mantrax

So the only thing you didn't answer is the actual question, which was how much time it took you.

And "your time" counts when we discuss "how long"...

2008 called, it wants its imaginary problem back.

Short links are intended to be transient. They're used in environments meant to be transient (tweets, emails, phone text messages etc.).

No, we don't need to hoard every single tweet into eternity because someone said so. Let them go. Let them fade away. They want to fade away. We need that space for another fresh batch of trillion tweets with short links in them.

This entire drama around everyone having their own short link server because-what-if-bit.ly-goes-down is just an example of developers having too much free time on their hands.

If you want your link to have durability - don't shorten it. Simple, right?

The reason the CPU is not using most of the energy is because it's not used all the time. And that's by design. Every single thing possible under the sun is done to keep the CPU off for even a split ms on mobile.

Because if you start using the CPU all the time, your battery is done.

I can sum up this article & its predecessors like so:

"What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!"

Well, the first half of the title is right.

In nature most animals do not die of old age or sickness. In fact, dying of old age or sickness is the most horrifying and prolonged death possible for any life form. It's torture. Being hunted and dead in the span of hours, or even minutes is far more "humane" (I hate the etymology of this word).

Preserving an animal's life artificially until it's so old it dies from its age is what is actually unnatural (also see the original point 3). So the focus should not be on extending an animal's life length, but improving those animals' life quality.

And actually if you would replace "animal" with "human" in anything I say, it still applies. This is how you know I'm not discriminating against an animal's life. Which would be pure ignorance.

Many of those hundreds of languages do actually run on iOS. Many games on the App Store are written in Unity (a C# platform).

Heck, many are written in Flash too. Yes, Flash.

I actually consider it a very healthy sign that the people complaining about Objective C are a vocal minority whining about such silly, unfocused, vague things.

It means Objective C is doing quite fine, thank you very much.

1. Prison. The philosophy of prison as punishment is wrong, but the idea of keeping a murderer isolated from potential victims isn't. So don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

2. Animals, just like humans, die. There's no way around it. Even if the entire world decides not to eat a particular goat, that goat will die. And when an animal dies, it gets eaten - no exception. Either by microorganisms, or higher level organisms. The problem isn't why animals die, it's how animals live. Even if an animal is bred for food, it doesn't have to lead a miserable life, and it doesn't mean we should not respect that life on its own merit. So again, don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

3. I agree. But say, if an old animal wants to die, can I eat it?

People who are willing to reinvent the syntax of a language only to shave a few parens and braces have a lot to learn yet about what truly matters.

"I think the best solution is to make charity cool again."

No, charity doesn't need your branding efforts. It needs accountability.

Throwing money at a generic "charity" initiative is the best way to see your money disappear in the pockets of a handful of corrupted individuals.

When giving for charity, you need to be able to see what exactly results from what you gave.

Say, $10 million required to build a hospital with this and that, all written in specs, and by year 2016. People pool money, and if the funding goal is reached, the providers keep the people taking the money accountable to build the hospital to specs.

And not "give for charity", feel good, go back to your life, and achieve absolutely nothing because no one is held accountable.

The latter is what 90% of charity is like. It's only remotely better than throwing money at lottery tickets and hoping it results in good things.

And then you're surprised why Larry Page has the common sense to say the things he says.

That's the problem with studying animals, they can't defend themselves to correct our hilarious over-generalizations and misrepresentations of their species.

You shouldn't trust that interpretation by Wolfram Alpha.

1. Distance. One obvious discrepancy is that the closer you look at the photo the less detailed it'll look. That's the opposite of how actual "vision" works. Even in dogs. You need to know how far away you should look at the photo, at what DPI screen in order for it to be even remotely representative for what it "feels" like for a dog to see.

2. Original image dpi. The second flaw is that if that image was a 600 dpi photo McNamara processed through the same filter, it wouldn't have lost nearly as much information percentage-wise, as a small image would.

3. What is "human vision"? The original image doesn't represent "human vision". It's a photo captured by a camera, resampled to a specific (small) resolution. Wolfram Alpha can't know how typical human vision "dpi" applies to that particular photo, because it needs to know a lot of information about the camera lens and sensor, which it doesn't know. So it can't approximate the dog version out of it by using relative human-to-dog metrics.

I love Wolfram & all their products.

However, sorry, but that "dog vision" image is not scientific. It's just bullshit.

It's not so poor. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7441530

Actually there's no solid evidence how much help an accountant is with regards to safely using Bitcoins.

Would an accountant know enough to safely store "wallets", to monitor "blockchains". Is this in their training? No. You can have perfect accounting and still turn out you lost the wallets.

Bitcoin's problem is that there's no other asset in human history so easily misplaced, lost, or stolen. A bunch of numbers on a bunch of vulnerable computers.

