HN user
https://www.greghendershott.com/
See also: Recent scrubbing US government web sites for words like "diversity", "equity", and "inclusion".
Writing about biology, finance, or geology? Shrug.
Dumb filtering is bad enough when used by smart people with good intent.
Sure it's offered free of charge -- and immediately next to the big "Download" button is a big "Donate" button.
Maybe they do actually donate to the project, contribute code, or support in other means.
Maybe instead of shaming, the question is a cue for them to mention one of those things.
---
In the US it's Thanskgiving week. It's nice to give thanks. It can also be nice to give other things -- like support to a project that has saved/made your company non-trivial money. Not required, but nice.
To be clear, I think it would be fair if they answer something like: "I am trying to get my company to contribute... but as my original story showed, my company is pretty shitty at making simple decisions." :)
Obligatory mention of the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle
Also for example the imperial palace of the Habsburg dynasty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofburg
I am by no means a finance or investing whiz. But the first thing I like to do is skip ahead to the cash flow statement.
In this case https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1653482/000162828021...
The income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow are connected; sides of a triangle.
Each of the three views alone is potentially misleading. But for an initial impression and quick gut check I like to start with cash flow.
I rarely read The Register. Is that the usual tone -- as if the author wishes they were Lady Whistledown, the gossip writer on Bridgerton?
On the other hand, I've just spent several more-or-less full-time months taking advantage of the drracket/check-syntax library, provided by the core Racket team.
On the third hand, I spent all that time, so wrt "bus factor 1", there will be no pleasing you. :)
Not sure why you're being down-voted. (As usual here, only clicking a down-vote button contributes little value.)
- You are correct that implementing markdown consistently is hard because there is no real spec. CommonMark is a spec, which helps, but a heroically thorough spec, so it's still not exactly trivial to implement.
- You are correct that markdown can escape to HTML. Indeed certain marketing email "features" probably would do this?
If I am missing something maybe someone could make an actual contribution to the discussion and explain.
In any case I think by far the most important point was made elsewhere: Google AMP is awful for the web and for email, both.
p.s. edit: Actually, I think the even more important point is that anything except plain text email is awful. :) So there, sure, use markdown or org-mode formatting conventions. Humans are pretty good at handling messy human protocols.
This seems unnecessarily harsh.
Capitalization isn't a deep signal.
There are lIsPs like Clojure that argue (> data functions macros). Although I mostly disagree (for example I love Racket macros), I understand and appreciate the sentiment. I have heard it from other people who have worked with a variety of LiSp code bases over the years. TL;DR: Any form of non-trivial DSL needs supporting materials like documentation and a simple, clear design.
Although it is nice to be able to expand macros, fully-expanded macro-generating macros are clear in approximately the same way as assembly language. It is impressive if you can navigate that, but even more impressive if can manage not to need to do so.
Now an assistive technology user has an equal (and maybe even better) conceptual map of the content and actions they can take on this website compared to a non-assistive technology user. They can get a quick overview of everything on the site, easily navigate to the section of the page they want, and quickly find what they are looking for.
Often there's substantial overlap between improving accessibility and helping "power users".
Sometimes that overlap can help convince managers to spend more time on these kinds of features.
(Unless maybe your whole model is herding people to ads or "promoted" stuff.)
These days that's what rackjure re-provides: http://docs.racket-lang.org/rackjure/index.html#(mod-path._r...
No. :)
Continuations are in the category of things best explained by burrito analogies.
I remember the golden age -- when it seemed like every week there was a Lifehacker.com post about a cool way to use and customize Gmail, GReader, etc. I gladly guzzled the Kool Aid.
It was magnitudes more effective than any marketing I've ever seen Google do. Ethics aside, you could argue that Lifehacker writers should have gotten Google CMO level stock grants.
It's already non-easy to figure out what customers want, make it, make sure they know you have it, and get them to buy it.
On top of that, lately it seems more challenging not to be an oligopoly if you have customers in Europe and/or the US.
I suppose this represents an opportunity for startups to help other startups to manage compliance and payment.
AWS Cloud Watch Logs can take JSON format log events.
This displays better in the AWS console -- and also it enables better queries than raw text, e.g. `{$.response.code >= 400}`.
