emef

Anybody tried a fidget spinner? My wife has adhd and likes the idea but we haven't ordered one. Are these interesting for 5 minutes and then shelved? or do they have some lasting appeal?

They added many disclaimers saying that LOC alone is a bad metric and it's more interesting to look at characteristics of the code for anecdotes. The article is full of of advice to take the findings with a grain of salt.

They don't even mention haskell in the conclusion, they just say that functional programming is well-suited to rapid prototyping.

> I get that the case syntax is kinda nice, but this particular example just doesn't seem to get there for me. Roughly half the lines, which is good. None of them hard to reason about. Which makes it a wash.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but to me the comparison of these two snippets is nowhere near "a wash". The readability of the former is leaps and bounds ahead of the java version, and it will only be more apparent as the example grows in complexity.

A potential solution for facebook (if they were inclined) might be to not charge for likes from accounts less than N days old or from accounts with > M total page likes. At least this would make it harder for click farms to get around... or, ya know, try and model click-farm accounts which seems pretty tractable.

That's rather presumptuous, do you happen to know more than what's in the post?

Incentive is not the problem with more housing... there is presently a huge demand for housing.

Playing in groups initially increased the difficulty to the point of near impossibility in the end-game, with little to no extra reward.

This would require either a whole new field on the checkout form (gender) or some incomplete database lookup for gender-name mappings; neither is a good option. Using 'they' is pretty common practice to refer to someone gender neutrally.

I'm surprised using mutable value for a default in a keyword argument wasn't mentioned. This certainly tripped me up early in learning python:

    def fn(x, my_dict={}):
        my_dict[x] = x * 2
        return my_dict

    >>> fn(1)
    {1: 2}
    >>> fn(2)
    {1: 2, 2: 4}

(I would have expected the second call to return {2: 4} when I was learning python)

I don't think he meant for secrecy's sake, he probably wants to avoid publicly negative reviews that would show up when someone googles the site.

I'd argue that it's a bad practice to leave out the last else if condition even when it seems redundant. What happens if NaN is passed to your function? It will return 'big' when you probably want to throw an exception or something more meaningful.

$4 drinks are usually the sugary/milk filled drinks like a mocha. I think drip coffee is like 2 bucks or so at SB.

You can go one step further and make use of automatic function currying (such as in haskell) and just write:

adder(x,y) -> x + y

If you call adder with one argument, you get the same behaviour as your makeAdder (returned closure), but if you call it with 2 args you get addition.

Great! That one is much more reasonable =)

I couldn't tell if it was serious or not, I got the feeling that it was a joke. It was far too dramatic.

That's what he wrote, the | meaning "given that". P[enjoys game | is a programmer] filters gamers from a population of programmers.

Interesting, so the idea is that your short-term/working memory is indicative of your fluid intelligence? Then increasing your working memory increases your intelligence.

Seems reasonable enough.

"In the study performed by Susanne M. Jaeggi et. al., study subjects practiced the dual n-back test for about 20 minutes a day for up to 19 days. At the end of that time, the subjects were shown to have increased intelligences (as measured by gF)."

An improvement in intelligence that becomes apparent after only 19 days smells too good to be true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely someone that practices IQ test problems will appear to be more intelligent the next time they are evaluated. It seems like something like that might be what they're seeing here, but I don't know enough about this training to say that.

I was really hoping for full-text search support, but I understand the team is busy :/

Shows how much I know about html5 :/ I've been hesitant to delve in to it, because it would drive me crazy that I can't actually use much of it when supporting all browsers.

At first I didn't realize I was editing the image real time, nice trick there with the base64 encoding. Very interesting.

> Such a redirect isn't slow? It's near instant if done right. Here's twitter doing it: http://twitter.com/bjorntipling

On slower devices (such as mobile phones) redirecting can be more noticeable. You're right though, in general it's not really a problem, but might be more so than a larger-than-normal JS file.

> Large JS files only need to be downloaded once and are cached.

Yeah, I was trying to say that. Larger JS files aren't a problem at all; load them once and they're cached.

> What Watson doesn't do is attempt to mimic the human ability to use common sense, make leaps of logic or imagine the future....

Pretty much sums up why I'm disillusioned about Watson and all the hype it's receiving. Don't get me wrong, it is a huge engineering feat, and pretty incredible, but doesn't seem as "revolutionary" as it's made out to be.

Am I missing something?

Probably start with a good knowledge representation. Facts need to be categorized and linked to one another. I assume a solid ontology would be key.

A way to process your training data to fit your knowledge graph needs to be unambiguous. No sense it teaching it anything if it becomes full of contradictions.

Finding a dataset for it to learn would be tough as well. Given the breadth of possible questions, you'll need to parse huge encyclopedias and/or wikipedia.

Finally, a way to efficiently query this massive amount of data. If it has to come up with an answer faster than its competitors, it better be able to lookup information pretty damn fast.

Large/lots of javascript files can slow down the loading of the page, but that wasn't the real issue people were taking with JS-controlled sites (as I interpreted things).

The real delay cost was from the inevitable redirect to the root of the website. When you visit domain.com/user-name, a JS-controlled site will usually redirect you to domain.com#!/user-name, and then loading up the page. There is no avoiding this unless you want really ugly urls: domain.com/user-name#!/user-name...

So large JS files might increase the load speed slightly, but adding an entire redirect is the kicker.

Like most things, there's a time and a place. Using hashbang urls can increase response-time when navigating through a site and provide a really cool experience. On the other hand, it definitely doesn't work for all browsers and users.

You can if you run Chrome. They just released an extension to do just this.

(someone posted this on HN recently)

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-chrome-extension-...

> "You don’t want it to come after the header on small content pages like a kid comes after candy. It is simply wrong."

Instantly stopped reading, what kind of freak writes about that.

Yeah I think it's usually easier to point someone to a visual portfolio of your work (as a designer) than it is to link to projects you've worked on (as a developer). Definitely seems harder to get noticed for being an awesome developer, but designers can easily show off.

Wow thanks, I'll read through those first.