I wonder - if Java was born today (instead of the late 90's), what would it look like, and how popular would it be? I feel like Java owes its current following to its entrenched position in a broad array of corporate and government IT departments. Also, in a sea of newer interpreted languages, it's the compiled one (and isn't C/C++). That, by itself, will win it a fair number of adherents.
There's a balance to be made - between belief and skepticism. If you become too much the skeptic, you no longer have the ability to enjoy simple things like a magic show. Become too much the believer, and things like the Truther Movement hold sway over your life. (Of course, the assignments of "believer" and "skeptic" here are completely interchangeable, depending on from which direction you come at each individual topic.)
I consider these portions of the article "proof", or at least convincing evidence:
"Todd Burpo, Colton’s father, says he was skeptical about his son’s story until his son described meeting a great-grandfather and a miscarried baby sister — something no one had ever told him about."
"She never told her baby about God, Jesus, her near-death experience, nothing. All that happened when the girl was 8 weeks old. How could she remember that?"
Wow, that's harsh. This is the part of the article that speaks to why I submitted it to HN:
"He says science, not religion, resurrected the afterlife. Advances in cardiopulmonary resuscitation meant that patients who would have died were revived, and many had stories to share."
Regardless, I don't see why you consider it a "garbage article". It seems well-written to me.
> Firing on timeout is not the ideal way as the general pattern tells us people open multiple tabs which they may or may not read.
This is what I was thinking. I do this all the time. However, I have to question your statement all the same. Yes, this is something I do. But, I'm a software developer. Assuming that the general population of internet users follows my personal usage patterns would seem to be a bad idea. Being a web analyst, are you saying that you've conducted studies verifying this pattern?
Regardless, triggering based on scroll seems like a sounder approach. Thanks for the pointer.
They care. They care very much. But, they want the fix to be easy and convenient. Therefore, what we get are foods that people _think_ are healthier, but actually aren't. Why do they think they are healthier? Because producers and advertisers convince them of such. (Think whole-wheat/grain pasta.) The reality is that the truly healthiest food options are also the least-processed. But that reality doesn't sell because it requires too much effort and "sacrifice" on the part of the consumer.
I'm pretty sure that alternatives exist for every "necessary" service/product Google and PayPal provide. If you are absolutely _so_ fed up with a service, prove it. Switch to an alternative. The sense of entitlement exhibited by people when they feel they've been slighted by a service/company (such as Google or PayPal) in the fashion alluded to by the author boggles me. Doubly so when those same people don't do anything to change their reliance on or stop using said services/companies.
These are public companies with shareholders that demand that they maximize revenue and earnings. As a user (and maybe even as a customer), they _will_ disappoint you. Act accordingly.
"As more and more businesses rely on google’s commercial services..."
As a business, you should be very careful/skeptical of on whom the success of your livelihood relies.
For me (echoing some of what gnosis has stated), the real value that HN brings is the discussion. Frequently, I find the comments, insights, opinions, and tangents elicited by HN submissions to be more interesting and thought-provoking than the submissions themselves. I typically browse through the discussion a good bit before ever clicking through to the article/site which initially drove the discussion. There are plenty of "show-and-tell" mechanisms on the Web. What sets HN apart, in my mind, is the round-table that develops in response to a lot of those submissions.
The examples they give seem off to me - slowly-evolving thought pieces. (Of course, I understand that their examples are limited to topics they would typically cover.)
> ...and then build the article as the story develops over time, rather than just cranking out short, discrete posts every time something new breaks.
Seems to me that this format/style would be perfectly suited to more quickly-evolving stories like the Boston Marathon bombings.
I can imagine they would (eventually) provide a mechanism to be notified when the article is updated. As for the scrolling, it looks like the most recent portion is placed at the top - "But when more news breaks, you go back to the article, insert an update at the top, and change..."
> However a lot of personal analysis would happen away from the computer too. How to record real life away from PC data?
Good (and thought-provoking) point. This approach implicitly encourages a tech/gadget-heavy focus in one's life - which makes me queasy. And what would be the end-result of this analysis? More-efficient, but deeper-ingrained use of technology? If the result of the analysis were people putting down their smartphones and, instead, have face-to-face conversations with other people - or people no longer playing Candy Crush Saga and, instead, putting that time toward a cause that improves the world, I'd be all for it. But, I don't see that happening.
Wow. Doesn't seem to be big into serendipity, does he?
In general, I don't see the point of doing all that analysis. Or, at least he doesn't provide many good reasons (in my opinion) for doing it. This is the only one I could see:
> Very early on, back in the 1990s, when I first analyzed my e-mail archive, I learned that a lot of e-mail threads at my company would, by a certain time of day, just resolve themselves. That was a useful thing to know, because if I jumped in too early I was just wasting my time.
