HN user
Bitcoin is not susceptible to market control like eBay. eBay is a single entity so it is easy to coordinate self-serving decision. Bitcoin is multiple agents that have to co-operate. That prevents any one agent from making unilateral decisions.
Another huge difference is that anybody can become a new agent in Bitcoin. You just buy the hardware. You cannot influence or join eBay in the same way.
I think the kickstarter backers are really both investors and customers. They are investors because they do take a risk by paying for a product that doesn't yet exist. This leap of faith from these "customers" allowed Oculus to create a 2 billion dollar product.
People are mad because funding the project through kickstarter created some expectations that were not met. Funding through kickstarter feels like you're investing in grassroots human projects, but this made people realize that it's really just business as usual.
FYI, Einstein was not a bad student. (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/albert-einst...). It's just a myth.
Having a degree does not magically make you more qualified, it's the work you put it over the years to get your degree. The paper is useless, but the experience learned remains in your head.
It runs much faster with Chrome and Safari due to their better Javascript VM.
The main thing I take away from this is that he is not a professional photographer. Of course an amateur can afford to give away photos for free! However, I'm not sure he even realizes that what he says doesn't make any sense for a professional photographer trying to earn his livelihood.
It's disappointing you have to pay to see the original Science paper.
He is a victim here, why blame the victim over the perpetrators? Makes little sense to me. As well as saying "evil flourishes"...
It's amazing the authors of the paper didn't realize they were disproving their own conclusion with their results.
The doc at http://www.phzbox.com/moka/index.html is pretty complete. The only thing I find is missing is a few words about efficiency. Does calling List(l) copy the list l for example?
troll, also assuming roughly uniform paragraph lengths removing every third word is the same as removing every third paragraph. Maybe we're not as smart as you thought.
His main point is that Common Lisp is better than Scheme when you need to get things done. Scheme may be more elegant, but it's not developed with a focus on practical utility (i.e. no sort function in the standard).
Well I guess one difference between what he's proposing and mysql is that mysql forces you to write data abstractions that can fit into mysql. Same goes for NoSQL DBs. Using his approach you don't have to worry about that.
Not sure that justifies dumping DBs altogether, but it's still an interesting advantage.
When you say old-school DB do you mean something like mysql?
37signals are known and celebrated for their design style, and I think it's awesome that they are willing to experiment with new ideas and discard old ones. Particularly because the new designs in the post look nothing like their usual style.
I disagree with you because in some projects technical correctness is not the first priority. So why should you sacrifice everything in favor of it? In some settings, coding an ad-hoc solution is ugly but better in terms of the constraints (i.e. time, budget) of the project. For example, demos and prototypes.
Also, some programmers don't take satisfaction in writing good code, this article will encourage them to stay in their bad ways, so that's not good. I think this article is good for people who take too much satisfaction in writing good code. Good code is not always an end in itself.
For the record, I didn't write this. One of my friends must have played a trick on me.
Love it. One minor detail: on the ipad it doesn't automatically switch between songs, you have to press play each time. I don't know if that can be fixed though.
gay
Javascript is dramatically faster using Safari 4+.
I think that that's a breakthrough, because you are always taught to do as much as you can. Always put checks in. Always look for exceptions. Always handle the most general case. Always give the user the best advice. Always print a meaningful error message. Always this. Always that. You have so many things in the background that you're supposed to do, there's no room left to think. I say, forget all that and ask yourself, "What's the simplest thing that could possibly work?"
This habit of trying to do too much makes me inefficient sometimes. I aim for quality and in the end I just get nothing - but a headache.
Brilliant! Much better use of space. I can sort out the heap of information easily.
If I can get voting on there, I'll use this instead of vanilla HN.
Good innovation. He went further than simply displaying a pretty bullet list, like others do(digg, etc.).
Plus he included minors innovations that are very clever. For example, the size of the headlines are proportional to it's number of votes. It allows you to see how liked(important) a piece is regardless of it's rank.
It would be cool if the headlines would keep their current style and become links.
Down-voters, he is also right.
It's common for dynamic languages to embed typing information in pointers as an optimization. For example, CLISP uses at least 2 bits to distinguish between common types. That way fixnum numbers can be recognized and added without slow memory accesses.
The result is that you get less bits for the address. Hence less addressable memory.
I have missed this side of HN. Feels like christmas.
HN should have esoteric/alternative articles like that at all times.
I removed mating in the end because it made the program converge slower.
I'm glad that got you interested in Clojure!
I love the evolution of McCarthy!
I don't see it.
This is not cheating. Nothing surprising here.
Of course you can do statement-based code, like in any language that supports I/O(Haskell included).
That's a hard fact and it isn't what functional programming is about.
That was humor :)
The rest is funnier. Give it a try.
I bet they were looking for extensibility.
I wonder if they ever thought of providing two interfaces.
1. The first is the common case.
Document doc = new DocumentBuilder().parse("test.xml");
Document doc = DocumentBuilderFactory.newInstance(opts).newDocumentBuilder(opts2).parse("test.xml");No smugness intended.
This just has to be mentionned:
My Seth Godin decline letter. Thoughts?, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=398293