jimminy

Here is a link to the drought map for the West Coast.

Comparing December 27, 2016 to December 29, 2015.

Drought is significantly improved over that time period, but still quite severe in Southern California.

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/WeeklyComparison.a...

That wouldn't make it any harder. Sides only have a single orientation, with the opposite side suited to the center piece of one of the neighboring sides. Placing the piece with the correct neighboring side addresses the issue automatically.

Corner pieces can be rotationally incorrect, through the solving process, and is one of the harder areas to sove on the puzzle.

It isn't an issue for the state to handle. It's an issue with where the companies have chosen to locate themselves. Any state could have these new areas, not just California.

The companies cluster around populations of individuals who are highly skilled in the areas the company need.

The individuals cluster around the areas that have a broad population of employment opportunity.

If you want to create a new economic center, you need to influence several major companies to invest in that area as an offshoot. Single company towns(and industry towns) are prone to collapse and are a bit entrapping, so you need redundancy in both companies and industry.

(There is also cultural draw, that cannot be recreated. It manifests from the populace and history of the area. But this isn't as easy to seed and takes more time than corporate sponsorship of an area.)

I was thinking about this the other day.

The Apple patent on IR blocking for concert bvenues, would fit this purpose pretty well.

My best guess would be that there is still some risk with these archive types since the browser-client has built in automatic decompression for them.

It doesn't track plays at all, it takes songs in your playlists and calculates close matches based on songs in other users playlists.

It's a relatively simple graph-transform that is just using occurence in playlists tor generation. Which makes adding the playlists self-reinforcing, which could have negative situations.

I have a wide range of musical taste, but a low number of playlists and can drastically change from metal to dance to hip-hop by adding a prebuilt playlist week to week.

Here is an article on how it works, and there have been discussions from the staff elsewhere on why DW is so good.

http://qz.com/571007/the-magic-that-makes-spotifys-discover-...

I was looking for a Discover Weekly saver for a while, but resorted to using just screencapping the list, and saving the good tracks internally.

One issue with saving a Discover Weekly list to Spotify is that Discover Weekly is generated based on the content in the user's playlists. If you add a bunch of Discover Weekly lists that are 28/30 duds you're going to start reinforcing the system to generate crappy lists.

I think that's why Spotify doesn't allow saving them. They do allow saving of the topical Discover Daily, which reinforces my belief here.

Just thought I'd let you know about the possible issue with your product. Even though I absolutely love it and would use it.

I didn't say or even imply that.

I pointed out a primary reason we often see these kinds of posts, (freezing accounts), in one paragraph.

Then in the next, I mention the overall view of Paypal is more negative than it used to be, when you could have actually attributed something about that to Musk.

They were mentioned in the Credit/Debit card section just not by name. Mostly it's because they use proprietary code that the organization doesn't feel aligns with it's ethics.

". Most merchants outsource to third party card processing facilities (which won’t be mentioned here), typically redirecting to a page on that providers website, for accepting payments. The problem with this is that they often serve proprietary JavaScript"

What does Musk have to do with the modern Paypal, that is generally disliked. The primary issues with Paypal come from the freezing of accounts, that doesn't affect the majority of users. It mostly only has effects for business with spiky sales that may appear fraudulent.

But the current view of PayPal is different from the historical view. PayPal was a brilliant service through the end of the 90's and early-00's, while Musk was involved. You can't retroactively apply the dislike the service has generated since their paths diverged. And even then I would contribute much more of the social impact to Thiel.

I would assume it is Rebecca Frankel as well. I looked for a connection to Piaw and he had blogged about her during the period this conversation had taken place.

The Chuck writers were brilliant in their fan service in that regard.

And it's not only the season finales, they were always on the bubble and never sure if they'd get the back-6 or back-9 of a season. Because of the uncertainty, there are generally 2-3 episodes per season, around either episode 9 or 13, and then including the finales, they would work as series enders.

That discussion isn't that relevant, when you're trying to figure out this kind of valuation though. The reason for that dip was largely 90 and 180 day lock-ups increasing supply of shares traded as employees sold stock. Also there were economic fears helping pressure the stock down.

FB's valuation at IPO was still smaller than it's primary domestic market's (ad spending) size ($165B in 2012).

Uber's primary domestic market (taxis) is only valued at ($20B), so if they captured all of the US taxi, their current valuation requires them to capture over 300% of the market.^

Now obviously that's not a perfect barometer. There are other variables and adjustments to make, but it makes it very clear that there is limited upside potential. Without claiming another market (ownership), it's actually damn near impossible. They've also ceded competition in the Chinese market to DiDi, so they can't make it up via global expansion either.

^edit (Obviously, this is a 1x multiple, as you increase to more reasonable values it drops the share required, but you have to push it pretty hard to reduce market share to a decent level.)

Part of it is business model, they've outsized their market potential which is a failure of their model.

It's a bit of a chicken and the egg, because it's absolutely related to their valuation. That valuation is based on a flaw somewhere in their model potential, which feeds back into the model of potential (via expressing oversized outside interest).

For Facebook, that is absolutely false. Their last known valuation prior to IPO based on a raise was $65B (March 2011), they IPO'd at $104B.

And Box had a small downward valuation shift (-36%, -$0.9B), between last raised valuation and IPO.

Uber's numbers even giving them liberal growth potential of 500% places them at around $33.75B (-50% current value, -$34B).

I explained above, but Uber is way over-valued to the point that they cannot have a reasonable IPO and acquisitions are off the table to all but a few companies that don't need that business and can acquire a direct competitor at a more reasonable expense.

