CognitiveLens

yeah it's been awhile since I've set up a python-ready environment, and trying to install this reminded me of the challenge of just getting to the expected starting point.

  $ pip install git-delete-merged-branches
  zsh: command not found: pip
  $ brew install pip
  Error: No available formula with the name "pip"
  pip is part of the python formula:
    brew install python
  $ brew install python
  ...
  OK
  $ pip install git-delete-merged-branches
  zsh: command not found: pip
  
  (look up how to install pip)
  $ curl https://bootstrap.pypa.io/get-pip.py -o get-pip.py
  $ python get-pip.py
  WARNING: The scripts pip, pip2 and pip2.7 are installed in 
  '/Users/{me}/Library/Python/2.7/bin' which is not on PATH.
    Consider adding this directory to PATH or, if you prefer to suppress this warning, use --no-warn-script-location.
  Successfully installed pip-20.2.2
  $ pip install git-delete-merged-branches
  zsh: command not found: pip
  (walk away)

I know there are solutions to all this, and it's mainly that I don't already have my $PATH set up the way that pip expects, etc, but really??

It's worth pointing out that the research found a 10x _spread_ between the least-productive and most-productive engineers - a '10xer' isn't someone who does ten times more than the average, so it becomes less mythical if you think about someone who does, e.g. 2x more than average in an organization with a few burned out engineers doing 20% of the average.

This take makes a very clear argument, but I think it's important to question that, as a company grows, it is generally "willing and able to deal with building owners directly" - a similar argument could have been made for the early days of AWS, when it seemed like a great way for startups to avoid managing low-traffic, scalable infrastructure, but redundant for companies that had the resources to manage their own servers. AWS has shown how successful a 'platform middleman' can be, even for very large companies.

WeWork is betting on taking a similar track - sure, companies _could_ decide they want to build out expertise in leasing and managing real estate space, but it can actually help them focus on their core business more by leaving it to another company that provides the 'platform'. The growth of WeWork's enterprise offerings and general awareness of how to pitch to mid- and large-size tenants indicates that growth projections are not pinned to a startup-driven economy.

To be fair, if we're staying in the parameters of the thought experiment, we're targeting the HN user base, which I suspect isn't using IE11 at nearly that rate...

Alternative title: "Amazon's web marketplace is so complex that it sometimes makes unexpected automated up-sell recommendations"

There's not really any news here, other than the fact that managing such a huge _and extremely effective_ commercial website is difficult even for one of the most well-resourced tech companies in the world.

If the purpose of an website-that-sells-things is to have carefully tuned UX for every product page, Amazon.com has some small (although hardly 'horrible') UX problems. If the purpose is to sell stuff, the article makes it very clear that for an arbitrarily specific product (bassoon straps), you're extremely likely to be able to buy one quickly and easily from Amazon.

What if BuzzFeedNews.com is actually... trolling its audience?

Here are a couple great articles about code review that I've learned a lot from - they address the 'social' aspect of code review specifically, which I think is where you're having a hard time finding traction.

- https://blog.plaid.com/building-an-inclusive-code-review-cul...

- https://medium.freecodecamp.org/unlearning-toxic-behaviors-i...

The takeaway is that it's a communication problem, and one of the first steps is probably setting some shared expectations. As others have mentioned, if you can't get alignment on expectations, you're not going to be happy in your job, but hopefully there's common ground somewhere, and you can all help each other level up technically and as a team.

Many terminal-based programming environments allow you to run code - you essentially just need a REPL, but there are more sophisticated environments that could still be considered 'single purpose'

For anyone unfamiliar with Project Zero, it's a team at Google dedicated to finding security vulnerabilities across the internet (and in software in general, it seems)

https://security.googleblog.com/2014/07/announcing-project-z...

to get an estimate, you only need a sample

> If 64 bits isn't enough, the next logical step is 128 bits.

Can someone explain this? Is there some kind of awkwardness/waste with anything less than doubling the number of bits?

Probably not, actually - I have a similar thing and was told that although the MRI machine won't rip the metal out of your jaw like it would for ferrous metals, the titanium will essentially act like a little antenna and obliterate the image

If you can't generate positive user perception, at least you can buy it. I'm glad this is happening, but it's hard to see it as a fulfillment of the company's mission rather than a cheap ploy to get some positive media attention.

