dgallagher

iOS gives you the option to disable Background App Refresh either for all apps, or for individual apps: Settings -> General -> Background App Refresh

Affinity Designer is really great for vector graphics, and exporting to raster. Super fast. Super easy to learn.

Their developers are very active. They have a beta available to owners. I've encountered a few minor bugs in their App Store version, downloaded the beta, and noticed it was fixed.

Apple has introduced App Thinning in iOS 9 apps which should cut down on their size:

https://developer.apple.com/library/watchos/documentation/ID...

I walked through Target's Open House in SF a few weeks ago; I'd recommend visiting if you're in the area. It's pretty slick product display space. Each "room" has a projector which gives an overview of four or five products in a room, and how they tie together in your life. One of the rooms had a Kinect mounted above next to the projector; not sure what it was being used for.

The main lobby has a couple long tables with all of the products on display which were demo'd in the rooms along with some interactive Surface-like table which detects if you get near it and moves floating sprites around. They had displays on the wall listing the most popular products, and a few sales people to answer questions. IIRC there were approx 40-50 products displayed. Kudos to Target for setting the space up.

Everything being sold felt they'd fit perfectly inside of a Brookstone, or Sharper Image when they still had retail stores. Most of them were "vitamin" products rather than "aspirin", which gives way to some of Allison Arieff's criticism in the article: "What the products on display have in common is that they don’t solve problems people actually have."

That's very fair to say. There were a few items which did solve real problems, like Nest which can help reduce heating costs, but most things sold didn't fit into that category. Many were "neat" things which you could entice someone with disposable income to splurge on.

I'd like to C++ support added to Swift, similar to Objective-C with Objective-C++. There are some C++ frameworks which are nice to use in Obj-C, like Box2D. Currently to get them to work with Swift, you have to write an Obj-C or C wrapper around a C++ framework, and then import that into Swift.

Semi-related topic, NPR put a podcast up earlier today talking about simplicity vs. complexity in pop songs (4:29): http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2015/04/24/401925095/all-s...

http://www.twitch.tv/gyratory/b/601749359

That's an early VR demo of TxK, being ported from PS Vita, which is a Tempest remake (fast paced twitch shooter). I haven't played it myself, but those who have say great things about it. An example of a non-simulator game. What's remarkable is Jeff (one of the dev's) doesn't have the ability to see stereoscopic vision.

Most of TxK is played facing towards a web without lots of head turning. Certain games like this will benefit simply by being in 3D, along with VR's total-immersion effect.

This AnandTech overview of nVidia's G-Sync is worth reading (meshes a bit with what Carmack mentioned about CRT/LCD refresh rates in that talk): http://www.anandtech.com/show/7582/nvidia-gsync-review

It's a proprietary nVidia technology that essentially does reverse V-Sync. Instead of having the video card render a frame and wait for the monitor to be ready to draw it like normal V-Sync, the monitor waits for the video card to hand it a finished frame before drawing, keeping the old frame on-screen as long as needed. The article goes into a little more detail; they take advantage of the VBLANK interval (legacy from the CRT days) to get the display to act like this.

Does anyone have experience using Configuration Management software in a heterogeneous environment? For example, I've seen large environments running Windows 2008/2008R2/2012/2012R2, various flavors and versions of Linux including Ubuntu Server, CentOS, SUSE, etc... What's the pretty? What's the ugly?

I understand consolidation and standardization of operating systems is usually the best state to be in, but in a lot of larger companies running legacy software it's not economically feasible to do.

What if Apple introduced workstation-class ARM another way; made a really powerful iPad/iPhone which could sit in a dock with keyboard/mouse/monitor, and run both iOS and ARM OSX?

x86 computers could continue to exist for high-end users, but typical-users might be content with a hybrid tablet/computer. As ARM increased in power, x86 might dissapear entirely.

Your comments on Windows compatibility/virtualization are spot on. Cloud streaming, Citrix/XenApp, can help in some situations here. In a few years virtually all major apps will probably be cloud/browser based (Microsoft Office, Adobe Suite, streaming games/apps, etc). Windows on Mac might not be as important then. It's possible Microsoft might release ARM Windows too (besides RT). If ARM gets popular in the datacenter you may see Windows Server 2015 ARM Edition. They've done this in the past with Itanium.

One big thing Zacolo has over Dropbox is cheaper pricing. Dropbox for Business is $15/mo [1] per user (can be up to 30% cheaper if you pay in-full for a year), where-as Zacolo is $5/mo [2] per user. That'll put downward pressure on Dropbox's corporate pricing unless they have much better service, or much better features, than Amazon.

[1] https://www.dropbox.com/business/buy [2] https://aws.amazon.com/zocalo/pricing/

I've heard of the phobia method, as your body eventually exhausts its adrenaline stores and you're able to address the issue more rationally instead of under physiological duress.