I actually envy Mark Karpeles' ability to not give a fuck throughout this whole situation.

In fact, I think it's some sort of super power.

Don't take me too seriously. Programmers like to joke, too ;)

PHP: I can do this better than ASP. Wait, I can't.

Yeah, almost assuredly they approved of an abridged version talking about how Apple has hit a rough patch after Steve's death and how it costs $2 to make a $20 adapter (which wasn't a part of the interview to begin with). Please.

It's a lab.

Calling being unable to decide what to wear as "only being able to make rational decisions" is interesting, but it's not what's really happening.

Every decision has a ROI. The line where ROI meets costs is your maximum budget for a decision, after which point it costs you more to remain in the decision phase that it costs you to follow the best of the few "imperfect" decisions you have in mind (one of them includes the decision to stop "deciding", do nothing, and move on - that's still deciding).

That idea so far is rational. If you wear nothing you'll remain naked. If you don't eat you'll die.

And most of all, being stuck deciding forever just about anything is not rational.

So this person is unable to sense his "decision budget" and decides forever, while most people have facilities (impatience, impulsiveness in some degree, boredom etc.) to work around us being stuck forever after our decision budget is spent.

Spending to get positive ROI is rational. Spending infinitely beyond that point is not.

I'm in love with your out-of-the-box analysis, but it also makes basic mistakes.

The informal definition of rational is having good sense and good judgment. If your formal definition results in agents that never do anything, or are in basic conflicts with millions of years of evolution and survival, then it's far more likely the formal definition is wrong, or your understanding of it is wrong, and not humans.

I understand the benefits of strict formal rational analysis. You can reason about it. But then if you'll talk about that, don't compare it to intelligence. Strict rationality is not intelligent. It's a tool we've made ourselves that has specific strengths and weaknesses born out of its restrictions.

And strict rationality is absolutely dependent on the model you apply it on. Wrong model + perfect rationality = disastrous decision. No one talks about the models, ever, it seems.

This is the real problem with AI - that we try to implement our very rough (at this point of time) idea of what intelligence is. If we knew all the details of animal/human intelligence, we wouldn't be sitting here debating it, we would've just implemented the AI with it.

It's interesting how the community explanation is that some set of perfect ideals was "corrupted" by consultants. That actually happened fairly early in the process.

It's the very consultants that are now blamed for corrupting Agile that made Agile popular. Agile wouldn't be a thing without the feedback loop of the industry it spawned.

Everyone believed, and one day they stopped believing. It's as if perfect "Agile" was nothing but a figment of people's collective imagination.

I've always had a skeptical eye about all this. Some useful things, nothing new, just a fresh coat of fancy buzzwords used to re-invent common sense.

We need a version with tiny sharks being jumped.

I don't get this, I never will. So this journalist gets access to Ive himself, does an interview, then feels the need to hide that interview and retell it to us, inserting mini-quotes here there.

Why!?

Give us the damn interview!

I have a secret "eval" page on sites that's enabled during development (protected by a huge password, just in case, though). It evaluates code & shows the results as I'm typing it in real time. Better than a console.

Take this page away from me, and I'll develop at least twice slower.

"Those who score lower on measure of intelligence."

We know how well those work, don't we?

I know that unless I trust someone (say, my team) I won't get anything done, and that's enough of a reason to find people to trust.

But the implication of this study that this is directly the result of my intelligence, is actually insulting to my intelligence.

Are people who fall for scams highly intelligent? I'm not saying they're necessarily stupid, but people who fall for scams definitely "trust others" a bit too much.

You know, cynicism doesn't count as insight nor evidence in my book.

"Despite being well treated and paid, for his hard work, he was still looked at as just a worker that produced well. He was never considered to be a key player in the company."

He was right. He should've been recognized as a key player. But the idea that being seen as a key player in the company requires you to be higher in the hierarchy is a fallacy.

The art of good company structure is keeping the hierarchy relatively flat (not non-existent, but still relatively flat), so hierarchy does not become the de-facto tool for "recognition" of an employee. There was no reason this programmer shouldn't have gotten more respect (during decision making) and more money even than his direct boss, but staying in the position he's in, where he's contributing his best.

Apple's infamous "top 100" meetings pick 100 of the most influential people in the company for a secret retreat. They're not selected by hierarchy. They're selected by their individual contributions. There's a lot of wisdom in that way of doing things.

And a side note about mental conditions. It's easy to say "oh he was probably unstable anyway", but that's bullshit. Every one of you "stable" people have a breaking point. Every one of you. Environmental stress is a huge factor affecting our mental health. So if this happens at your company, don't look for external excuses. Look around yourself, identify the causes, fix them.

Exactly.

He is absolutely right, it is a mirage. But a mirage we collectively believe in, becomes our reality.

Heck, if we still believed tulips are expensive, they'd still be quite expensive.