aridiculous

A lot of LinkedIn hate, but no comment I've read acknowledges that LinkedIn (in some fields, and growing) has replaced the resume.

It's almost a universal format — there's a lot of value in that. I can just give someone this standard URL instead of creating some crazy word doc with weird indentations.

I'm going to put in the lonely voice of support for the new design.

I just heard the author on Philosophy Bites (a podcast). Absolutely marvelous episode, I was genuinely surprised by her findings:

http://philosophybites.com/2013/09/alison-gopnik-on-hume-and...

As if large corporations aren't full of bureaucratic businessmen.

Give me a break. That's like saying Cornell's Tech MBA was created to fuel America's military-industrial complex.

It's simply anti-intellectualism. It's part of the fabric of contemporary American culture that's being exported all over the world.

Not sure there's an easy path out from this. Reading, education, book clubs may help. "Useful" must be released from the confines of just "Useful for the market economy".

These comments are very narrow-minded and hostile.

This is wonderful execution. It's really hard to create something that's so easy to use. Its API looks surprisingly elegant.

As for the use cases and UX, remember that there's many types of projects. This could be used in a way that helps the UX for some kinds of experiences.

Just because this would be bad for your work, or the sites you like to go to, doesn't mean it's not a perfect fit for certain experiences.

Kudos.

I've seen some truly amazing things done with passive solar (i.e. building your house to optimally capture sun radiation and store it. The greenhouse effect on steroids.) Some houses in Maine don't have any heating system at all; they are built on certain inclines, angled just the right way, with ideal ratios of windows to insulation. In some cases, large stones are strategically just inside the windows to retain and slowly release heat.

It requires an esoteric expertise, lots of charts and graphs, and freedom to customize your plot of land. But it's awesome.

Some people are blessed with some kind of inherent sense of meaning. Maybe you are one of them.

For others, the absurd dominates if all else is stripped. Myths and spirituality were (and still are) helpful things.

Extreme empiricism and knowledge acquisition in pursuit of omniscience, in my view, is not good for a human on a personal level. Perhaps it's good for society.

As a lover of the humanities and social 'sciences', I am always cheered up when a postmodernist snaps out of it, so we can actually have intelligible conversations again.

Paraphrasing famous modernist designer Massimo Vignelli, postmodernism was/is a critique, at best. It doesn't actually provide a worldview.

To me, it's intellectual madness. Fun, in moderation. Useful, to shake things up.

I'm really perplexed by this common attitude.

Employees are sometimes happy. Sometimes they're miserable. Sometimes they're in-between — for complicated reasons, that may lie outside of work.

Firing any employee that asks for a raise is so unbelievably short-sighted, binary, sociopathic, and potentially bad for business (morale, replacement costs, unknown costs), it's cartoonishly villainous.

You sir, appear to have authoritarian tendencies.

Well, then I guess you're calling a majority of the population (including doctors, lawyers, artist, musicians, etc) "stupid".

What you really mean is someone who doesn't understand how technology (and tech companies) work.

This could easily be mitigated if we enforced privacy laws saying that if you tell someone something is deleted, then it must actually be securely deleted. They might even be on the books already, just enforce them.

I took it for a spin and enjoyed it. It would be even more awesome if there was a deploy to Github pages that was as easy as the AWS deploy.

Do these percentages take into account causation vs correlation? Apparently (surprisingly), it's still very difficult to prove causation without a laboratory experiment.

Perhaps people who are likely to exercise have a certain genetic disposition to begin with.

When you had a Supreme Court justice (Ginsburg) in your readership, you had political influence.

I agree that it's probably user error in this case, but also am very surprised this isn't covered better in router documentation. I've run into this problem many times and there's still no authoritative source on how to do it properly.

How's this for an idea: by law, many/all HR duties in corporations larger than X, must be conducted by independent, outside firms hired by the original corporation. They would be like tax auditor firms or credit card security auditors, but more involved.

This way, HR would more likely be incentivized to work for both employee and employer (because they are audited themselves), except in extreme corrupt cases. HR practice would also become a lot better, as it became more competitive and profitable. People with more knowledge of labor law and history would thrive. Yes, there would still be stooges working in these outside HR firms, but at least they would stooge for the real laws in place rather than corporate policies.

This looks like something Apple should have been working towards for the Mac Pro, geared toward creative professionals.

Can we try not to be sociopaths for two seconds? Just politely ask the person behind you if they mind. They'll most likely say yes even if they do mind, but they'll appreciate the gesture.

I personally find it impolite to lean back without acknowledging the person behind, given the tight seating arrangement (which everyone has common knowledge about).

The reclining feature of the seat is a vestige from a day when seats weren't crammed. Just because it exists doesn't mean you should feel entitled to use it without any consideration of others.