Observables are pretty great when you have to coordinate a lot of async actions. The main downside is that they have their own learning curve - an article describing a Model for Reasoning about Observables would likely be much longer than the OP - so if you only have one or two async actions to deal with at a time, Promises will probably be simpler to implement and maintain

My guess is the Erlang OTP: http://learnyousomeerlang.com/what-is-otp

Quick lookup of other sources all state figures between US$2billion and US$3 billion

All of the built-in React Native components are wrappers around the corresponding native widgets: https://facebook.github.io/react-native/docs/components-and-...

You can also integrate other native widgets not designed first and foremost for React Native https://facebook.github.io/react-native/docs/native-componen...

HTML as a data entry format is error prone, and HTML as a cross-platform data source requires a lot of tooling and unreliability compared with a properly-structured field-driven JSON API

particularly for a young or fast-growing product, this makes a ton of sense - shipping features that multiply your target market can be a _much_ better strategy than keeping 2% of your current user base.

You wouldn't. The argument is so straw-man that it verges on trolling.

I'm not sure what the technical term would be, but I think it's less about false equivalence but more that saying that other things are bad doesn't justify making another bad thing.

"This proposed policy will make things worse, but there are other policies that make things worse, so therefore this policy cannot be criticized on those grounds".

Wat.

yeah I'm thinking about it in the way that is assumed by the original author, with the idea that visitors from the future would be somehow identifiable.

There can be no action/reaction without time. If there is no past and no future, there is no cause and effect, so everything is either pre-ordained (odd) or it just 'is' in a completely trivial sense.

If you go with the pop-sci idea that intervening in the past changes the future, then we are just on the timeline in which time travel never occurred in our recorded past, by definition. It's not that people from the future _don't_ time travel to our period, it's that each time they do travel to our period, a timeline branches off that we don't have access to.

We _might_ be on a timeline in which some time travelers appear some time in the future, but maybe not.

It's sort of like the question 'why did life arise on Earth and nowhere else that we are aware of?' - the only reason we can ask the question is because we are the result of exactly the factors that would produce a consciousness that _could_ ask that question.

If it wasn't an illusion, then the moon would literally be changing size depending on when you looked at it, by definition.

I agree that it's a slightly odd way of describing the situation, but it is true that this is a _different_ kind of architecture update than what Intel has done for the past few years, which is worth pointing out to readers. For people who are not up to date on Intel's roadmap, this update is distinct from what has happened before, and therefore anomalous.

Here we're talking specifically about "visual contrast", which has a meaning in perception slightly different than the common usage of "contrast".

Visual contrast is measured on a spectrum that starts at zero and goes up from there - a box of a particular color inside a box of the same color would have no contrast, but if there is any difference in the color values then there is at least some visual contrast.

Wikipedia isn't a great source for definitions, but has a reasonably thorough take on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_(vision), going into the details of contrast sensitivity, which deals with almost-imperceptible levels of contrast.

I know it's from big, scary government, but why would they ask a few yes/no questions without requiring any sort of detail? A high school newspaper could do a better investigation.

Dear Congresspeople Pallone, DeGette, and Schakowsky,

Thank you for reaching out to us. I hope this response reaches you before the August 9, 2016, deadline.

1. Yes 2. No 3. No 4. No

Kind regards, Niantic.

for a non-medical implant like this, though, you probably wouldn't be able to get official documentation. I'd hope that sense would prevail and it wouldn't be an issue, but good sense doesn't always govern airport security procedures, particularly in the US.

Sounds like you actually agree, and have identified an underlying problem.

The technical ability to capture knowledge, particularly for craft trades like glassblowing, has existed for as long as humans have been organized into societies - it's usually a question of dedicating resources to support it.

The apprenticeship model needs a renaissance.

Thank you for writing this article. On balance, I disagree with the justification but it's so much more clear and thoughtful than the popular discussion about gun rights from either end of the political spectrum.

Hooking into the "nobody needs an assault rifle" refrain is important, in part because it is evaluated differently by people on each side of the issue. Because powerful weapons can actively project harm from one person to another, they are in a different category from other opt-in dangerous things like an outdoor uncovered pool and drinking alcohol.

Driving a car is frequently cited in these debates as one of those "you don't need it, but it is incredibly dangerous and causes huge numbers of deaths" activities, but I still think that gun ownership is a few steps higher on the risk-vs-utility scale, and therefore should be treated differently - there needs to be a dedicated debate that isn't sidelined by analogies to other risky activities. Those analogies complicate more than they clarify.