galistoca

> This makes her sound very inexperienced.

https://medium.com/@loorinm/becoming-a-software-engineer-is-... She was admitted to "Hack Reactor" in October 2015. Well that escalated quickly.

I never said "it was designed to not have a standard library". Instead it was: "it was NOT designed to have a standard library", which means "standard library" was something that the creator didn't even think Javascript will need.

Javascript was only created to make web pages more dynamic when web pages, and nothing more. Back then browser was supposed to be just a "thin client" to access everything magically and only way to keep things locally on the browser was through cookies.

That's not the case anymore and web browsers became a monstrous software that does everything, and that's why we're even talking about "libraries".

Also you say "JS continues to make poor excuses as to why it continues to not have one", but that's exactly what the ES6 is trying to do, with classes, inheritance, etc. I personally do not like that direction, but hope that makes you happy.

If we follow your logic, assembly would the worst language of all.

Like you said it was never designed to have a standard library and so forth, and therefore it sucks to use JS to do a lot of things.

However I was just saying I don't think it's fair to say something is badly designed because it's bad at doing things it wasn't designed to do. The interpretation of whether having a functional scope is good or bad is also subjective IMO, depending on context.

But anyway if your takeaway from my comment was just this, you didn't get my real point at all. I don't really care about whether javascript is a good language or bad language. My real point was this whole disaster is caused not just by javascript alone.

What do you think would be the benefit?

I agree with the sentiment but I think the interpretation is off.

I don't think Javascript is a bad language. It does what it does and is good enough.

In my opinion if you look at where Java is right now, that's where javascript is heading towards--it's madness and an epitome of extreme bureaucracy--and it's not because Javascript is a bad language, you can't really pinpoint what exactly caused this because there are so many factors. Node.js is not even the core reason. It's actually HTML5.

HTML5 allowed for all kinds of new features such as localstorage. There used to be times when only way of storing things locally was through cookies which was limited to 4KB. With that spec, all the modern frontend web technology wouldn't have been possible. This includes really anything that gained traction in recent years such as Backbone.js, React.js, etc.

Anyway my point is, it really sucks where this is all headed. Especially looking at javascript itself evolving to become needlessly complex. What we're seeing is just tip of the iceberg, i presume it will get much worse once ES6 actually becomes the functioning standard across all browsers.

People should focus on building meaningful stuff, nowadays what I see is bunch of people boasting how they're a great "frontend developer" by knowing some new build tool or frontend js framework or css framework, which probably will become obsolete in a year or so (Hello grunt, hello backbone).

Just three years ago to build a website all I needed was js, css, html, and maybe some jQuery. Nowadays I need to write coffeescript or es2016(why do they even need to name it that way I don't know), which compiles to JS, write Sass or Less that compiles to CSS, use handlebars for templating which compiles to html, and package them altogether using Grunt, Gulp, or Webpack. When I make a line change, I used to be able to immediately refresh the page, now I need to wait until grunt autodetects the file change, compiles each coffeescript, compiles each template, compiles each stylesheet, and finally reload.

Anyone know if there's anything like Soylent but for protein only?

Sometimes I go on a no-carb diet (sometimes to lose weight and sometimes because carbs make me sleepy) and I am too lazy to buy ingredients and cook at home.

I just want soylent, but with 0 carbs. Anyone know?

I fail to understand a reason why someone would use this... right now it seems to only work on a few LG watches, and isn't Android open source as well? Why would someone choose to implement this when they can implement Android?

+1

You should always under-promise and over-deliver. It's kind of a bummer to see a customer support app since I was expecting a groundbreaking technology that finally succeeded in implementing teleportation technology using gravity distortion

Your argument is no different than people from the old times saying "the earth is flat". Of course that was the reality back then, but we've found out that's not the case.

When talking about these things you should keep in mind whatever you say is just an opinion and a theory. Just like Newton's law was the reality until Einstein came along, the "reality" is nothing more than our interpretation of the world.

That's why I think it's not a good idea to conclude someone is "wrong" for technical reasons. Our "technical" reality has been evolving and will keep evolving, so our reality today won't be the same as tomorrow's reality.

Downloading pirated torrent is unethical and probably illegal, but tons of people still use it. So I think "less likely" is not really the case. People will do anything as long as there's value.

This guy basically is saying "the world we live in is physical, because well.. it is physical!". How does someone like this become a professor and publish books?

I have no problem someone saying "it is very likely we live in a simulation" because it's an opinion and he's not trying to hide the fact that it's just an opinion.

But saying stuff like "THAT IS WRONG" and "It's conceptually and empirically incorrect" is really amateur.

By the way does this guy even know what "empirically" means? Our experience is nothing more than what we perceive as human beings, and there's plenty of evidence that supports that what we perceive is not necessarily the reality. And this guy is saying "it's empirically wrong". It is impossible to prove a philosophical theory "empirically wrong".

Youtube is a monopoly in a way Google is a monopoly. Just like how there's Bing and DuckDuckGo but most people use Google, most people use Youtube although some do use sites like vimeo. If you think it's so easy to build a site that competes with Google or Youtube you should go ahead and build one and overtake them. After all, nowadays everything is open sourced, you can even build your own search engine from scratch overnight.

If you're wondering about this question, then it is very likely that you shouldn't make it open source.

Like I said it only makes sense when you feel the need to make it open source. Some of the reasons I could think of:

1. Your app has features that are very privacy sensitive, so you want to let your users know there's nothing fishy going on. 2. You're not building the app because you want users, but as a learning experience. Hey maybe you can even use your public code as your resume (Then again, this can backfire if your code is not exquisite) 3. Marketing stunt (This won't work in most cases, so if you're thinking of this don't do it) 4. Your app has server aspect and you can't afford to run it anymore so thinking of shutting it down, but you want to do your users a favor.