The valuations and conditions between Lyft and Uber are drastically different.

Lyft with the funding from GM has only raised $2B over it's lifespan which is comparable to that of Uber. Uber has raised nearly $13B and blown through most of it.

At their last round, Lyft is valued at about $6B and Uber is valued at $68B. One of these is reasonable based on the taxi market size (domestic $20B), the other is about 2x over the assumed value with decent market share and margins it could attain.

The only way for Uber to express the value on the books is to replace car ownership, which is unlikely with the turnover rate of individuals replacing their cars, they'll need about a decade or more runway to justify the current valuation.

Lyft and GM have an advantage in the race to replace ownership, with their partnership. Lyft gets a partner that can reduce cost of vehicle supply costs and maintenance, while GM gets a hedge against a possible headwind to their current business model.

Andy Gavin wrote several extended articles on the making of the original Crash Bandicoot. IIRC correctly, Dave contributed to a few of the articles,, or at least his contributions are mentioned pretty heavily.

http://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-ban...

About a decade ago it was a pretty commonplace thing to happen.

HTML 4/4.1 was kind of messy, and could have rendering issues. So going with an (x)HTML validator was a common thing, as well as a marketable value proposal to clients.

HTML 5 had much "saner" implementations, so validators fell by the wayside as they weren't as necessary for compatibility.

You're assuming that they don't allow this kind of tinkering internally. But they actually due, Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone were both created as internal passion projects by staff, grew interest inside of the company, polished and released.

Blizzard does focus on quality and feel, and is very open about their willingness to push dates or cancel projects if it doesn't meet their quality standard. Titan didn't work as an MMO, and a lot of that work was reused in Overwatch.

I find this really odd, it's not wrong, but it doesn't invalidate O(1). It's mashing two-things together that are unneccessary and can cause misunderstanding.

Big-O provides a decent tool for generic analysis and an understanding of access times of memory hierarchies. Since memory hierarchies can vary, they shouldn't be considered while doing generic analysis, much anyways.

Both are important to understand. The key thing is setting your Big-O access expectations to the slowest level of your heirarchy. In that way, your expectation remains generic and still proximally accurate across the average cases.

When you consider them together, think of the heirarchy as a series of piecewise functions that modify the value of the constant time based on the speed of the bounds that fit your data.

This square of N notation falls apart in other cases. 128GB's of RAM would have roughly the same access speed as the 8GB's he had available, if he had that much in his system. But having 128GB of RAM would completely destroy the squaring by flattening an entire magnitude from his hypothesis.

But it is a nice display of memory heirarchies, IMO.

Big O-notation isn't precise, it is an approximation by nature. It only cares about the largest factors for determining the estimate.

Part of the reason Youtube provides the youtu.be link is that their systems disambiguate between mobile and desktop websites.

Mobile versions have the 'm.' subdomain, and provide a less optimized experience for desktop.

I would also argue that the youtu.be link is a canonical form, since the identifiers are identical to the source. It is just an optimized canonical proxy.

I haven't tried them so I'm going by the models and demo's I've seen.

I think the field of view issue is a physical limitation, not software, and only slightly hardware related. The peripheral vision is blocked out by the components. To achieve a wider field of view you have to shift components further back out of viewing range. and then modify the screens to wrap around in the new viewing frame.

I don't think this has any impact of field of view for that reason.

Likewise, I'm being pedantic.

Hybrid disk would be the generic term.

There has been work on liquid-state storage.

So Solid State becomes the adjective modifier for providing the classification of the type of Hybrid Disk.

You could in theory have a Liquid State Hybrid Disk, or a Liquid Solid State Hybrid Drive.

I read it as "Solid State Hybrid" -Disk.

Which when regarded under the conventional drives at the time it was announced being primarily HDD's it makes it more clear.

You have an HDD that is a hybrid with solid state components. Logically clean cut, imo.

To clarify what dknoll is talking about:

'sshd' is the reference command to the 'ssh daemon'.

To dknoll, SSHD for the Solid State Hybrid Disk, means that it has components of both drive systems, spinning platters and a functional amount of NAND for feequently used applications.

You could use it purely for it's SSD assuming the drive controller continues to function. Though that is a ridiculous proposal.

RBY is what is commonly taught as primary bases in school, due to color compositions and the ease of expressing it through mixing pigments.

R + B = Purple R + Y = Orange B + Y = Green

Like I said, it's been a few years, and the project I was working on was a smaller project, ~1000 lines of code.

I try to minimize imports, and am not touching them often. I'm very considerate of what I'm adding to a codebase, so I don't mind the extra space in my head. Also keep reference docs for the language and libraries on hand or accessible, to alleviate some of the need.

And I consider frequent renaming to be a sign that I hadn't thought out the problem well enough before starting. When I see a true need, I use Multifile Find (& Replace) in Sublime, multi-step process for audit followed by action.

And I've always found auto-complete's to be more frustrating that a saver of time, especially those that would fire on whitespace, so disable them or put them under a secondary keymap.

I'm sure the IDE saves some time, for many, but all the reasons people use them are mostly annoyances to me. Though there are still some merit, like having an embedded debugger and intelligent index of signatures.

In the case of Java, while the IDE systems are good, the last time I used Java I decided to do it within an editor and use CLI scripts for building and packaging, and enjoyed it much more than any Java IDE in past experience. It made me feel more productive, anecdotally.

Mind you most of my prior Java experience was 2007-2010, and the last time with the editor + CLI was in 2014, and just with a fun example. The editor + CLI workflow was still solid and similar to Node or Python workflow in that regard.