protez

In Big Tech We Trust.

All Chinese companies are subsidiaries of Chinese communists party. There is no single exception. TikTok and Huawei have been exploiting all of its information and power to influence in the favor of China Communist Party and it's against not just us, but all the free states and people in proper nations.

Great article. But almost all of B2C software products are self-serving.

The significance between top-down vs. bottom-up has been compiled and showcased by Matt Ridley, in his book, "The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge." It says most of human beings are incapable of comprehending evolutionary design like free market. It's true. OP labeled markets as an example of top-down phenomenon.

Absolutely true. I started migrating to Linux when I had to bring an external keyboard all the time. The keyboard sucks, extremely. I loved reading on iBooks, but I even coded its alternative with the identical theme in Emacs. I hate "that" keyboard so much. It's extremely embarrassing.

What if unemployment is not the problem but the solution?

Whenever I face the arguments of determinism vs. indeterminism, I wonder how indeterminism would be defined in a purely indeterministic world. I don't know. But in this seemingly deterministic universe, we define indeterminism as a negative sense to the deterministic dynamics we observe, but we can't do it in a positive sense. All of our conceptions of "indeterminism" and random/chaos like concepts is all "determinism-biased" in that sense. Maybe, determinism might be a tiny, tiny small subset of a huge set of indeterminism, as if integers are a tiny subset of all real numbers. There's no such a thing as integers vs. real numbers. Integers are also just real numbers. In that sense, determinism might be a small part of indeterminism.

I love Haskell and OCaml, and other functional languages. However, no matter how intelligent and higher-level functional language becomes, I don't think they can replace procedural language, especially for time-based programmings, such as user interface effects, animations, or network-dependent operations. Some features are inherently procedural by their nature, and functional language are not functional for describing them.

Class hierarchies are just mental tools, not how machines/programs/automatas actually work. If the mental tools implode due to exceptions and complexities, that's the problem of their uses, not tools by themselves. Before blaming hierarchies, you should blame yourself for using tools in wrong ways.

The little tiny games topping the free chart may not earn as much as they seem, unless they are played again and again for a long time. They should depend on clicks of mobile ads and mobile games have poor CPI ratios. Yeah. Flappy Bird has been downloaded more than a few million times and is known to garner $50,000 a day. Nice. But that would be a grand outlier and I don't think the game sustains that amount of revenue now.

Does any HNer have any idea on what this might be?

If it had no business model and no revenues at all, I would assume that the valuation might be higher, since it's far easier to sell on expectations, rather than real cashflow, which would somehow limit the speculator's unbound speculations.

What is causation exactly? There's no way to prove any instance of causations at all, if we delve deep into the problem of causation. Even though all data, or correlations, support F=ma, a single exceptional case can disapprove the "correlation," therefore we cannot assert force causes accelerations, and so on, since no amount of correlations is ever enough to prove causation.

Unbelievably sustainable business practice. It's amazing that they've been doing that decades after decades.

This is one of the most horrendous brandings I've ever seen. Maybe, the horrible branding is intentional, but it's damn too creepy for sane users who dare using their product.

Computer science == models of computing. One of those models is language. We can run machines without codes, but with feelings and images. We, human beings, are just complex finite automata with very complex states and meta-states.

I'm so tired of seeing motivation hacks, or similar stuff. If something supposed to motivate you doesn't motivate you enough, that supposition is just plain weak and has no deeper place within you. That's it. Be yourself. That's the ultimate motivation. Nothing else can be motivating you more than that, and shouldn't be, unless you want to be someone else, or as hollow as possible.

What an innovative company that wraps up a questionable practice into an yet another good looking shop with "amazing growth." The VCs might have taken that as an innovation.

If it would ever make any sense, multiple electrons should weigh no more than one single electron. But that would be obviously false under Standard Model, to treat something singular to be that apparently multiple. Or, our present physics needs to totally reconstructed to incorporate that, by building everything again from defining the "tremendous knot" and the implications from its hypothetical world lines. Instead, what if, everything from electrons, protons, even strings, is sort of that "knot?" That would make more sense, in terms of coherence.

It's one of the best elisps I've planted in the past few weeks. The other one was dired-efap.el, which eases your filename editing in dired buffers.

I don't think Apple designed iPhone to become the world's most profitable mobile phone maker. Apple just happened to become the one with its "Apple II attitude" to mobile computing.

Compared to how Apple II got obsolete in the personal computer market in 1980s, iPhone/iPad has much brighter future from its solid ecosystem.

It's just the time for Apple to start selling low-priced iPhone models to compete against Google in developing countries.

They were discouraged and discouraged and discouraged, as if they were conditioned to be discouraged. They've decided to escape the loop altogether, by shutting off the sources of discouragement, or social interactions.

Suddenly, Android and WP no longer look so lame. Apple may have improved its UI/UX of iOS, but only at the cost of losing its distinctive taste.

The inspiration from the original design would continue along the third-party apps and some of them would gain significant users just for its non-flat graphic theme.

But an average student might need the exposure to other "common" paradigms from C, Python, or Java, before getting introduced to SICP, to "fully appreciate" the power of functional language.

Cognitive science states that intelligence is all about finding patterns, and patterns reduce randomness, or what can be expressed in terms of entropy. What's new here? Capturing future-histories? As long as the patterns can describe the time evolution of steps ahead, the patterns would reduce the complexities of what needs to be described, or what Wissner-Gross may say by "capturing as many future-histories as possible." In my humble opinion, Wissner-Gross just rephrased/repackaged the classical sense of intelligence already embraced by many scientists.

It said something about an indexOf method called from null object. I couldn't comprehend why coffee-script has anything to do with connect module, so just gave up at that point.

Don't update now!

I just updated it to checkout .litcoffee compilation and it worked out okay. But suddenly, all my express.js apps stopped working due to the exception from its connect module. I downgraded coffee to the previous version and all things turned fine again. It seems the package needs fixes. I like most parts of node except these surprising interconnections.

I use org-mode for 'partial' literate programming. It's partial since I only note down the general structure of c++/java classes as a sketch, not actual codes, except for Lisp. I occasionally push the files to Gollum, a git-based wiki supporting org files for mobile reviews.

The essence of OOP is the Interface, the human interface, which conforms to human brain, rather than machines. It's all about the conceptual framework to abstract out complexity into the names corresponding to what we're trying to program in the first place. That's it. All the verbosity and complexity of OOP is the secondary effect to actualize the particular implementation of the Interface.

On the other hand, the fundamental particle of computing is indeed, not object, nor class, but a sequence of bits. However, the fundamental particle of programming, or collaborative programming so far, has been based on the idea of objects. If one has the better idea, it would be about making the Interface more friendly to human brains.

It's just amazing. From this introduction, I learned how to generate TAGS and feed it to Emacs for the first time, and make up a custom "anything buffer" to capture any lines that I wish.

Awesome X one million billion times.

Thank you, roupam.