232 karma · joined September 16, 2015
It's hard to measure what 'benefit' means.
These things are a matter of choice as much as anything else.
Moreover, it may very well be that some of the answers were 'primed' by the content of the retreat.
If you don't want ads - then you have to pay for the apps.
Get it?
This has nothing to do with technology, ad-blockers, advertisers or anything else.
It's not even at the level of 'economics'.
No pay / No ads = no content.
None of you teenagers have been able to counter that point yet.
> 99% of Apps and Websites with content would disappear if there was no ad revenue or payment.
I can't believe that any of you are finished school and have jobs, because all this talk of 'turing machines' is laughable and incredulous.
You people are naively deluded.
" No ads = they don't exist = no content. It's not my job to worry about their business model."
You don't seem to grasp the realpolitik here.
No ads = no content - in the long run.
Get it?
You don't seem to grasp the math here.
If there are no ads, they, and all their peers cease to exist.
Or else they go full paywall.
I'm not even making an ideological statement - although I could very well do that, I don't need to.
Do you know the reason that there are maybe 1/3 the number of foreign correspondents for major news networks - and why there is so little coverage of Middle East etc? Because CNN now competes with click-farms like Buzzfeed. Less revenue = less product.
So it's the 'choice' consumers make.
These things don't exist in a vacuum they are real.
You don't want ads, you don't want to pay - they you are 'de facto' saying you don't want the content in the long run.
There is no argument against this - you can rant and rave as much as you want about side issues such as 'the http stream belongs to me' yada yada yada - it's totally irrelevant.
No ads (or pay, or donations) = no content.
It's as simple as that.
"This may sound greedy to you, but for you to have the absolute gall of telling people that they need to expose their computers to malware is purely asinine."
No - I am not exposing people to malware by suggesting that they 'not use ad blockers'. Because 99.9% of the world does not use adblockers and don't face such malware problems. I'm not even suggesting they 'not use ad blockers'. I'm merely pointing out the reality of the situation.
Denying reality is the only 'asinine' thing going on here.
No ads = not much for you to download.
Realpolitik will very quickly trump any ideological arguments.
This is not true at all.
You see ads all the time in apps you have on your mobile device (i.e. non browser) - and there is nothing you can do about it. Is the world freaking out over the consumers ability to 'control which ads come up in a specific app'? Not really.
No they are not. They are willing to serve you pages with ads. Not pages without ads.
The logic that you guys use is pretty twisted.
These companies exist because of ads.
No ads = they don't exist = no content.
In the long run:
A) They will find a way around it in which case you will see ads.
or B) They will all be about of business, in which case you get no content.
Nothing is free, everything takes time and energy from someone else.
"is also none of their damn business" obviously it's 'their business'. It is literally their business :)
My bet is that companies just find a way around ad-blocking.
It'll be interesting to see just how.
It might have something to do with profitability and margins.
When you make a lot of money, it's easier to justify investments.
Laid off - your group is redundant or discontinued, they have no need for you or your team/product, they're closing an overseas business unit, or culling 10% of their staff. You're in the wrong boat at the wrong time.
It has different connotations.
Design Patters are simply tools at a higher level of abstraction than the code itself.
They are 'approaches to modelling information'.
That's it.
Use them, hack them, or not.
I've found them handy enough, though never implemented anything precisely. They make sense when communicating ideas as well.
I don't see why there is a need for debate.
A) The Imperial Navy is a euphimism for the British Navy / Empire.
B) It was filmed in the UK with almost all UK actors.
The new Star Wars - none of the accents are posh really.
Just English accents, again actors, filming etc. - although - I think there was some attempt by JJ to keep it UK-ish in that manner, though I'm not sure.
I could care less about my 'HN karma' -> it's meaningless to me. I made the comment purely in jest.
$500 is not that much more expensive than a Nokia device at the time, and well within the surplus that a good chunk of people have to pay - especially when subsidized by carriers.
