campnic

Which has the exact same impact on rental properties. In many jurisdictions it is worse for rentals (no homestead or occupancy reductions)

I've been looking for examples of applications built with scala and akka that I can learn from. I've built small, toy-ish stuff but I feel I learn a lot by looking at examples. Any have any recommendations?

Summary: 2 independent developers write more lines of code combined then 2 working as a pair. Thus pair programming is bad. How quaint.

I'm only saying this because your entire point is about being pedantic with the language, one of the definitions of steal[0] is "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment." In this case, whether its a copy or not is immaterial. I've seen a bunch of people parroting the line that if you're not taking a tangible thing you're not stealing. This is plainly false both by connotation and denotation.

0: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

They're ill prepared to consume the information in the format its delivered (if it is delivered at all). Notice, the revised S-1 doesn't say the amount of the adjustment, you had to receive that from Facebook via another channel. So, it doesn't really have to do with special analyst job knowledge, it has to do with special treatment.

I mean, "actively disseminated" seems a bit generous. They call 3 institutions to let them know meanwhile individual (notice i'm intentionally not saying "retail" because thats become some sort of in-crowd, brow beating, bullshit term for shaming regular, non-hedge fund investors) are left to read smoke signals. Its not that the institutional investors "had analysts at their disposal" its that the systems is built to make sure institutional investors and hedge funds get information others don't.

You can say what you want, but the quote from the hedge fund manager seems much more clear then your opinion, and he's a domain expert who took part in the situation.

>"There's "no way" a retail investor could have known about the lowered projections, unless he or she "had a friend at a multi-billion dollar institution," he added."

It is not the responsibility of the purchaser to know information which is purposefully withheld from them. From the article

> Scott Sweet's multi-billion dollar hedge fund client flipped the stock at $42. His subsequent short made his firm its "largest profit of the year," Sweet said. There's "no way" a retail investor could have known about the lowered projections, unless he or she "had a friend at a multi-billion dollar institution," he added.

Please explain to me, when information is withheld from the purchasers and only specific clients notified as to circumstantial and meaningful changes to the state of the offering, how anyone could ever "know what you're doing?' In fact, Morgan Stanley was actively misleading investors by continuing to adjust the specifications of the offering to make it look better.

Analogy: If an automaker produced a new car which was secretly designed to become worthless (engine would fuse together) after 3 months and only told one rich people not to buy it, would that be fine? What if there come back was 'you could always open the hood and see our computer components which execute after 3 months, its not our fault you don't know what you're doing'

You can. For java if you have a source directory, you New Project -> Java -> Create from existing source code. If there isn't an option for that in php, its because no body has written it, not because its not possible.

This is great! Thanks for sharing.

Oh, I agree. Biological experiment reproducibility is an incredibly hard problem. You are probably right that it is 'trivial' by comparison in the same way that landing on mars is trivial to landing on Alpha Centauri.

I would say that including two audio assets for the same sound seems like a code smell.

I have been in discussions about this with one of my friends working in academic materials research. Its amazing the amount of work today done by scientist at universities writing code without very basic software development tools.

I'm talking opening their code in notepad, 'versioning' files by sending around zip files with numbers manually added to the end of the file name, etc.

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the 'reproducible results' problem. Often times, the software I've seen is 'rough' to be kind. Most times its not even possible to get the software running (missing some really specific library or some changes to a dependency which haven't been distributed) or its built for a super specific environment and makes huge assumptions on what can 'be assumed about the system.' This same software produces results which end up being published in journals.

If any of these places had money to spend, I think there could be a valuable business in teaching science types how to better manage their software. Its really unfortunate that outside of a few core libraries (numpy, etc.) the default method is for each researcher to rebuild the components they need.

I'm surprised about only 11% of results being reproducible. It seems lower then I'd expect. I agree we don't want to optimize for reproducibility, but obviously there is some problem here that needs to be addressed.

I realized that by replying i'm probably encouraging you to continue posting this non-sense. I agree with Joachim below, this is barely related to the article.

I think the overlooked part of this, once we step back from the natural desire to pick 'the best', is that people who care about the platforms are providing a vast set of starting examples for people looking to get started on each network. Its easy to do a side by side comparison of similar tasks across languages which is something that is very valuable and, in my experience, relatively novel. Thanks for all your amazing work!

Its the stages of grief. Something you've invested a considerable amount of your life in was revealed to you in the last 24 hours to be not what you believed it to be. That causes grief and causes denial.

Of course, everyone would prefer to know the answer to their issues without any tools. As your code base becomes contributed to by more people, grows in size and leverages libraries you don't write, it becomes less feasible to always divine the state of the entire program. As component of a programmers skill set as a whole, better tools produce better results.

