throwaway3453

I think you're right that the appification of computers will have a significant effect on tinkers. I contest that most users never cared about what's going on under the hood, the appliance either works or it doesn't.

Even as a web developer, it boggles the mind to understand why browser context menus have "View Source" on by default, rather than a developer mode switch. This sort of stuff hits me hard. Like dead pause/break keys on laptops, wireless switches on the chassis. Nobody is actually paying attention to what they're building.

Did Google's marketing department not the memo? Literally nobody outside of the tech circle has the faintest clue what Google Contributor is.

It's a bit indulgent but if I knew the guy wasn't going to perk up I'd just bring it forward.

"I'm getting some hostile vibes. Have I upset you or am I mistaken?"

It'll either give the guy a reality check or speed things along. No sense in us wasting our time.

It's possible that Node's culture of modules vs Rails' monolith design leads people to make these comparisons. News of Ruby outside of Rails being so infrequent certainly doesn't help either.

I suspect you're being deliberately ignorant to why Bitcoin, a fixed quantity commodity that is immune to counterfeiting, has value.

You're confounding physical utility and symbolic value. I don't have a problem with Bitcoin becoming a wild success or another case of Tulip Mania. I do have a problem with your feigned ignorance just so you can maintain your initial position.

You're doing yourself a disservice for life. There's no shame in understanding a concept more and discarding misconceptions.

What you have written is a function statement rather than a function expression.

This is possible, but has no utility beyond the original.

    const diameter = function diameter (r) { return 2 * PI * r; }

Right, there's disagreement to teach or learn about another's opinion, but you're engaged in something more indulgent.

I don't believe you're interested in the merits of civil discourse, no, you just enjoy the declaration of your opinion.

"Feedback should not be purely positive," right, it should at least be constructive.

Did you want a reply, or the catharsis of getting downvoted from "stupid" users who like rap?

You're being downvoted because you didn't put in the effort to explain why you misunderstand Bitcoin transactions. Further, your tone is aggressive and instigative.

This article is a mess. The author states, "An entire industry—billions of dollars and thousands of jobs—is at stake," then goes into a completely different rant, "why is nobody talking about this?"

Over half the images are incomprehensible or offer no insight.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Clickpat...

Including an unintelligible graph without an explanation to why it's necessary is bizarre. Even more so writing headers like "Responses to the scandal" and dropping in a stock photo of a gavel. It's like a pull quote, but even lazier.

There is some value in this article,

Hoffman, the retired ad agency CEO who I quoted at the beginning, puts it better than I can:

http://adcontrarian.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/the-75-billion-ad...

Even the author suggests to read this one instead.

No, but it's never too late to call this behavior out. Clippy 2.0, very clever!

I'm doubtful that sgt would like drive-by remarks about his work.

Taking hundreds of hours of work and dismissing it is petty and unjustified.

While I enjoyed your apocalyptic fiction, it's an indulgent fantasy. I really don't think you think this is true, and if you do, I'm very sad for you.

Regards, -Google Search Spider #52837

Pedantry is a Hacker News tradition. Negative comments are much more plentiful because they're easy. Better not discuss this for too long. The moderation team is extremely averse to meta discussion and introspection.

The time is based on your browser's Date function which should match your system clock. I think you might be experiencing a strange calculation with Daylight Savings.

SleepyTime mentions, "The average adult human takes fourteen minutes to fall asleep..." so I compensate with 15 minutes in the calculation. There shouldn't be any major variance. Perhaps an odd calculation with Daylight Savings?

Shameless plug, http://jollynap.com

It's the same formula SleepyTime uses, in a mobile friendly format.