$30 000 - $100 000 - is another ballpark entirely in terms of cost. And it has to work out economically or it won't get anywhere, many ingredients are needed to make it work right.
However - I suggest this won't work out like the iPhone.
Why?
Because --> 'new roofs' are not built that often, by that I mean new homes and roofing replacements. And the construction industry has totally different dynamics.
Putting on a 'regular' new roof is expensive. Most people won't consider this tech unless their home is up for a new roof. The other market would be new homes.
So there's a growth/market limit.
Second is price. This kind of technology exists already in many forms. It hasn't been adopted because it's very expensive, and requires some other ugly equipment that has put a drag on PV installation like the conversion technology required to connect to the grid.
The choice to purchase an iPhone is mostly emotional.
The choice in roofing is not. It's definitely mostly a calculation. They are very expensive, and people will look into the long-term conversion value etc.
I'll wager that this new Tesla roof will not be price competitive for current solar/roofing situations, moreover, even if it were - it still might not make sense from a dollars perspective, as the current solar/roof installations basically don't work out economically. It's for wealthier types and/or those with 'green aspirations'.
Finally - these are not things you can buy from wallmart and install yourself. You can't even get your local roofer to do it. Typically, roofers have to be trained on the materials, installation etc.. There is the issue of warranty and distribution for 'new tech' in building - which is slow to adoption. Builders etc. are not 'magpies' like techies. They are averse to new gear, and typically wait for others to figure it out before buying in. Also - they simply tend not to be ver progressive.
Go and ask your local builder if he wants to send his crew to California for 'Training on Tesla's new roof' and his mental calculation will be 'how many of my current customers are asking for it'? And of course the answer will be none.
The fundamental issue with all of this solar tech is that it simply does not generate enough electricity to quite warrant the cost unless all the conditions are right.
+ If it's really sunny a lot + Major government subsidies + A new subdivision was created with 'all solar roofing' thereby keeping the costs down to economies of scale + High electricity prices in the region + The grid is fundamentally designed for renewables
etc. etc.
It takes a lot of the right ingredients.
Second - what you refer to as 'just some bindings' is false.
The Nuance product I have access to (NTE) - is probably something you don't have access to, as very few do.
There's a huge pile of code written 'on Node' because just as JS would be the worst choice of languages to write Dragon in - C#, C++ or Java would be the worst choice in languages to do the stuff they did using Node for, which has a mostly to do with HTTP services, file management, versioning, REST api etc.. The choice of Node + platform libraries made perfect sense for Nuance - and it's perfect validation of Node.
I'll wager you any amount of money that Node is going to grow quite a lot over the next 4-7 years to the point wherein it will be seen as de-facto institutional.
Node has flaws, many of them due to JS, and they have some ugly new NPM fragmentation issues, but it's only growing to grow. Of that there is no doubt.
Node will replace a significant chunk of Java and more-web oriented backend stacks in the years to come.
We've even replaced a bunch of Python scripts with JS, not because JS is better than Python (Python, syntactically is superior) but because of the libraries and platform opportunities. JS/Node is a much more natural fit for large, async tasks than Python.
Finally - the ability to use the same object mode on both front end / back has significant operational advantages when it comes to reuse of components, which we do quite a lot - and don't have time to deal with various bindings.
Node is 'here to stay' as much as any other technology is/was.
It's far more used than you think.
I just had to use some of Nuance's new voice recognition technology - the entire thing except for the voice libraries are in Node.
I think it's a trend, not a fad.
It's not magic, and there are drawbacks ... but Node isn't going anywhere, it's here for a while.
JS is a natural fit for the web and with Typescript now it's made advances.
+ I don't think anyone is complaining about what the tools do, or necessarily their quality.
The fundamental complain is 'churn'. The stack you see today may be replaced in a year - moreover - it's really hard to tell where the community is going. There are few resources (or rather too many) that can tell you what 'works and what doesn't' etc..
Also - many of these problems should not exist in the first place, and kind of illustrate the underlying failures of the web-browser platform in the first place.
Again - great stack. But it won't last long, and it's very expensive to churn.
