HN user
Hey author here. AMA (about the book). I know there are many books to read out there so let me add the book has at least one positive review by Poul-Henning Kamp of Varnish-Cache and FreeBSD fame:
You don't need to be stuck on a bus between Oslo and Göteborg to enjoy reading this book: [...] Much interesting stuff to think about for the thinking and practicing programmer.
https://toot.community/@bsdphk@fosstodon.org/109829843037038...
But that's enabled by the DNS MX record. There isn't anything like that for social AFAIK, so if you wanted to do the same with your mastodon account you are hosed. Some people are saying once you have million followers on mastdon.social, you are not going to restart from zero on mastodon.net. You can, but it's hard. So centralized or federated, without handle portability, it's not very different. You are stuck. It seems to me federated mail and federated social are similar for people who don't own their DNS entry (gmail addresses), but for people like you, that's a substantial difference. You'd have to run your own instance to have your own social handle, and that isn't portability, that's DIY. It only works for a small number of techies, you have to have an instance and a domain.
How about the web-of-trust a la freenet https://github.com/freenet/plugin-WebOfTrust?
You lose all your followers. It's like going from blacklight@aol.com to blacklight@gmail.com. It's on you to go to you 1M followers and beg them to refollow you. The goal is to go from tmobile to verizon and your grandma can just call you.
Can anyone name a well-known important software project (say linux, python, tensorflow, angular) that was delivered via Agile/Scum? And some of you may enjoy this linkblog https://againstscrum.tumblr.com/
What are the shortcomings of Wordpress, Tumblr etc and how did you address them? Thanks
And when a post starts by lying by a factor close to 2 about the rate of obesity (42% 2018-2019 per CDC as opposed to 71%) what else in this post is trustworthy?
FYI, Ozonetel bid successfully for the top line ad in my google search [ozonetel], dialpad taking second. You don't get there if you don't bid.
I am not sure that's what he or she was trying to say. Agree with everything you said about native apps. The question for me is if it's necessary for every page to run javascript, even if it doesn't have any app-like features, even if it's just a document. I would love to be able to turn off javascript and be able to browse the document-web without everything being broken. In the specific cases where I need dynamic or app-like behavior, then I can use javascript, or maybe even a separate app browser. https://www.wired.com/2015/11/i-turned-off-javascript-for-a-...
It seems to me the authors make three main points 1) Pay-per-action confuses correlation (action when seeing ad) with causation (action because of seeing ad). Hence click-through-rate maximizes correlation instead of causation. Google knows you were going to buy anyway, thus serves you an ad. 2) Marketers and ad networks interests' are aligned in that they want to maximize advertisement budgets. Hence marketers will ignore randomized studies showing ads of some type are not effective. 3) Even when these studies are performed, even major sample sizes are insufficient to support any conclusion
Add lack of support of polar coordinates. But every lib started immature, and altair is quite new. I think they could use a few good PRs though.
Second that but there is no matplotlib underneath AFAIK. It does html based interactive graphs using a variant of the grammar of graphics, with extensions for interactions. Grammar of graphics means a great, proven (see ggplot) compromise of power and simplicity. <shameless plug> If you need a library of one-liners built on top of altair (that is if you need some standard stats graph) I wrote altair_recipes (https://github.com/piccolbo/altair_recipes/ or pip install altair_recipes) for that. </shameless plug>
sqrt(N) can be described as "fast" only with significant amounts of spin added. Use ropes instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_(data_structure)
Should've said a generalized rope, as ropes are generally described as a replacement for strings, but if you replace characters with other fixed size data types everything still works.
How is that different from a rope data structure?
That's not the main difference. The main difference is that the profits can not be paid out investors. They have to be re-invested in the company.
How much does he pay for Electron and React? Imagine the sw world with no OSS, not just your app but no OSS at all. Then you can compare the for pay and OSS models. Not everything you need is OSS and the one thing you sell is proprietary. That is the best, for you, of course.
Try this experiment. When you get to ask questions in the interview, instead of being nice and asking tings like "what's your data science stack" or "how important is testing here" give them a whiteboard. Give your future boss a whiteboard. But do it only if you don't care about getting an offer.
I am dumb -- I test at the function level. I have a theory that the likelihood of catching a bug depends on the number of lines being tested, if each can be assumed to do its job. This implies that if a line calls a function that I wrote, I need to test that function. There is some work based on Kolmogorov complexity that seems to support this but didn't go very far (I did not see any follow up papers). Maybe it's all wrong. I am biased: I wrote quickcheck for R. (by the way, fuzz testing and randomized testing are two separate things).
Sorry, I am not opening a trello account to report bugs. I am debugging your app for free, just asking not to have so sign yet another one-sided term of service doc. I also have problems with content security policy, see below:
Content Security Policy: Ignoring “http:” within script-src: ‘strict-dynamic’ specified Content Security Policy: The page’s settings observed the loading of a resource at inline (“script-src”). A CSP report is being sent. Source: try{(function overrideDefaultMethods(r, g, b, a, scriptId, storedObjectPrefix) { var scriptNode = document.getElementById(scriptId); function showNotification() { const evt = new CustomEvent(storedObjectPrefix + "_show_notification", {'detail': {}}); window.dispatchEvent(evt); }
Musk long ago was talking about his calculations about the physical limits to assembly speed. “the output is going to be volume times density times velocity.” https://electrek.co/2016/09/15/elon-musk-confident-that-tesl...
