the bloat will be removed. Pretty neat, and I've found myself doing this twice in the past few months already.
I also think the jQuery source code will become more of a learning tool in the future; I've picked up so many neat things within JavaScript just by checking out some jQuery source, reading the comments, and then researching that particular thing on my own.
Why don't we focus on the shit here first?
I'm sorry, but I just get frustrate with all these wondrous predictions that always seem to be about 30-50 years in the future. Short enough away to be enticing, but long enough away where no one making these predictions will really he held accountable for their ridiculousness.
It just seems that every single generation a) has some "new threat" for "how the world will end" and b) has some technological vision that ends up being way overestimated.