Recent comment at a JS meetup form some guy: "I just left a startup where I was the key Angular guy, it was all in Angular 1 - I have no idea who's going to support that now that I'm going considering everything is Angular 2 now".
Reasonable assertion.
Also - I'm not so sure the 'do one thing and do it well' theory is always an advantage. There are many solid platforms where things are really well curated by company ABC. I'd suggest that if they do their jobs well, it's better than a community approach.
Obviously - community vs. monolith is not black and white, and there are advantages to each side, but it would be unwise I think to ignore the problems of constant churn.
Another example - just at MS HQ in Montreal for a preso on React. 100 devs in the room were not particularly excited. They seemed more resigned to it than anything. The consensus was 'yet another thing'? I think there is really a big gap between those pro-shops on the cutting edge - and 'everyone else'. And React is by no means trivial.
Yeah - I'm not sure if this is representative.
Moroever, if you're staring a project every other week, you may not be working at the scale/resiliency that most entities need, not even considering legacy etc..
The toolchain churn in JS is too much, especially relative to other platforms.
First - it is the US government - not the US military that supports the Saudi regime and made whatever policies regarding which governments to support. I'll suggest that most US military personnel, on a personal level, are probably uncomfortable with the support for some regimes, particularly Saudi Arabia. It is you the American voter - that de-facto keeps that policy in place - not the US military.
Second - it's wrong to suggest that because the USA favoured 'right wing' or 'left wing' governments somehow equates to the 'oppression of women' and it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Russia, Poland, Croatia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Czech, Slovakia, Montenegro, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Belarus, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Turkministan, Khazaktstan, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Cuba ... arguably Venezuela ...
Shall I go on?
This 'short list', comprising maybe 1/4 of the planet - are of countries where totalitarian leftist regimes have viciously oppressed everyone's rights in the name of a 'glorious egalitarian ideology' and let their people rot in ruin.
In almost every scenario of American intervention, there is a pretty high degree of moral ambiguity. A Chilean Communist, with only 30% of the vote, who invites the Soviets to come in support his total takeover and to impose their version of soviet-style socialism, is hardly a situation of moral progress on the part of such leftists. After US intervention, the US backed right-wing Pinochet tortured 3K people and killed 300 on his path to power, which is obviously terrible, but it might very well have been the far less evil choice of two evils. It's wrong to imply that a soviet backed, non-populist communist takeover of such a country would have yielded much better - and probably worse.
"Furthermore, the united States military's strong internal structure of subservience to upper commanders and reliance on internal courts has led to a culture of sexual violence unpunished."
1) 'Subservience to upper commanders' is a military thing, not a US military thing, and it's a fundamental part of the equation.
2) This is not what led to a culture of sexual violence - moreover, the US military does not have a greater level of sexual violence than many other institutions - the US military does have a group of very aggressive people (by design) which will lead to more negative outcomes. It's very good that things are getting better, but your analysis I think is off.
"What about the support of sexist regimes such as Saudi Arabia?"
Even a very simplistic geopolitical assessment of the situation answers your question quite readily. The only pragmatic option for Saudi right now is a) House of Saud or b) total chaos w/ISIS etc.. There is absolutely no 'movement' of progressives in Saudi Arabia of sufficient popular influence or power to even contemplate a secular government as we might expect in the West. There are competing houses, a somewhat oppressed Shia minority who would love to rise up and mass murder their perceive oppressors (with the help of Iran). Even in a moderately more secular country such as Syria - we can see what happens when there is instability: there is no clear path out of that Pandoras box.
Also - overwhelming majorities of people in that region support most prevailing cultural institutions such as how women are to dress and act etc. Who are you but a Western Imperialist to decided for them what is appropriate and not? Given a vote, you'd be surprised at what many people would chose. It would be far, far more conservative (in the sense of 'traditional') than most progressives would be comfortable with.
Anyhow - it's besides the point. Those policies are chosen by your elected representatives, not the military.
They are a centre-left party.