If you're talking about Adrenal Fatigue, then that's pseudoscience not backed by the medical community[1] (though you will find plenty of "solutions" for it on the internet, for your money of course ;) ).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrenal_fatigue

It's quicker sometimes.

This morning I made some oatmeal. I took a 1/2 measuring cup, scooped out some oatmeal, shook it quickly to remove the overflow, threw it in a pot, and dropped the measuring cup in my sink. It took around 5-10 seconds.

If I had to do the same by weight, I would have had to get my scale, put on a bowl, zero the scale, slowly start pouring oatmeal onto the scale until it reached the desired weight, throw that into a pot, put the bowl in my sink, and put the scale away. That'll probably run around 15-20 seconds. If I screw up and poured too much into the bowl by accident, it'll take a lot longer to correct than briefly shaking a pre-sized 1/2 measuring cup.

Other times a scale is much easier to use too; it just depends on the context.

Perhaps take your own emotions into account, and weigh them against what you're being asked to do? Abstractly: If I do A I'll feel good about A, but terrible about B. If I don't do A I'll feel bad about A, but fantastic about B. Pick the one that's most important to "you".

Anecdotical (10+ years running experience). I've found that jogging at slow speeds (~6 MPH) has a similar effect creatively on me as walking does (2-4 MPH). Running at medium speeds (~8 MPH), I still notice an increase in creativity as long as I have enough energy in me, but it's a bit reduced than jogging. Running at high speeds (10+ MPH), things are so intense that my mind can only focus on breathing, running, and mind tricks to keep going, so creative thinking goes right out the door.

It would be interesting to see a scientific study done on it.

I don't believe it's not about "not caring". I think it's more about having a finite number of productive brain-cycles per day, and what you spend them on (opportunity cost).

If you spend all day thinking about others, you won't get any math done. If you spend all day thinking about math, you won't be in tune with others. If you can balance things out properly, you can do both.

Sometimes it's necessary to go to one extreme for a long period of time. If you're working on a really hard problem, it might be best to isolate yourself from society for days/weeks/months at a time to figure it out. If a close family member is stricken with a major illness like cancer, it might be best to focus and spend your thoughts, time, and emotions entirely with them.

In reality it's usually a balancing act between different things. But you can understand why it's sometimes necessary to go to extremes.

Also, there's a popular video game also named "Fez" which uses the same fez hat in it. It probably won't lead to confusion since the game isn't a file based build tool, though it'll be something you might have to indirectly compete with in search results. :)

I guess you could say that HTML meets that standard. For example, <h1> through <h6> headers could be rendered by the browser accordingly; most default renderers still display things mostly the same way Netscape Navigator 2.0 did back in the Win 3.1 days (disable CSS on a site and you'll see).

Marked on the Mac, which is a Markdown renderer, loads .mmd files and renders them against a CSS template which you can swap out. That fits the MVC idiom nicely, although far from a perfect implementation as it's merely meant for viewing markdown files, not everything on the internet.

Bingo @ 2ft.

Curious; what type of display were you reading on? How big is it? What was its resolution?

--------------------

Reading it on a 27" 2560x1440 display was really nice. Same in vertical mode on a 9.7" iPad, but not so good in horizontal mode; it felt constricted like watching a letter-boxed 16:9 movie on a 19" 4:3 TV screen.

What I've found is that optimal text formatting varies greatly across devices. This is very hard to design for due to the variety of screens. From small screen devices like cell phones and gray-scale Kindle's, through larger 24" - 30" monitors and even larger HDTV's. On top of that there are DPI variances.

I've always been a fan of MVC, separating the model (actual document data/text/pictures) from the view (how it's displayed), and using a controller (device/screen-specific code) to display things optimally.

It would be nice if there was a standard that existed allowing authors to simply write documents, saving them as models. Then, each device could read from a standard model file and, using custom controller code, generate a view displaying the text/images optimized for its display.

Right now you see web developers creating multiple CSS layouts for different screen layouts. This works for most cases, but not edge scenarios. It feels very hacky, and I can't foresee people building websites/content-delivery-mechanisms like this 10 years into the future. There must be a better way.

I wonder if the right maths applied to existing genetic and forensics big data sets could produce the 33 questions.

I'd imagine that genetic markers would be the best way to do to (Disclaimer: I'm no biologist and might have made completely wrong assumptions here). They're less likely to change than, say, someone's political or religious beliefs; one could get a nasty hit on their head and forget.

The thing with genetics is that they can change over time. Some gene's turn on and off. Attributes like your face and fingerprints change over time. They're not constants.

If you could identify a set of 33 lifetime constants, you'd end up with a life-long UUID. If you expanded beyond 33 bits and included genetic markers which change over time, such as gene's which flip on/off, you could end up with a point-in-time (PIT) UUID.

    UUID     = Constant throughout life.
    PIT+UUID = UUID plus markers identifying you at a particular point in time.

Also, you'd probably need more than 33 bits. 33 will encompass all living humans today in 2013 ADE, but would have to be expanded as the living population grows, and to include the billions of deceased humans.