A genius no doubt. I will see you all on Mars.
I've used both and have two additional comments.
Some of the dplyr elegance comes from the flexible evaluation mechanism in R, whereby mutate(data, col1+col2) works because the second arg is evaluated in an enriched environment. Python eschews this kind of macro-like extensions because, my guess, tampering with evaluation makes a lot of other things complicated (for instance, forget replacing args with their value, that doesn't work anymore). I think the author of dplyr himself in later work has promoted the use of the ~ operator to explicitly block eval of an argument and at least make these departures from regular eval explicit. That means dplyr is ahead for interactive use, but for programming you have to switch to a separate API (the underscore "verbs") and that makes the transition from interactive work to coding a bit steeper. It's all trade-offs, and I am not saying that I know better than either the pandas or dplyr authors.
As to ggplot, if you believe the future of statistical graphics is in-browser and interactive, you should take a look at altair for python (I myself created a small extension to it called altair_recipes). It's based on vega, like ggplot anointed (but not quite ready) successor ggvis and uses the grammar of graphics (or on interpretation thereof) like ggplot, with extensions to interaction. Simpler than D3 by most accounts.
Check survivorship bias. The name refers to deadly scenarios, but what is fundamental to it is a bias in reporting that depends on the outcome of interest. The concept was first hammered out observing that warplanes never got hit in the engines -- well, the ones that made it back at least. Some people thought the areas with the most damage should be protected. Wald thought otherwise and it's him who is remembered to this day. "Moments of whimsy" are like anti-aircraft ammo. They hit everywhere, randomly. But we only report those that are associated with a life change.
The central limit theorem is in the limit for the number of variables in the sum approaching infinity. In the finite world, the article explains how it's done. The article is saying, the sum of lognormals is not normal. You are saying: take enough of them and it is normal. The article is still more accurate than your reasoning for 30 stories. From the wikipedia entry for Central limit theorem " As an approximation for a finite number of observations, it provides a reasonable approximation only when close to the peak of the normal distribution; it requires a very large number of observations to stretch into the tails". To prduce a 95% confidence intervals, you have to upper-bound the tails. All methodologies that are based on sum of subtasks estimates are not evidence based. But we knew already sw methodologies are not evidence-based, did we?
Other decentralized techs had promise but were later re-centralized (FM radio is the first example that comes to mind). It seems to me techies think that the natural tendency to monopolies in the capitalistic economy can be countered by distributed protocols, and I think the evidence is against that. FM radio -> clear channel. TCP/IP -> NAT. SMTP/IMAP -> gmail, outlook, yahoo. http -> web giants. XMPP -> Facebook messenger. The idea that monopolies are obsolete by the time they form is preposterous. Recommended reading: "The curse of bigness" Tim Wu.
Can you explain why it doesn't make sense to invest in two email clients? Particularly if you make one of the two premium?
Besides bundles, the duplication of categories and labels hurts. Labels are second class (can't have a tab for instance) and categories are not user-generated. Lack of abstraction and orthogonality, a.k.a. "tacked on"
Bundles are like thematic inboxes. So I can go into work mode, family mode, news mode and stay there for a while but look only at things that have not been taken care of yet. If you try and replicate that with a filter, inbox actively prevents it (label: something AND in:inbox). It won't show anything. Even apple mail allows that. Also the de-emphasis of read/unread status. You can archive without reading more than the subject, and it doesn't show in all the unread counts etc. When unread counts are so much in your face, it's hard to ignore them.
About thinking Fast and Slow, people might want to know that the author has pretty much admitted to major flaws in his research. https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...
While his admission concerns mostly the theory of priming, the problem is not specific but a methodological error. In my view all his research should be looked at with suspicion and with a view to have his experiments replicated independently sooner rather than later. This has been a problem throughout social psychology and other branches of science, so nothing specific to Kahneman, he's just the best known. Which brings up the next thought, which is I always look at information from the epistemic point of view: where does this knowledge come from: rational thought, experiment, experience, faith? I just notice, without judgement, how eager some of the posters here are to accept a theory or a philosophy even when it has already been debunked, or the evidence is flimsy, or maybe it's formulated in ways that are not even "debunkable". And there is a pragmatic view that if it feels right and it helps, why not.
It's good to look at previous experiences that failed, but conditions are ever-changing. Ad clickthrough is down, ad-blockers are up, more media outlets closing. Eventually, it will be advertorial content or subscription. Or some other awful end-state like that. Maybe on the way there there is a point where an alternative model that failed in the past, or a new one, is possible. I like the pay upfront, free returns model, block only abusers. It works for stuff where returns have so much friction, it should work for content.