All I can say is that I didn't 'set a long term goal' going into college. I just did what I was told and eventually picked a major, riding it out as the path of least resistance to graduation. Let me put it this way: given my cultural upbringing and inset fears at the time, it would have been harder to drop out of school than to stay in school. Pretty sure that holds for many college graduates.

I'm not against screening for college grads as a policy, though I think that it could limit you from finding amazing underrated candidates. I just think that popular argument about 'seeing out a long term goal' is simply not true a lot of the time, though I benefit a lot from it.

OK, so the reformers need to define their terms. Yes, I agree.

But it's a political problem!

I agree that the debate over education is crippled by a lack of clear teleological goals that everyone can agree on before discussing. But that's expected in a big discussion.

Most Big Social Issues have this same problem because they are political by nature, not technological or epistemological. Our society hasn't reached consensus on what an 'education' is, just like how it hasn't decided what a good life is (work/life balance debate), what 'freedom' is (drug criminality debate), or what a just war is.

But ESPECIALLY with education, I wouldn't expect a 'defined problem' or a set of agreed upon terms to come about by consensus. Why? Like tax policy, education policy has a very intimate relationship to politics and social classes because it affects everyone closely. The issue of definitions is 'solved' when one group's ideas win by force of influence.

The point you may be missing is that this has already happened. For the wealthy, the system isn't broken at all. The current system of standardization (test scores, bean-counting admissions processes) for everyone with a side of elite tutoring and private schools for themselves isn't failing. It's doing quite well: Pay extra disposable income for Mary to have better 'aptitude' --> secure acceptance into the next stage of life. The wealthy don't want to make the masses dumb, that would be too dangerous and gut their workforce . They'd rather make them predictably average so their children can beat their peers, reliably, with extra financial firepower.

They may not think these details out consciously, but it's the game being played.

You're very right! I was generalizing.

I've just seen too products I use get shut down because they refuse to create sustainable businesses.

Ehhh, yeah, sort of.

There were far less people who could call themselves designers at the time. It was a slower craft and took more training.

It's like in music. Yeah, there were other bands other than the Beatles and Rolling Stones, but it was harder to produce and distribute music back then. Thus, the industry was more monolithic than it is now. The ones we talk about now are more representative of the state of the industry back then than Lady Gaga (or whatever) is of now.

I agree, I simply replaced "design" with "interface design" and everything makes sense.

I agree, but I think what he's trying to get at is that designers were more politically engaged on the whole, especially during Modernism. However, it also had its downsides, the major being design hubris (e.g. over-planned cities, complete top-down organizational thinking, treating all people interchangeably, etc).

This is uncomfortably scathing. And true.

The part about the Icebergs acquisition is particularly depressing. We are losing the trust of consumers by constantly shutting down products. It's one thing if those products are failures, but these acquisitions demonstrate they are useful, successful products (perhaps just with a small to medium-sized potential market).

People always talk about this and that policy stifling innovation. This practice of shutting down products after a building a user base is just as bad. Consumers (I know I feel this way) are simply not going to trust products that aren't from the big guys. That hurts the small guys. "Early adopters" don't solve everything.

The problem with your premise is that all of Freud's stuff isn't considered total bullshit. The mass media, science magazines, and materialists like to present it that way, but psychoanalytic and psychodynamic traditions (depth psychology) are still alive and well. It is, perhaps, not quite as prominent in experimental psychology (which I'm guessing is what you're talking about), but it's certainly still a force in clinical work. Humanistic, positive psychology, cognitive-behavioral, gestalt, and most other approaches were inspired by, informed by, and still use parts of depth psychology in their approaches.

I think you're mixing up clinical psychology and experimental psychology. The aims for both will vary, and I tend to agree with you that presenting psychology as a hard science is ludicrous (but unfortunately the only way to get funding). You're also right about the political component of psychology (your homosexuality anecdote); psychology can be used as an instrument by the leaders of society for political, social, and economic gains and control. That doesn't mean it has no contribution to man's knowledge of the world.

Just because the newer approaches appear to reject older theories does not mean the older theories aren't useful. Newtonian mechanics explains phenomena quite well for everyday living. Relativity was a revolution in the field but there's a still a place for Newtonian physics (i.e. you don't have to erase the classical theory). The way knowledge evolves in these long-standing fields isn't as mechanical as I think you're claiming it to be. Science is much more complex than that.

This kind of work is so important to offset the threat of complete top-down control. Thank you!

I really love your selection of topics. For instance, the first one on PATH variables reminds me of when I first got started and wondered what all the auxillary command-line stuff does. I even learned something watching it now.

Most beginner tutorials just say "do this, do that" on things that aren't part of Rails proper. I found this really frustrating and glad you're thinking like a beginner would.