And here I thought this was an April Fools joke and they implemented Wife Approval Factor in the cloud.
255 karma · joined February 11, 2013
If people have donated over $65 million to get Star Citizen developed, one would imagine the public could easily finance...broader causes. And considering $2.3 million over 5 years is enough to influence lawmakers to continually reject tax code reform, it seems getting something passed would be less costly and a one-time affair.
I almost like to imagine a political party or super pac with public causes (you name it) itemized its willing to support, with a donation page for each, taking that money and doing the very same thing corporations do, but effectively on behalf of citizens.
OP is learning Y language, wanted to make a project as a goal. Which is all well and good. But thinking its worthy to be shared seems like narcissism, especially when the description for the repository is, "Half-assed CSS preprocessor." And with 12 commits from the last 5 months, 3 of those being actual code, this isn't a serious project.
This is showing off homework. Though I suppose everyone seeks validation.
I was actually thinking about using these red herrings in other applications, specifically dota2. Users can report others, but abuse this by reporting others for being, what they believe, merely poorer (than themselves) at playing the game. Creates a little signal to noise problem.
It would be an interesting experiment to create these report types ("Bad at the game", for example), but completely disregarding the report against the user. If anything, it could be used against the submitter themselves.
It's an interesting thought - red herrings as a UI concept.
I was honestly expecting this to be a study, some sort of university eye-tracking experiment that had some evidence. Instead I got:
> I turned off the extra screen on my desktop computer...I found something increasingly elusive in our multiscreen world: focus...I have no research proving you’ll find as much benefit from a single monitor as I did.
Oh, ok.
> While extra monitors might increase productivity in certain situations — the sort of situations that can be easily tested in a research setting — they seem to do so at a high cost, by displaying a stream of digital splendors, constantly vying for your attention.
Or, perhaps the sort of situations where the user is trying to be productive? "Digital splendors"? If you're using your second (or third, what have you) monitor for fucking YouTube videos, no, you're not going to be magically more productive.
Then we have the biggest non sequitur I've seen in "print":
> ...people using a dual-display machine to do a text-editing task were 44 percent more productive than those who used a single monitor.
Good so far.
> But for most people, the time spent juggling two windows or scrolling across large documents isn’t the biggest bottleneck in getting work done. Instead, there’s a more basic, pernicious reason you feel constantly behind — you’re getting distracted.
Yes, being distracted can indeed be bad. We haven't established why dual monitors would inherently create distractions though.
> Studies show that office workers are interrupted every four to 11 minutes by external distractions including phone calls, email and people who stop by your desk to chat about the weekend.
Phone calls, the number of emails you receive and people coming over to your desk is not going to change with additional monitors. These distractions lay outside the domain of the concern of a second monitor's impact on productivity.
> Then there are self-motivated distractions, when, for no apparent reason, you quit working on your project and do something else — for instance, jump into the rabbit hole of the web.
Which can be done just as readily with a single monitor.
> “The second screen can also be an inviting entry-way for self-distraction,” Ms. Mark said. That’s because it’s an ever-present, available canvas calling out for you to fire up a web window and find solace in the latest thrills on YouTube.
Is your second monitor an empty "canvas"? Listen, if you're going to visit YouTube, you're going to do that with or without 2, 3 or 4 monitors.
Anyhow, this reads like click bait, I think I've spent too more time critiquing the article than the author spent writing it. As a front end engineer, and with 2 Thuderbolts and 1 Macbook Pro, I use all my screens to their maximum potential. This morning while working on our public site I had my localhost site running fullscreen on one thunderbolt, my code in vim running on the other, and the photoshop comp on the Macbook. When strictly in JS mode I'll typically have the same setup but docs or gitx running on the laptop.
If you're choosing to be distracted, no, a second monitor isn't going to somehow change that.
In so far as I can tell, the act of scrolling in Chrome is either deeply CPU or GPU intensive, IIRC because of some optimizations they made for pages with excessively long content.
