abraves10001

If the top result is advertised but still decent content and I still have the option to shuffle, I don't think that would deter me.

On another failed warship note, the Vasa, built in Sweden in the 1620's barely made it off the dock before sinking but was amazingly well preserved. Worth seeing if you are in Stockholm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)

That wasn't what I was expecting. Google, Facebook, etc are already walking a very fine line with what happens with their users' data, I imagine they don't want to press the issue too much but I wouldn't be surprised for this to be a reality in coming years.

I honestly don't know. Maybe read one of the books mentioned here, eloquent or the good parts, and enroll in a course specific to a framework (i got a free subscription to front-end masters, that has a few good courses) and go from there.

I think this question needs to be expanded upon before an adequate answer can really be given.

Are you looking to learn code via JS?

Are you proficient in another language that has similar constructs to JS and just need to understand the nuances?

Are you somebody who has understood JQuery on a low level but never understood what the code was actually doing?

I am sure there are a few more questions along similar veins and I think each one of these questions could be interpreted from the OP and I think all of these have potentially different answers.

I had the same experience, it gives a false sense of security. I can pass the courses without having even a remedial understanding of the underlying concepts.

I've taken a few of his online courses and he does an excellent job telling someone they don't know js, without coming off arrogant. I think it's mostly because he can explain most issues in depth but as a previous comment pointed out, it isn't really a beginner series. Although, I am not sure "[learning] javascript" necessarily means that the learner is completely inexperienced.

Unbelievable. Like, I literally don't believe it.

No, but banning him isn't the correct answer, either.

Also, news.

While those look interesting, they seem to be in a completely different market. 14" vs 7" and $100 vs $459, not really comparable.

Or, you know, just improving their practices.

I don't think "[losing] my mind" has a very specific medical definition, I'm not sure how or why you are attempting to define it so narrowly.

Most people aren't overeating by thousands of calories a day, increasing activity by 20 minutes without increased intake would probably diminish the vast majority of weight gain for a large percentage of the populous.

"While we await the results, the best course to help fight that middle-age spread hasn’t changed. Eat right and follow an exercise plan that you know you can stick to—it will make you feel better. Take it from me, a guy who decided eight years ago that it was time to shape up, stopped eating honey buns, got into a regular exercise program with a trainer to keep me accountable, and lost those 30 pounds. You can do it, even without a DNA-PK inhibitor!"

I'm glad the article finished with the above paragraph because while the study is interesting, Americans don't seem to have unique physical traits that cause them to gain weight, we just don't have healthy habits. I wonder what the weight gain in the same time period is in different regions of the world

I am not very experienced but saying there is no good reason to use X language based on 1 test seems short-sighted. Surely there must be other benefits that tip the scale to some degree.

I love the 3 named presidents.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Warren Gamaliel Harding.

I am not sure profit-maximization is ever primarily concerned with fairness. Google is probably not the exception to this. However, like many things Google this is something that will improve user experience (no more shitty, malware infested ads, by default) and undercut their competitors. So, most of their users aren't really going to be up in arms.

While it is more than a bit absurd it doesn't work with https, I am not sure the "s" provides much fact verification.

Interesting, I wonder if studies that find a negative, like this one, are more likely to stand the test of time than ones like this study rebutted.

The opening photo looks to be at a sporting event, during the day. Not sure how that is problematic.

A systemic change of college and young adult culture would be required to stop students from partying late at night, I don't think the colleges selling or not selling this vision is going to have much of an impact.

I am not sure why pushing back some starting times is such a terrible idea given what we know about college students habits.

It kind of reminds me about addicts and either attempting to punitively discourage them and deal with the consequences or give them clean needles and at least ameliorate some of the problems associated with usage.

That and their relative amount of money is greater. Would I rather have 60% more money than someone or half as much as someone?

I'm not saying it's the best decision but there are rational explanations.

It doesn't seem like the certs themselves are causing more harm than good, it seems like the lack of evaluation employers do for potential employees is the real issue. Giving too much credence to essentially any degree is problematic, I don't think security certs are exceptional, in this case.

It makes me wonder what they were thinking when requesting the information initially. Did they think Twitter would acquiesce? Was it just a distraction? Baffling, really.

Shutting down an account != revealing personal information, either.

> This might sound nit-picky but I think we all (Americans) value education as a whole

Everything you wrote after that sounds exactly like we don't value education as a whole. We individually value getting a good education but far too frequently ignore how education as a whole is beneficial to society.

I thought the child was illegitimate or adopted and the doctor was the biological father. I am pretty sure I failed the bias test, regardless.

It matters in weight loss, without a doubt and weight often matters in a lot of these arguments about what is killing you. I don't think you can equate weight and cholesterol though.

I think I am misunderstanding the 30% claim. Is it over time or is it just that 4.4 is ~30% greater than 3.4? I think the latter makes sense without "the complex statistical way that the study’s results were projected over time" but then again I haven't read the actual study.

As a relatively new programmer and one who went to one of those mediocre bootcamps, resources like this are invaluable. Thanks!