joslin01

Genuine confusion here -- how can you assert time is real?

From my limited understanding, time is merely the measurement of change. A comet goes from point A to B, and like a screen flickering, it is in a discrete point in space every step along the way. It is time that is introduced when asking ourselves, "how long did it take?" or "when was it at X?" but how can it be woven into the fabric of the universe? If we take reality to be right here, right now, it doesn't seem to exist but rather is a human invention to help us map change.

Don't miss out on the lessons as well: http://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Virtual_Wo...

Would be curious to hear what Elasticsearch is doing wrong if you don't mind. I have no dog in the fight, I just always hear good things.

Yes, and a few sentences later for context:

"Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64 percent by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up"

I'm just curious -- do you have anything nice to say?

While I applaud your valor, I am grateful I clicked on this because I've only heard ATM scanner used in passing conversation -- had no idea they could be outfitted like this. Your parent comment & this comment make it seem like you got a chip on your shoulder.

I would advise learning to enjoy the taste of coffee. Yes, all people are different but most people come to develop a taste for tea & coffee, which becomes a rewarding hobby of sorts.

Sure, but looking at their historic revenue, you're going from ~1.8B between 2007 - 2009 down to ~1.1B 2011-present[1]. In fact, their latest quarter for Mar 2016 only netted them 1.08B.

This is a ton of money and I reckon they could last a long time on it, but I believe the investor-mindset is something like "if you're not growing, you're dying" and if you're dying, you should probably sell at your peak. Looking at Yahoo revenue, it's clear they're dying and as a result, I wouldn't paint this as just greedy investors being greedy.

[1] - https://ycharts.com/companies/YHOO/revenues

> She has defended her strategy by stressing that growth is the lifeblood of internet businesses.

Or, you know, utility.

It's funny how she defends all these acquisitions underneath some imaginary fable that growth == success. Google didn't reach where it is today because it grew fast -- it was able to grow because it has basic utility and was known as the best amongst the competitors.

The key question for Yahoo has always been, what is the core part of our business that users love us for? As she probably knew, fantasy sports is a big one, but unfortunately that's not going to be enough for a company as large as Yahoo. As a result, they bought up a bunch of startups to try and find more core-utility.

It's been fun to watch, but I'm with the crowd that says Yahoo can't really change and should just sell its core off. When the average consumer thinks internet, they're not thinking "oh thank god Yahoo is there", but without Google or Amazon -- two companies that can justify aggressive growth -- we'd be left with a shoddier internet and that's just the basic truth of it all.

He's expressing his concern for the politicalization of the climate issue. It's the same concern that one might have had for the "war on poverty" in which the clout & organizations surrounding the issue become more important than the issue itself.

He's also expressing concern for wealthy individuals concerning themselves with "climate change", but don't have the capability to make a direct, observable impact. He thus raises the question: "If we can save 10 humans now, is it worth worrying about saving 100 later?"

This is a deeply philosophical issue that deserves thoughtful discourse, but it seems you've devolved it into a battle and put intent behind his words such as "you criticize the behaviors of climate change activists" that probably don't fairly represent his.

Unless you're insane, I don't think you have motive to kill someone who bumps into you on the subway.

I'm 30- and I always start with the data first as well. Linus said good programmers always think data first, and that resonated a lot with me when I first started coding. As I got further along, I realized how true it was that application logic often follows the data model.

Treating data as an afterthought is a great way to have to be re-defining your application logic every time you re-define your data because you forgot something.

What? It absolutely has to do with the language.

Ruby binary trees: 57 seconds Scala binary trees: 11 seconds

[1] - http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/ruby.html [2] - http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/scala.html

I want you to know this comment is every bit as subjective and "not helpful / convincing" as you think mine is except mine had deductive reasoning -- yours is just anecdotal. I only been coding for 10 years, so maybe some veterans who been coding since the 70s can share their experience and we can weigh it against yours.

I also question that you indeed are a faster scanner. Here's a specific example I wonder if your scanning would win out on -- Xcode turns internal Cocoa classes blue whereas your own classes are green. You quickly know what you coded and what you didn't. Not helpful? Should already know? I wonder if you inherited someone else's code base if you would enjoy the green immediate feedback rather than the inference you would otherwise have to take.