They are pro-union, strong minimum wage supporters, in Ontario they are making massive investments in green energy that are sadly not very effective (I wish they were), they socialized the University system, and fully socialized healthcare to the point wherein it's illegal to pay a doctor to fix you - that's more 'socialist' than any European country on that point.
A 'Liberal' party in Europe would not support any government that barred private citizens from building a hospital or school - that's a pretty fundamental issue.
But I do agree they share some similarities.
But 'free trade' is one of the issues the socialist have pretty much lost/caved on - although we can almost all agree there can be downsides and weird caveats, on the whole most, even leftish economics buy into the idea of free trade.
FYI 'free trade' between two modern states is a very different thing than 'free trade' between a superpower and a small, agrarian, less-developed economy like USA-Chile or something.
Putting Jenner on the front page of your anything is going to be wildly controversial and upsetting / offensive to a good chunk of people. This just a fact not a moral statement.
I'd suggest this 'social' issue may possibly be at least one of the factors in the decline, it would be difficult to prove, nevertheless, it's a perfectly reasonable speculation. Americans do protest with their wallets.
It'd be nice to see some time-based data for their decline - overlaid with cable cutting trends.
'Liberal' - in every country in the world except the USA (and Canada) means 'Classical Liberalism' which 'economic liberalism' or 'everything not run by the Monarchy'. This is we call the Judiciary and Legislative 'Liberal institutions'. Economic liberals are kind of the old Bourgeoisie.
The 'Liberal' parties of the world are more like 'Libertarian' parties of the US, but they tend to be more 'business' like, and not so much 'anti government' and the don't have this 'don't tread on me' colloquial/aggressive attitude. They tend to be somewhat left-leaning on social issues.
'Neoliberal' is a term to describe those who are 'super free market' proponents, i.e. Chicago school of economics - free trade everywhere, no government 'interference'. etc..
I think what you mean is 'left-leaning' or 'socially leftist dogmatically'.
Also - European Football is not 'left leaning' - it's also what the rest of the world plays, and so do a lot of Americans.
I've read some polls indicating that the vast majority of Americans are upset with Kapernick, and the corporate tone of ESPN is getting fairly PC these days, which can be a good or bad thing depending on ... personally, I think sports is kind of an arena where people want to escape political issues and just play sports. ESPN has made some PC decisions lately and I wonder if this has been a factor myself.
The median age of 'human beings' in America is climbing :)
Here's one example: home teams getting amazing ratings:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2016/07/19/with-2016-...
You'd be surprised at how some of these sports have huge fab-bases without the Kardashian media noise.
Media is changing just as much as anything, and this is a key factor. NYPost/NYT have to keep up to Buzzfeed. ESPN has to keep up with Netflix/online viewership.
Sports will have a harder time because the contracts are locked up and hard to access - whereas an upstart in Film/TV can come along and disrupt.
+ This is not true +
Even when normalized for income - there are still large variations in outcomes.
Again, I'm not really saying it's 'race' or 'genetic' or 'IQ' so be careful with your disdain :).
My friend - do you know the stereotype of the 'Asian who works hard in school because his parents compel him to' - well, it's not just a stereotype, it's true. Some cultures value education more than others. That will show up in the results.
Asian Americans are 600% over-represented in tech (i.e. 5% of population but usually 30% of tech companies). That's not some fluke - and it's not because 'Asians are super rich' - it's obviously a cultural preference. They are choosing STEM and tech for whatever reasons.
It doesn't make some people better or worse than others as human beings, it just means some variations in outcomes whenever you measure something.
This this is what actual 'diversity' really means, though ironically I think most 'pro diversity' advocates really intend to have a hyper-egalitarian situation wherein there is little diversity beyond skin tone :)
I suggest your theory is probably very true for Asian Americans - the one's who came here are 'la creme do la creme'.
But not for Europeans. Europeans that came here were the poorest, the least educated, criminals, fringe religious types etc.. Europe was 100x more civilized than America during early history - why would anyone with any social status leave London in 1800 - to go and live a million miles away, a very, very hard, back-breaking life?
