hobin

Would it work to do that by IP, and allow only X different IPs for an account to try to login on a single day? e.g. if you've tried to login with 10 different IPs on that day, you will no longer be able to login that day. (Of course this would mean saving some extra data.) The biggest problem I see is that this means people can lock you out of your account, which is probably unacceptable.

Yes and yes. Both didn't work, or didn't have enough effect to get me out of the no-motivation cycle. Ergo, SSRIs (which thankfully did work). Yes to the third question, too (as a matter of fact I had a cholesteatoma). Could you tell me how that is relevant?

I was going to respond to a few of the comments here, but then I realized I was going to say pretty much the same to all of them, so here goes:

I've got clinical depression. What this means is that there is something fundamentally wrong in my brain that causes me to be depressed. There is no direct environmental cause that makes me depressed. Now, here's what many people get wrong about severe depression:

Severe depression does NOT mean that exercise, a healthy diet and getting a social life won't help at all.

Rather, depression completely drains your motivation to do any of those things. Which in turn make you more depressed. Which makes you even less likely to do any of them. And so on and so forth. It's 'positive' feedback, but it starts with a neurological problem. This is why all the 'cheer up'-sort of advice doesn't help people who're depressed, and why it tends to only make them more miserable.

Of course, this is only my experience. I'm quite sure there are plenty of people who are depressed for reasons found in their environment, and then get stuck in the same loop. But it would be ridiculous to presume that I'm unique in this regard.

Yup, that's part of the game.

(Shameless advertising: go to DEF CON. Seriously. It's more fun than Disneyland!)

Hint: comments are for communicating stuff to people. Posting a braindump and pretty much saying 'just figure out what I meant for yourself' is both rude and annoying.

I do. You don't show up in a suit at DEF CON, you just don't.

Sigh.

Feds have been an integral part since DEF CON 1. They're welcome, and booing them of the stage is just childish. Again, I'm pretty sure the majority of hackers don't agree with them, and may even think they're a bunch of morons, but it's still interesting to hear what they have to say. People do get booed of the stage, but for entirely different reasons, e.g. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9755135-7.html (and watch the video, it's hilarious).

(Also, talking about security-people-hackers on a site primarily focused on programming-startup-hackers confuses the crap out of me.)

"Edit: I should add that no chemical is good for everyone, not even caffeine."

I don't think it's the caffeine that causes all these benefits. (Though, being an avid hacker myself, I of course can think of a few benefits of that particular chemical.)

Also, 'water' falsifies your statement. ;)

"China has done this to U.S. companies in China, repeatedly, over and over and over again."

I'm curious. Can you can name a few examples?

Pah. You clearly don't have much experience with roguelikes. ;)

You could say that, but it would be wrong. A tangent is an equation of the form y = ax + b at point P, which just happens to have (well, by definition) a value for a that equals the rate of change at P (of the original equation).

And not even that is necessarily true. I'm a physicist, and I would be wary of trying to prove any commonly accepted theory wrong - even if all my data points that way. Contrary to popular belief, getting data that is too non-mainstream and trying to defend it is often academic suicide in science. While science is one of the most rational fields to be working in, this is still a sad but true fact about the human condition.

"In the long run of history, do the conclusions of science get overturned more often than the conclusions of other fields?"

This would not tell you anything about bias, though. It leaves out the possibility that scientists are simply right more often.

That would be an interesting natural oddity. For a perfect future, just get enough people together to predict all the different ways in which the world can end.

"which no one studies in school"

In the Netherlands, German is compulsory in high school at the HAVO and VWO levels. Regrettably, I've pretty much forgotten all of it. That being said, the Dutch people are already half German.

Yes.

"This is the core of the disappointment that many of us feel with the Sparrow acquisition. It’s not about the $15 or less we spent on the apps. It’s not about the team’s well-deserved payout. It’s about the loss of faith in a philosophy that we thought was a sustainable way to ensure a healthy future for independent software development, where most innovation happens."

I seriously laughed out loud.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily think his idea is silly, and I think he may in fact have a point. However, let's not pretend all those people who complained about the acquisition were doing this because they lost faith in this philosophy. That part is silly. Those people were just being slightly dramatic because they liked a product and it would no longer get updated.

That was the reason (and the fact that an antiphoton IS its own photon, and, well, complicated stuff), don't worry. ;)

It's possible to write Python-scripts to use in Blender. Blender itself, however, is written in C.

Must-control-physicist-inside.

I'm inclined to say both, but I'm not sure, because working with hardware just so happens to be my area of expertise. On the other hand, my official job is that of a physicist, so you may have a point.

For the same reasons people build non-hardware startups.

"I think you're seriously overestimating the quality of the model. This isn't particle physics -- it's not as if there's an equation that precisely predicts the results of any particular molecular interaction. We don't even know if we know the full set of possible interactions in a system of this size. How can we possibly simulate it?"

(Edit: there was a whole bunch of stuff here, but it's pretty much irrelevant given that we seem to agree on the basic points.)

"This is an example of "we ran the fancy machine for a while, it spit out some data, and we cherry-picked 'interesting' results from the output. Some of them even show up in experiments!" These sorts of breathless announcements are common in computational biology, but they usually don't amount to much. The best work is extremely reductionist. As others have already noted, it's easy to spend 10x the computational resources simulating a single protein on timescales far, far shorter than the ones simulated here."

That's fair enough. I checked your profile and saw that you have a PhD in computational biology, which is not my field of expertise, so I'm inclined to take your word on that one. In that case, my comments do, of course, not apply.

No, because the 'I think' does not mean what you think it means. You can't take it out of its social context, which is to inform people that you assign a lower certainty to the next thing you are going to say. (Of course, you could say all that, but that would make most conversations very pointless and annoying, as I can say from personal experience.)

They're not even losing anything, because the app didn't disappear into thin air. To be completely honest, I think most of this is simply people being a little dramatic.

"This is interesting from a technology perspective, perhaps, but it's hard to call it science."

As a physicist and scientist myself, I feel extremely inclined to say 'potato, potahto' at this one. This technology allows us to test many more hypotheses at a much quicker pace, which is good enough for me to call it science.

How so? This question isn't necessarily about whether there is room for me, personally, to make a hardware startup. Rather, I would like to hear people's opinions on whether they think hardware startups aren't a completely stupid idea at all compared to the much more prevalent web startups.

(I found another error in my post, but I can no longer edit it: I don't dislike design. I misread that on proofreading and edited it, silly me.)

Gee, people, let's chill out for a bit. There's so much anger here that I think my eyebrows were scorched by all the comments. If the previous comments are any indication, you might not want to read my comment if this email client means the world to you. I'm afraid to say that I really don't see the big deal.

Let me repeat that: it's an email client. People's days were ruined by this news? Google is stupid and evil and-I-don't-know-what-else because they acquired Sparrow? The developers of Sparrow are evil because they didn't do what you unreasonably expected them to do? You people need a serious reality check if these were your thoughts. Heck, the app didn't even stop working.

Now, with all that being said, I can understand a little frustration about knowing for certain that your apparently-favorite app will not be updated anymore. Fine. I get it. But can we cut out approximately 90% of the fury?

Oh, I didn't mean to say that I need to write something in assembly or C per se - I've done some Python programming on an embedded interpreter, too. My point is that I like to stick close to the hardware.

I agree with your other point, though. Although I definitely love working with hardware, I'll still take the avenues you mentioned over developing web-apps any day.