Using Safari rather than Chrome improves my battery life by anywhere from 2 - 4 hours on average. With no flash ever involved.
I work at a company that leverages Hadoop, and on each developer machine we each have a baby Hadoop cluster (3 nodes) running in VMs at the moment, in addition to a master controller. Hence, at any given time, my machine is actively running 5 OS's (if we include the native OS) and all their associated background tasks. My computer generally idles at 25% CPU usage. Keeps my legs warm in the winter.
We're finally going to dockerize the project and I couldn't be happier. Granted, Mac OSX doesn't natively support the LXC's docker uses (c'mon Apple!), so we'll still be running 1 VM, but that's a huge improvement over our existing implementation. My CPU wouldn't be idling nearly as high, I'm going to recover a ton of RAM, and the boot sequence is going to be substantially faster.
Being that these are developer machines, and simply understanding our use case, we're not worried about malicious tenants breaking out of their environments. It's just not a factor in our situation.
If anything I feel the "article" was a waste of time. I thought I was going to read a great summary on the state of Docker, and instead I got this unexpectedly aggressive piece from developer that couldn't conceive how to fit this particular tool into his toolbelt.
We don't have the opportunity or space to give everyone their own dedicated office, and cubicles I'm sure would be a living hell. I've looking into draping fabric from the ceiling, but you'd be surprised how challenging the logistics of setting something like that is (there are very few products in the market to support fabric like this, and we can't drape them from the drop ceiling due to weight). I've looked into free standing walls, but they tend not to have the sound absorption that is typically desired.
I'd like, for once, to read an article about practical solutions to this problem rather than just another person complaining about open office spaces thinking they've stumbled upon some undiscovered idea.
In this hypothetical situation, Google uses its internet access as a loss leader to sell hypothetical services which require high speed broadband. Traditional ISPs will use internet access as a loss leader to other services, such as phone and television.
http://www.amazon.com/Darksiders-II-Playstation-3/dp/B0056WJ...
http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/10/airbnbs-stealth-home-dinin...
HAML and Coffeescript only change the syntax.
To me, this adds little value. If Javascript appears scary, spend more time with Javascript so groking it becomes easier for your brain. Making a tangental change to a completely different syntax seems like a wasted investment. When debugging in the browser, you're still going to require knowledge of JS, even with source mapping. Delving into other libraries will still require knowledge of JS. The entire JS community is not hardened in Coffeescript, so the pivot you make to learning Coffeescript is time not spent learning JS, setting you behind when groking other source.
HAML seems to add even less. HTML is just markup, it can only ever get so scary, and if you're in control of the source, you should strive to not make it scary. HAML seems like the worse case scenario for hand-holding.
That is to say, I'm not against precompilers that actually add something useful. I'm in the middle of evaluating TypeScript, and depending on its 1.0 release and its community support, I may very well choose to fully adopt it. But for me to start using your precompilation tool, you better be adding more than just syntactical changes. If you're worried about needing tools to help you remember to close an HTML tag, your problem isn't with the language, you just need to become a better programmer.
One of the biggest benefits jQuery introduces is the concept of treating single selections and multiple selections identically. While using jQuery, I can emit a $(".class").hide() call, which will apply to all elements with the matching class. Simple and elegant.
However, using native JS as the page suggests, I will need to construct a loop within my function, especially if I'm using the DOM supported getElementsByClassName method, returns a pseudo-array of DOM nodes which don't have the style method available on them. You'll notice the examples already assume a selected element and leave much of this heavy lifting out.
Furthermore, jQuery offers the selection simplicities of Sizzle (ie: "#div .container .item). To do the same selection process in vanilla JS, I'll need to nest 2 getElementsByClassName functions in a getElementByID function, and return the concatenated results from each potential .container. That is to say nothing of more complex selectors.
So yes, if you're addressing the absolute simplest form of selection, this works, but otherwise I don't think it's really presenting the situation honestly.