In my experience Typed Racket programs are never slower than their dynamically typed Racket equivalents. Sometimes they are faster (such as when the program does a lot of numeric computation).
What _can_ be slower is a _mix_ of TR and R. Because TR protects the boundary between the two with runtime contracts. Because it wants safety/soundness.
I'm not any kind of gradual typing expert, but, it seems like you could calibrate speed vs. soundness for boundaries in different ways. TR has prioritized soundness but it seems like you prefer speed.
It can make sense if you're developing for Linux -- for instance web apps that will run on Linux in production.
It can also make sense if you like physical function keys and/or a touch screen larger than a function key row. :)
I used a Chromebook Pixel with Crouton very happily for a year. Granted I spend 95% of my time in Emacs and a web browser.
And, you probably want someone who joined BigCo when it was YourSizeCo.
Depending on the definition of "it", someone has: https://github.com/tonsky/datascript
Racket took the baton from Eiffel: https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/contract-boundaries.html
My first lesson in this was the Roland MPU-401 MIDI interface. It had a "smart mode" which accepted timestamped buffers. It was great... if you wanted a sequencer with exactly the features it supported, like say only 8 tracks. It was well-intentioned, because PCs of that era were slow.
The MPU-401 also had a "dumb" a.k.a. "UART" mode. You had to do everything yourself... and therefore could do anything. It turned out that early PCs were fast enough -- especially because you could install raw interrupt service routines and DOS didn't get in the way. :)
As a sequencer/DAW creator, you really want the system to give you raw hardware buffers and zero latency -- or as close to that as it can -- and let you build what you need on top.
If a system is far from that, it's understandable and well-meaning to try to compensate with some pre-baked engine/framework. It might even meet some folks' needs. But....
In some languages the "stack" may grow until all memory is exhausted.
(Some of those languages also guarantee tail call elimination.)
I think you think I said something different than what I think I said. :) I'm not talking about "evil" or "hate". I do understand needing to pick the least-worst option. And I'm not judging anyone else's situation/choices, as a customer.
Not only am I done with Uber, I'm starting to wonder about associates and partners (investors, advisors, marketing partners, etc.)
If you're still doing business with Uber in 2017, it's because you don't want to know or you don't care who you're dealing with. Neither reflects well on you. It tells me you have your own very low bar -- your own version of "well we're not as awful as taxis shrug" -- above which anything goes ethically and professionally.
Which is your choice. It is also my choice to be concerned about doing business with you and steer clear.
I thought to submit this while reading two comments in the Eta discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13376724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13379629
If you can afford to live in an area with high property taxes, the US school system is great, your kids probably go to a great school
Such affluent towns are effectively private schools by other means.
They are a kind of boarding school where the entire family resides.
Great way to think about this.
Also -- although maybe too obvious to point out -- as you progress through these stages:
- You appeal to different kinds of investors. You may gain financing options (~= the old joke/truth that "banks are happiest to loan you money if you don't really need it").
- You need somewhat different skills from people (especially yourself!). Likewise you might be more attractive to different kinds of candidates.
- Eventually there's a whole other set of risks, as you evolve into a bigger, more mature company with high organizational entropy. :)
You can try various ETOPS (Engines Turn On or Passengers Swim) times on the Great Circle Mapper:
In fact, I've even heard some Forth fans themselves say that the point of using Forth is to write yourself something as quickly as possible that lets you program in a higher level language.
That was the main point for someone I know: Forth was how they'd bootstrap a new system to be useful in a few days.
I don't think they do this anymore. This mattered more in say the 1980s when truly new personal computer hardware was coming on the market fairly frequently.
It's not necessarily 1:1 file:module.
`#lang foo ....` in name.rkt is (in part) a shorthand for `(module name foo ....)`.
A single Racket file can have 1 or more modules.
Each module can also have sub-modules.
Modules generalize runtime vs. compile-time to many kinds of time, including but not limited to "test time", "doc time", etc. Also they enable reproducible compiles by clarifying what "compile-time" actually means relative to other modules. It's more than "paste these s-expressions at the top-level prompt and auto-prefix some names."
Racket has a wonderful module system and sometimes I miss that in Clojure, although I enjoy Clojure very much in other respects.