In the end, a "true" unique identifier, encompassing any human, would be their UUID plus a list of all PIT+UUID's they generated during their lifetime. Or in english, an entire record of their genetics from start to end:

    struct LIFETIME_UUID {
        void * uuid;
        void * pit_uuid_TIMESTAMP1; 
        void * pit_uuid_TIMESTAMP2; 
        void * pit_uuid_TIMESTAMP3;
        ...
    };

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

You hit on something though; in the U.S. there are tens of thousands of ATM machines all over. They all accept PIN numbers, and I "believe" magnetic-strip as well (not sure if they're doing fancy stuff too with built-in chips or not). It's the standard that everyone uses; debit card and credit cards alike.

To change that to support different tech, you'd have to upgrade all of the ATM machines, all of the credit cards, and all of the backend tech. That's a lot of coordination between banks/credit-card companies. On top of that you have POS systems in stores which are all magnetic-strip based as well, accepting PINs and/or signatures.

Any sort of switch would have to be phased-in over years and require a lot of buy-in. Unless retailers, banks, ATM providers, and credit card companies have a good business case to do so, they probably won't.

I'd imagine it would be easier for some other type of technology which displaces cards entirely, like phone-based payments, would eventually replace all of this. An idea like Coin augments the current "archaic" system and has the potential to take off. But outside of the U.S. it sounds like it won't work without modification.

From someone who lives in Massachusetts, how difficult is it to commute between Oakland and San Francisco? On a map they're about as close as Cambridge and Boston. Is there a huge difference between, say, driving a car and taking the BART?

The nice thing about reality is that it continues to exist regardless if you believe in it or not.

The thing is, what we perceive as reality might be wrong sometimes. Fortunately the scientific method is a pretty good algorithm whose purpose is to expose it whether we like the answer or not. Our species doesn't know everything yet, and we're limited by the capabilities of our bodies, knowledge, technology, and other things.

Many people like to create a worldview in their heads which they become comfortable with. That's fine, but trouble arises when it's challenged and they fail to question or adjust it. Those who stubbornly defend against, dismiss, or demonize contradictory evidence significantly increase their probability of being wrong. A great technique to avoid this trap is to ask yourself, and answer, the following question for any subject, no matter how uncomfortable or taboo:

What facts or evidence would it take for you to stop believing in what you currently believe?

It's an excellent self-check, and a tool no open minded person should be without.

Exactly. You see the same trend in programming by way of abstraction.

I don't think the question is useless, but rather very difficult to answer. We simply don't know enough yet to answer it, but might someday.

As for alien life, I expect if there's anything out there, it's probably intelligent, redundant, and efficient. Who knows what form that could take? It might be robots, or computers, a mesh network, or something else entirely. Whatever form it takes, it'll be limited by the constraints of the universe (or multiverse, or whatever "reality" is).

A lot of people's ideas about aliens are molded from television and movies. Historically we've had humans playing those characters, severely limiting how "alien" they can be. While very inspirational and valuable, it has the negative of potentially pigeon-holing peoples minds.

After decades of biological research, we're still not sure what makes an organism alive, in the sense that the line between living organisms and inert biological material is not well-defined, but we know how living organisms reproduce and grow, and that's really what matters.

It might be as simple as "it's alive while it's a functioning machine." A disassembled car is just parts and can't drive/be-alive, but assembled it is a car and can drive/be-alive.

The settings dashboard design with icons and text goes back a long way, including Windows 3.1 and Windows 95:

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/menu/win31...

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/menu/win95...

I think it's still a clean, elegant way to present OS settings on modern computers (large display, mouse input). The best way "discovered" to date. So if anyone is copying anyone, it's that people are copying the best known way to do it.

---------------------------

Side Rant: Microsoft started diverging away from the above with Windows XP (or was it Windows ME?) by buring things:

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/power_mgt/winXP_contro...

...and made it extremely difficult to navigate by Windows Vista/7/8 by sticking things inside sub-categories inside of sub-categories:

http://screenshots.modemhelp.net/screenshots/Windows_Vista/C...

It's a different, more complex way to do the same thing. Nobody is copying them though. ;)

At an abstract level, it's likely caused by low/stagnant supply, and increased demand which is inelastic (not affected much by changes in price).

Imagine a real estate market with only 100 1BR apartments to rent. If 85 are occupied, 15 available, and 5 people are trying to rent those 15, the price of rent should remain about the same as 10 will remain vacant.

However, if 40 people are trying to rent those 15, the price of the 15 will be bid up due to a limit in supply. Then the remaining 25 people will continue to bid up rents for any new vacancies. A scenarios like this can cause rents to skyrocket, especially if supply remains nearly constant.

This is similar to some of the AR games on Nintendo 3DS, with the exception that you don't need to look through a screen to get the effect. You can imagine this on Google Glass too, viewable only by those wearing the HUD.