markcmyers

I’ve spent years trying to get coding students to avoid this fatal mistake , but maybe you'll listen to Elon.

Humility is a lovely thing. Thanks for your candor.

You're pulling our leg, right?

Whatever the numbers say, it is hardly the case that anybody has underreacted. Everywhere, we've always been at least three weeks behind the curve, which is an eternity when dealing with this virus.

I’m no fan of the overlords, but this is clickbait. It isn’t eating lunch that’s extravagant but buying lunch. Brown-bagging is a time-tested way to cut expenses and a non-cruel suggestion.

I spend more time reading new submissions than front-page submissions. There are far more new submissions, and I usually have the time to go through at least four or five pages of them, so the pool is larger. What's more, cumulative advantage boosts good submissions that, for whatever reason, enjoy a strong start and penalizes good submissions that don't get out of the starting blocks as fast.

The question is humorously anthropocentric. Purpose is meaningful only to humans. Life occurs independently of human notions.

Mensa members are a small subpopulation of Americans with high IQ, so it's a stretch to conclude that high IQ is the problem. To me it's more plausible that someone seeking to boost self-esteem and social status by joining a weird organization tends to be a more troubled person than intelligent people in general.

It's my understanding that Panos Panay reports to Brad Smith, who reports to Satya Nadella. He is a boss, not the boss.

As a former advertising executive, I can tell you what the problem is here. The writer and his boss who approved the copy aren't addressing the customer, they're addressing the boss's boss. In a dysfunctional organization like Microsoft, communicating up rather than out is how you get promoted. It's a rare Microsoft employee who moves up the ladder by thinking about the customer.

The curve for divorce takes the same U shape, though it's steeper. It peaks around 60. This might suggest that unhappiness in marriage plays a role in overall unhappiness. In their early 20s most people aren't yet married to wrong partners. By their 60s most people who ever married have either divorced wrong partners or are living in bearable marriages.

I'm interested in your Python book. What is the title?

On your quiz, the average answer is "3-5 hours," and this squares with recent research suggesting that in an 8-hour day, mind workers are doing actual work about 3 1/2 hours on average. The rest of the day is spent on snacking, gossiping, Facebook, etc.

I'm a highly motivated independent developer and writer, and I've been studying my own work habits to try to become more productive. I use toggl — https://www.toggl.com/ — to track my time throughout the day. I'd work 12 hours a day if I could, but I can't. I run out of gas after 2 hours, 3 hours — and sometimes 8 hours. My limit on tedious, fussy, boring tasks is about 2 hours, after which I'm not much good for anything. My limit when I'm writing a book is 3 to 4 hours. If I'm building something out of code or working in Photoshop, sometimes I get addicted, and then I can go 8 hours. Addiction seems to be the only thing that gets me close to being as productive as I'd like to be. Sadly, I can't choose to focus only on the types of tasks that I'm addicted to.

My sense is that most people — probably including your boss — have never measured how much cognitive work they themselves can do before their brain is fried. I'm talking about real work, not meetings. Meetings use almost no brain glucose at all, so are a way to pad "working" hours without increasing fatigue substantially. I'm convinced this is why meetings are so popular in corporate America.

As long as no one is measuring, it's easy for everyone to kid themselves that they're good for 8 hours and that everyone else should be, no matter how unrealistic that may be.

This is a masterpiece.

Talk about listening to your users! Well done.

This is a great idea, but the text styling for posts makes entries hard to read. See http://contrastrebellion.com/

Plus, what a beautiful example of great graphic and UX design. Thanks for the link!

I feel her pain, but in my book it's inappropriate for her to be painting herself as a victim. A business in which she was a principal cheated 3,000 people out of $182,000. Now she's wailing about being inconvenienced. She should sit down and write a personal apology to each of the backers who've been more than inconvenienced.

Well, exactly. If I understand the paper, the only condition you need in order to arrive at accurate estimates is the absence of pressure to underestimate.

Great list, but I think my newish book should be on it, since it takes a unique approach that both beginners and veterans, but especially beginners, really like, as evidenced by the rather wild Amazon reviews: http://amzn.to/1aOyqch

lem72, here's a thought. I just released my JavaScript course, "A Smarter Way to Learn JavaScript: The Tech-Assisted Approach that Requires Half the Effort." I'm looking for learner feedback. If you purchase the Kindle book for the course, I'll be happy to work with you by email on any problems or questions you have. Here's the link: http://www.asmarterwaytolearn.com

This combination of a diagram-rich Kindle book and free online interactive exercises provides a learning curve so gentle, it's good for both adults and 9-year-olds: http://www.ASmarterWayToLearn.com

This seems fishy to me. On a 6-sided package, why is the pinhole side always facing the action? Why is the shot never blocked by another package?

Awkward gait, brilliantly elegant design.

This is such a modest video, yet the demonstration seems so significant.

I wouldn't bet on it, Wal-Mart. How many traditional companies managed to catch up with the new kids on the block? Think Barnes & Noble, Microsoft, Blockbuster, Kodak, and Nokia.

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Shrinking markets usually mean price wars. As PC growth stalls, today's equivalent of your father's $4000 PC now sells for under $400.

A beautiful piece of work. I'll use it again and again. Any roughness in the resulting image can be fixed in a couple of minutes in Photoshop.

Very nice. I'm guessing little kids will love it. I found some of the labels hard to read because there was too little contrast with the pic. To me the robin didn't look like a robin.