Now, this seems like a genuinely useful insight. But, in my mind, this isn't personal analytics. This is email analytics. See mailstrom - http://mailstrom.co/
Patrick's (patio11's) advice is really the advice you should be following. However, I can easily imagine how daunting those steps must sound. (Rent a room? Stage an event? Get up and talk? Woah.) I hate to think of that paralyzing you from trying something different. So, an alternative (though not necessarily better) option I suggest is, at the networking events you attend, look for someone to learn from.
Look for someone that impresses you - both technically and professionally. Someone that, if you could succeed in patterning yourself after, you'd consider yourself fulfilled and successful. Grab their ear, pick their brains, ask them for advice. Show them your interest, enthusiasm, and aptitude - and earn their respect. Hopefully, they'll help you get to where you want to be.
If you don't do _anything_ else, fill out your HN profile with some contact information. Right now, you're making it difficult/impossible for potential clients/employers to contact (the Hacker News) you. Why?
Yes, there is. I've worked as a paid-by-the-hour contractor for a single client for years at a time. I've done this for three different clients - for 4 years, 2 and 1/2 years, and (my current client) 3 and 1/2 years. In my current role, I serve as dev lead and have significant input with regard to strategic direction of the project. I might be an outlier and my experience may not be shared by many, but I'm evidence that scenario C exists.
> Switching to competitors that don't use these practices are more expensive (i.e. organic), and food is something that people need.
I do agree that people see this as an impediment. However, people use this excuse way too often - as a crutch, in my opinion. We (Americans, in my case) spend a pitifully small percentage of our incomes on food:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/america-food-...
Unfortunately, this is the way in which "market forces" fail us. When all motivations ultimately spring forth from ever-higher profits and market dominance, how can "doing the right thing" for society as a whole win out on a consistent basis?
On the other hand, relying on regulators seems to be fundamentally flawed. Some of the domains that these people are regulating are highly specific, niche, and complex. Where is the government going to get people who are well-versed and experienced in these domains if not the industries being regulated? And, once you are a regulator, from where do you source alternative job opportunities if not the companies you are regulating?
Cool little app. However, I'd like to see you raise the artificially low maximums you've put in place for the "Initial Investment" and "Monthly Investment" inputs. If you did, I'd be able to make use of it. (I'm 38 and definitely not "starting out".) It appears that you're making the assumption that the "Returns per Year" percentage input should also be used when figuring monthly income. I disagree with that. I'm comfortable guessing at a relatively high (7 or 8%) annual return on investment while building my savings, which would be derived from a combination of dividend income and capital gains. But, when it comes to living on a fixed income, I'm tempted to guess at a lower annual return (4% - dividend income only) because the negative consequences of being wrong are fairly high. My two cents.
As the screenshots in this article show, the reviewers weren't trying hard to make their submissions look 100% genuine. However, in the multitude of intentionally deceptive reviews, I wonder what patterns emerge? And have TripAdvisor and Yelp (and whoever else relies on user-generated reviews) ever worked together to try and crack this nut?
> maybe you're talking about other negative environmental effects that are linked to activies that cause CO2 emissions.
Bingo. I'm not focusing so much on the carbon emissions themselves so much as the side-effects and purposes of those emissions. Removing mountaintops to get at coal and risking oily beaches and terrorist attacks to get at oil. Encouraging attitudes that careless disposability and physical inactivity are OK and normal.
> I think well being of people should be maximized
The problem with maximizing people's well-being is that "well-being" has been bastardized to encompass all sorts of things that were once considered luxurious, superficial, wasteful, and pure convenience.
Many moons ago, families were larger and clothes dryers did not exist. With enough motivation and wherewithal, you'd be amazed what you can do. You just believe that it'd be a nightmare because a) you don't have any desire to make the necessary personal or familial sacrifices to make it happen and b) you don't know anyone that does it. (And both of these reasons aren't unique to you, so please don't consider this a personal attack.) However, if everyone in your "world" suddenly started doing it, a new "standard" would be set and the practice would no longer seem impossible or nightmarish.
I think it'd represent a great deal of progress - in terms of our simplistic way of thinking that equates convenience and the harnessing of fossil fuels to human advancement. It requires a lot of destructive practices to manufacture, operate, and dispose of clothes dryers. That's more enlightened than using a 100% sustainable clothesline and a breeze?
Personally, I don't care if global warming is real, imagined, man-made, or naturally-occurring. Because, from where I stand, the "austerity" measures and lifestyle changes that have been proposed to combat global-warming (at least in the U.S.) are pretty much all good things that should be pursued, regardless. And yet people (the majority of Americans, it seems) sneer at the thought of making personal or societal sacrifices for the sake of species or generations other than our own. It always frustrates me - the sense of entitlement to not having to care about the downsides of convenience.