Community involvement and participation will NOT come just because you open sourced it. In fact you should assume it won't happen. This is true for even extremely successful open source projects. It's only less than 1% of people who contribute and 99% of freeloaders.

Parent said "most of", and I think that's pretty much correct regardless of how vibrant of a community Imgur has. Most traffic to imgur is via embeds or links from another discussion forums. The former case obviously provides no exposure to Imgur community, and even in the latter case most people are there only to look at the picture, not to engage as an Imgur community member.

The whole point of this discussion thread is that Imgur is f*ed because they aren't independent enough. Otherwise there's nothing to worry about, right?

Google knew that Youtube will turn into the largest video search engine, so they bought it strategically. Otherwise someone else could have swooped in and acquired the largest video search site, which would have left Google vulnerable in many ways.

Summary: userbase/community was what drove the network effect, which made it impossible for Google to catch up, and that's why Google made the decision to purchase Youtube.

Is there a specific reason why you would want to open source it?

Just my personal opinion: users don't care if your app is open sourced or not (Unless there's a clear reason for it to be open sourced, for example providing transparency in cases user privacy is critical)

Assuming that the type of people who they want to block are psychos or people with bad social skills, they will find themselves in 100 times more serious situation when the other party finds out. Even as a normal guy I would feel extremely pissed if I find out that a girl has been playing me with a bot.

Is it ok to go around publicly saying "we got into YC" when it's just a fellowship?

Commodity is when your product has no differentiation on the market. Imgur does not have enough differentiation on the market and that's why they're a commodity. For image centric community you can go to Reddit, Tumblr, or any kind of online forums really. Youtube's differentiation is that it has created significant network effect around public video hosting. Can you think of any meaningful competition other than Vimeo? (Or maybe a couple of others but they're nowhere as close as all the online forums online)

Because it's a monopoly. Come back when Imgur becomes the only (or one of very few) place on the web to share funny images and Gifs. Farewell.

Monopoly is not a commodity.

Non-monopoly is a commodity.

And why would Google purchase a forum site for sharing funny images and GIFs?

Why would Google buy when they can just create one overnight if they wanted? Probably much more stable than Imgur too.

Imgur is just a commodity. Youtube is not.

I was good at math growing up but not in a "#1 in the world" way. I've been to a couple of math contest national finals. So I naturally have seen many "geniuses". Some of them when they see a problem sometimes just come up with the answer immediately. These are questions that require procedural thinking so I couldn't understand how it was possible to come up with the correct answer instantly. One day I asked him. He said he doesn't know but sometimes he can just "see" the answer. I used to think that's bullshit, but after having experienced more of life I think it is not entirely impossible.

We have no idea how brain works, so we can only make hypotheses based on experience. When someone can "see" an answer without being able to explain how he came up with that answer, regardless of how useful that skill is in the real world, that is something. Maybe sometimes all his neurons connect instantly in certain circumstances. Who knows.

Another reason I think this is possible is because sometimes I come off that way (to much lesser degree) to other people. Sometimes when I come up with a solution to a problem (not at all domain specific), people wonder how I can do that. I can't explain of course. I am not trying to say I'm a genius. I'm saying things like this happen sometimes for no reason. And "highly intelligent" people tend to have more of these than "normal" people.

Anyway, these are all just theories, yours included. So I think just saying that our brains objectively work in certain ways is not a good idea, and is probably wrong.

Ever thought about whether the assumption that having control over what your see on your Facebook feed might be incorrect?

If we're talking about the ideal world that may be true, but the real world is far from perfect. If you ask 100 people do you want to live a meaningful life, probably 99 of them will say yes. But do they? Probably 1 out of those 100 will live a meaningful life. If you ask people do you want to be told what to do, or do you want to do what you want, most of them will say they want to do what they want. But in reality most people just want to be told what to do because making decisions and being responsible for it is not an easy thing.

Coming back to Facebook feed, there's a reason why people keep using Facebook even though many people hate it. Sure it's not ideal but there will never be an ideal world. I think the reason why most "decentralization" advocates never succeed is exactly because they're being too ideal (read naive) about this.

That said I think the pendulum will swing back someday in the future surely, it just won't be by these guys. It will be from some random technology which didn't even aspire to "disrupt" the web.

This is the worst advice ever, don't try to give advice on something you have no idea about. It can change people's lives for the worse.

"Leaving it off the resume" means lying, and they will most likely ask what happened during that time. Even if they don't ask it's a bad sign since it means you come off as someone who's been unable to get a job for whichever duration you worked on your startup for.

The "con" part actually has nothing to do with whether you failed at a startup or not. Like you said it depends on the answer, which means you make the decision based on the personality at the end of the day, not based on the failure itself. So I would say there is no "cons".

As long as you have solid skills, success or failure doesn't really matter at all (although if you were successful you wouldn't be applying for a job, which leaves us with failure in this case).

From my experience companies only look at your objective skills when they hire you. And a lot of large companies actually respect that you have worked on your own company even if it failed.

So don't worry about what it means, if you're trying to find a job, study for the interview really. That's one thing I messed up when I shut down my company and had to get a job for the first time in my life. I didn't even know "preparing for an interview" was a thing and failed miserably at some of the early interviews I did, but later figured out there's a formula and then I aced everything, ended up getting multiple job offers and chose the one I wanted.

That too but the fact that he's using this as a "look what I did guys! I'm being transparent!" post opportunity is what really offends me.

Same logic goes for hiring. If you need to use this kind of gimmicky tactic--which is obviously bad for the company in the long run--to find new hires, it probably means you need to focus more on the core product to turn it into something that is naturally attractive for potential employees.