Well - those tenant farmers who could get cheap land and get out from under the thumb of their landlords etc..
But it's a good point.
Teaching in Canada is along the lines of nursing or something: it's professional, requires a degree of competence and certification, there is social value. It's not exactly 'doctor' but it's respected for what it is, as it is in most nations.
I think it's because people assume American teachers are not paid much, but the one's I know are paid reasonably.
Because preeminence of top tier institutions (which are kind of global centres anyhow) - has absolutely nothing to do with teaching math to the commons.
Here's a hint:
+++ Americans don't suck at Math +++
There's a very un-PC but very large elephant in the room that people won't discuss.
+ European American and Asian American 'testing scores' are actually pretty good - and have been holding steady for a very long time. (Asians do a little better). Nothing has changed.
+ Latino American and African Americans fare poorly, but having been getting better since we've been measuring by standards (i.e. 1950's-1970's).
Here's the trick:
+ European Americans actually do better than Europeans - on average. + Asian Americans to better than Asians - on average. + Latino Americans do better than Central/South American Latinos + African Americans do better than Africans.
The key correlating factor here is 'ethnicity'. 'Ethnicity' is the broad, generalist predictor of educational outcomes. This definitely not 'race' and it's not even 'IQ' (those things are plausible but controversial) - it's a series of behaviours, social norms, examples, attitudes towards work, success, access to services, social networks, mentors, role models, etc. etc. etc..
Educational outcomes (and crime stats, income stats) break down along ethnic lines. In a manner of speaking - America can be thought of as 'four nations' - White, Black, Asian and Latino. Obviously - it's very crude and generalist, and policy based on this would probably be racist - nevertheless - you pretty much have to look at the data given this.
In the end: American test score results have more to do with the changing ethnic composition of the American population than they do anything else. Again: White people and Asians in America have performed consistently he same for decades. Teaching methods haven't changed much, students habits haven't changed much - so the outcome is naturally consistent.
More economic prosperity, access to services and different attitudes + deeper integration have meant Latino A. and African A.'s are doing a little bit better - but because there are so many more Americans of those groups - particularly Latino Americans - it changes the outcome of the 'average american test score'.
Analyzing educational results does not make sense until you break it down along ethnic lines. Once you do - it becomes crystal clear. It's the absolute #1 most important thing about the educational data that turns 'paradox' about educational investment (teaching has remained largely the same) and outcomes into 'perfect sense'.
Unfortunately, it's so sensitive few will want to talk about it - for fear that the general public equates educational outcomes to 'intelligence' and try to strongly correlate ethnicity + race to this, which would be fodder for racist/KKK types, which wouldn't really help the overall social situation in America.
Anyhow - America is actually doing pretty well overall.
Again - 100% false. A lot of 'what is in your head' is the IP of the company you worked for.
Clearly, you grasp this, because you people seem to accept that NDA's are valid.
So - that yo accept and 'NDA' is valid, means you accept that 'what is in your head' can be the property of the company.
These 'I'm paid for labour' arguments are naive. You are paid to create outcomes, and to keep information about the company private - indefinitely.
+ My point is nearly everything that you learn at a company could be considered a 'trade secret' - depending on the company or project.
In the example I gave, I listed a variety of situations in which minute operational skills and knowledge, all contribute to be 'key information' regarding the development of the product, and can essentially be 'trade secrets'.
Ergo - it would be nary difficult to work for a competitor and not give that information up.
Buddy - I'm saying there should be no 'non compete' clause in that situation. Obviously - there's no basis for it because there is no IP involved. Which is a case of over-aggressive application of these protocols.
No.
100% false.
If that information is key to the nature and success of a product, then it's called 'know how' and it's both legally and rationally protectable.
You people need to grow up and grasp that fact that once you go to a company and they teach you what they have spent $100 Million dollars on developing, that you cannot walk across the street and spill the beans on 80% of the materiality of that R&D which happens to be such details.