> It's easy to spot all the verbs, but why on Earth would you want to do that?

The big difference between genuine reading and coding is the variability of scanning / focus. When you read, you usually want to take it all in -- it wouldn't make sense to jump around because it's a single, linear journey.

Code does not observe this rule, so the more experience you get as a coder, the better scanner you become. You quickly view a class and think "ah yes yes.. it's _roughly_ doing this.. that" -- you sure as heck don't read the whole thing carefully word by word! The best coders are amazing scanners -- capable of pointing out a missing parenthesis in a sea of parenthesis. This argument against syntax highlighting is like taking the batteries outta our flashlight. Sure, we'd be more careful but our productivity would surely suffer.

I talked to a CTO once that said he brought his RoR fleet down from 60 servers to 6-8 by switching to Scala.

You pull the child-card to justify discriminated taxation against the poor, but I pull the 47y/o free-willed bummed out waiter card. Shall we start unfairly taxing sugar as well, which is probably a bigger epidemic than tobacco amongst children[1]?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

If you're interested in indoor farming, you'd probably be interested in aquaponics[1] -- the successful integration of hydroponics & aquaculture.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYR9s6chrI0

They smoke/drink more because they're stressed more since they have menial jobs coupled with poor financials. It's not crazy for the 47y/o waitress to feel like he's "stuck", and as a result, indulge in smaller forms of pleasure for temporary escape from the bleak reality of his life. It's for this reason that I believe unfair taxation upon cigarettes is morally corrupt. It's literally pushing them into a deeper hole.

> and my enormous trust fund.

Almost lost my shit until I read further and realized it was satire. What a great line.

I'm with you 100%. Both terms just feel shallow.

You might be interested in A Course in Miracles.

I share your skepticism, but this is what people are saying.

Some take this a step further and gaze at the sun. It's called "sun-gazing" and the proponents are thoroughly convinced of its effects. One man, Hira Manek, says he lives off sun-gazing. Some say it has cured their vision.

The basic idea is that you gaze at the sun for ~10 seconds the first day, then up another 10 seconds next day, and so on... you eventually grow upwards to 40m.

Having tried it a few times, I would attest to its beneficence, but don't expect any serious scientific study backing it. It's very, very new-age. Also, don't go blaming me if you hurt your eyes. Do your research on it.

Jumping in late, but no. High quality problems solved make a stable future where things like like transplants are just "solved." You cannot say the same for social networks, which are actually much more reflective of the current culture. We will not look back 50 years from now and say "oh man, thank god Snapchat came along" the way we'll be saying "thank god we pioneered that medical tech which continues to save lives to this day"

Naw man, that's just how it goes in VC world. You have to play it like that. It's like a roulette table -- hard to hit a number but pays out 33x. Well, similarly, a very successful start-up can pay out 100-1000x and easily carry the other losers.

I prefer Google's built into Chrome where you start typing (e.g.) amaz then let it autocomplete then press <tab> then search away. Easier than remembering bangs and gets me a headstart on somewhere I know I'm already going (youtube is another good one)

I'd like inheritance / polymorphism. For example, would love to subclass `AppUser` from `User`. I realize it's on your backlog, but just figure I'd give it another +1.

To answer your question, Realm blows away Core Data & straight up SQLite. The context management (or lack thereof) is wonderful. Going further, I have found the errors self-explanatory and easy to fix. Finally, nice job throwing an exception trying to start a write block in a write block -- this forces client programmer to really think about where their writes happen instead of blindly writing all the time (and inevitably running into a nested write).

It was the first language taught at my university and I wholeheartedly agree. Java was actually more confusing because I couldn't comprehend what the classes/objects things were at first. I just knew functions.

What did you think when I told a story how to lose at credit cards? That I was financially responsible? Did you think I thought I was financially responsible. Honestly your comment states the obvious and is just rude, so no you did not "have to say" it I'm afraid. I bear the tolls my financial foolishness cost me. Keep your judgments in your head and do not justify them with a smug veil of concern ("I'm afraid" "good, I guess")

Do you feel good about yourself now?

FWIW: This story is not a present tale but one that happened to me. I'm shrewd enough to see my way out of foolishness -- a quality you spare me in your claim that I'll be in bankruptancy court.