This is completely loaded. Your implication is that the only viable test is a test which exercises all of the functionality of the most feature rich framework. How would that be a)viable and b) meaningful?

We know that there is a set of common features and the benchmarks goal is to test least common denominator stuff on the networks. Authentication and portability are not LCD. The argument that they are is capricious. What if we made the requirement be that the framework is a lisp? Now we've completely changed the intent.

It's pretty simple, honestly. For an entire day, just make things. I've found that the noise in our industry is pretty easy to ignore with minimal loss to signal by merely choosing when to partake. If you want to avoid all those things you list, it basically means detaching from the social components of the industry ... one example of which is HN.

This almost feels like voting based off the results of voting. Read the article, if you find it interesting, up vote. It seems like a pretty simple system. I don't think that other people's comments should play a part in determining whether I feel a story is interesting, but that is the great thing about a vote. You get to determine the criteria for distributing it.

Its not wrong for you to approach everything so skeptically, but I think you have to see it from the authors perspective:

1. He clearly has an altruistic bent (he'd just returned from the Peace Corp. in Kenya)

2. He liked his position for its flexibility and variety as noted throughout the article.

I think the point of the article is that many people approach salary negotiations as an optimization of just salary. But his real desire was to be happy and money was only one component of that. The boss found ways to make him happy without meeting his salary demands.

The story isn't a story of a 'clear win' for him, its an analysis of how to approach negotiations. Salary negotiations aren't always about maximizing your salary, you can make them more flexible by maximizing for your happiness. It presents more flexibility to both participants.

It is a reasonable belief. And I'm not criticizing you for having it. Still, this process has repeated itself for a long time. Its not always fast and the best doesn't always win, but its how things seem to work.

What make one project superior to the other, besides your opinion? Open source is darwinian. If one project proves its superiority, development will shift and other projects will change. I would think that, as a hacker community, we could accept that.

One additional item I would suggest is Fowler's Refactoring. In java hell, the only viable weapon is a refactoring scalpel.

The entire article doesn't contain compelling support for the argument you say he is making. Its a bunch of hand waving about how google gets bored after the engineering. That may be so, but he provides no tactile examples of how this is the case.

I can see your point about how he's attempting to argue the implementation is lame, but its also easy to construe his argument as 'glass-type' hardware is lame. This is an issue with the authors presentation, not with the OPs argument.

The nice thing about surgery with a computer program on a server is that death is not permanent.

Just to tack on my simple opinion: 'Up' is in context to the current application. 'Back' is in context the users perspective.

If I'm in the browser and click a mailto link, it opens the email client. The 'up' metaphor should return me to the inbox. The 'back' metaphor would return me to the web browser/webpage. (Did not realize I was using the exact same metaphor as my sibling, sorry)

If i was designing it, you'd need to make it focused on the products. Maybe 50% of people feel these products are not 'viable'. If thats the feeling, I think that those fired can walk away feeling ok about the situation (obviously not great).

Just tried this last week and have to say that I'm thoroughly impressed. Great work guys! Worked really smooth, even smooth enough for people to see animation hiccups in some apps we were building. Thanks!

I like Martin Fowler's Refactoring. This is called 'Replace conditional with subtype' explained here: http://www.refactoring.com/catalog/replaceConditionalWithPol...

The book is a good read and a fantastic reference.

The fact that he sent an email follow up to a phone conversations means that 1) he had already decided not to become part of the collusion and 2) he wanted to leave a paper trail which would be made public if the collusion was ever detected.

If they've had off the record phone communication about the subject, the decision to follow that up with an email is a calculated decision. If he had decided to participate in the recruitment embargo, it certainly would not have been acknowledged in an email for all the discovery reasons that make this a compelling PR piece.

On the flip side, Steve Jobs comes off as being completely ignorant that this is discoverable. I don't know why he'd include threats in an email like this.

I admit to some naivety on the issue, but it seems like these retirement plans have a some exposure when it comes to inflation. Looking at the world economy and the unprecedented measures that were/are being taken to avoid inflation (fed. resv lending, IMF / Eurobank bailouts for Spain/Greece, etc.) it seems like I would be worried about the future value of my money.

I want to retire. I would worry that if I lived very frugally and planned to retire at 35-40, I could get depressed if outside of my control my future expenses doubled because of inflation while others who are focused on maximizing their earnings would be able to benefit from (possible) inflation through higher wages.

I guess thats the same sort of snow globing that gets people in trouble when they make investments. Who knows what inflation will do.