YCode

I have no idea what I'm seeing here.

I don't doubt what they are saying, but that looks nothing like the models of DNA that are used as eye candy in movies and such.

I suspect it's the same reasons nuclear launch facilities use floppy disks -- the solution is approved, and getting a new solution approved is viewed as too expensive/infeasible.

Not saying the argument is valid, just that it may be the reason.

It is somewhat hypocritical.

Curiously their school paper (or w.e.) recently posted a treatise [1] on free speech, including this bit:

> We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual to “speak freely.” It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one the right to any forum that one desires... Certain speakers do not deserve the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs antithetical to the values we should all hold dear.

Also many news outlets have mentioned this bit from their admissions policy:

> the university reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission if the admitted student “engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character,”

One might claim their "speech" displays a lack of maturity and moral character and avoid a paradox.

[1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-201...

Forcing new members to post obscene content to the main chat I think was their damnable offense here.

Both the main and offshoot were technically private chats, but the people in the main chat didn't sign up for that kind of behavior.

It's the difference between playing Cards Against Humanity with a few people and walking around school telling other students your most obscene card combos as jokes.

> At some point employee's are going to realize that working for an early stage startup isn't a great idea.

I suspect it's always been the case that as one demographic of employees gets wise to this another comes pushing and shoving through the door to fill the seat.

I always took it as the fish out of water rule -- it's only cheating if you get caught.

It comes off as lazy, but as long as they don't make me remember a password I don't mind confirming a few details.

It's true, there is a steep learning curve. I'm not sure that's a good comparison though, for example I don't use CSSPS but it has nothing to do with the learning curve.

So for comparison, how do the majority of people design sites? Say you're making a HN or Twitter clone, what is the process from cradle to production to get the site up and running?

> the way modern web apps are developed.

I suppose that could have been worded differently, I meant it in the context of the original person mentioning HTML is their least favorite part of web design.

For your 0.01% of us who use all that jazz HTML-first design feels like a step backwards and especially trying to inject application logic comes off as a ham-handed method of design when compared with a logic-first design that spits out and manages the UI (HTML/CSS).

I'm not sure what CSS preprocessors has to do with that, but I'm also confused - what is your opinion of Mavo?

After working with JSX, HTML/templating just feels like a step backwards.

Web pages these days are far less about the template and far more about the logic and interactions involved.

Subsequently building up from HTML the way pages used to be built and then embedding code doesn't really line up with the way modern web apps are developed.

While it may have a niche in front-end design, for the kind of work I do at least it comes off as though the platform "allows" devs to build web apps entirely written in CSS.

In this instance isn't the money illegally acquired and then laundered by way of app store gift cards purchased with cash?

I'm ignorant on this topic...

Why so many columns? I would expect there would be some way to break the data down or transpose it somehow to make it more manageable. At that point are you even really dealing with a database as most people use the term?

Possibly the mom* was not in great shape either and thus not able to produce all the nutrients he needed.

They mention he had persistent diarrhea, which could also be pretty detrimental without things like electrolyte solutions and antibiotics a child in a first world country would receive.

* Maybe the buffalo? Article doesn't really say if it's cattle or carton.

To be honest, "this kind of work" was a euphemism for "Just what the hell are you doing that requires over a thousand columns?"

I understand though that sometimes customers give you a rotting dumpster of data and ask for critical insight into their operations.

Maybe. I suppose it depends on the goal.

From my own experience, generally the barrier for being productive at a job was soft skills, in that if a team member was suffering from an insufficient hard skill but had good people skills/personality traits I could teach them enough of the hard stuff they are missing so they can be productive, but the inverse has rarely proved true.

Now, you can work around a team member's deficiencies in soft skills, but the difference is they aren't likely to pick them up.

From the article:

> But my data is more than 5TB! Your life now sucks - you are stuck with Hadoop. You don't have many other choices (big servers with many hard drives might still be in play), and most of your other choices are considerably more expensive.

It is pretentious, but it strikes me as the kind of rule that is handy because those who need to break it will KNOW they need to break it, whereas those who should follow it will be on the fence.

> PostgreSQL is limited to 1600 columns in a table, and the column limit for a select clause isn't much bigger. We have several times this number of columns in our largest analytic tables.

Is that typical for this kind of work?

I'm actually kind of partial to the Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

I thought Google's Project Aristotle [1] nailed the problem.

TL;DR: They propose two traits of an effective team. First, long term everyone speaks about the same amount even if the meeting to meeting amounts differ. Second, there is a general awareness among team members that if they take interpersonal risk (i.e. say something that may turn out to be wrong) they wont be embarrassed, rejected or punished.

And I think this paper's results fall in line with that train of thought. If "risky"/creative ideas are shot down on sight your sense of psychological safety and probably your average amount of talking is going to take a big hit over time.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-lear... (If you decide to read it the second half is the meat/results, the first is background info)

> picking an ISP

If you're even lucky enough to have a choice.

ISPs in the U.S. are already way out in front of this on both legislative and legal fronts.

They help write and push state legislation to make this difficult/impossible and sue anyone who tries into oblivion while finding ways to deny access to the supposedly shared lines tax dollars paid to build.

Not saying it could never work, but that's a hell of an uphill battle to take on.

I'm convinced the disruptive change to this mess will be some kind of WiFi mesh-based network that pushes ISPs out of the loop. I'm just not sure how you'd go about porting that mesh network back into the regular Internet since local ISPs would control all the gateways.

Social skills can be learned.

It might take a while to catch up to someone who has been practicing a skill like that all their life, but that's true of anything.

The Sneakernet has its advantages.

The irony is in order to match those patterns you'd have to have all that info floating around in your head before listening to it, meaning the people who were offended had far dirtier minds than the casual listeners who were supposedly being affected.

They don't seem to understand that once you lose trust and reputation in a community you will struggle to get it back.

For example this thread has more or less convinced me to take Firebase off the table for any future projects I might have used it for.

Hulu did the same thing (with their Xbox app at least) recently and it really got me thinking.

After a while I started to think maybe they aren't optimizing for what we might expect.

By providing a UI that makes it slightly harder to find shows, displays as few shows at a time as possible and one that lures you into watching whatever is on the screen at the moment (even if just for a minute) they are effectively increasing the value of each piece of content and increasing the odds that you will watch whatever is on the screen while at the same time decreasing the odds that you will fall into choice paralysis.

This also might make it seem like they have more new/relevant content than they really do.

I'm not really well versed in this area, but I'd love to see an analysis of this hypothesis by someone who is more competent in this kind of design.

Yet inevitably every middle manager thinks carousels are a great idea.

I'm convinced 9 times out of 10 carousels are installed because the customer got sick of looking at their own site.

I imagine many do, you just don't hear about them.

For example I know a few people who are millionaires but you wouldn't know it to talk to them. They don't live overly extravagant lives. They have a nice house, some hobbies (e.g. a very nice car(s), a private plane, an art collection), a job they enjoy and friends they spend time with.

At least for those I know didn't strike it rich with some novel idea, they ran a small business or their own finances well and put away what they could for decades.

The free market argument is so frustrating to hear, and yet I do hear it from people...

You can't expect free market theory to work when you take net neutrality with one hand while giving ISPs the right to practically pen state legislation, deny access to lines and sue up and coming competitors into oblivion with the other.

You end up with the worst of both worlds: government sponsored unrestrained monopolies.