>they also frequently identify themselves as straight
They also frequently identify themselves as gay. I have seen more gay shit on 4chan without trying than any other website I have ever been to in my entire life. It's not easy for a 13 year old boy to see three men making love while dressed up like bunny rabbits. But hey, that was the internet, and that was 4chan. You had/have truly free speech. The beauty of the old internet in which OP is talking about is that everyone is discriminated against equally. No one gets a pass. If you reveal who you are, you are opening up yourself to heavy criticism. This is true in the real world, people just aren't honest about it.
Thanks for sharing this. This article was really helpful to a newb like myself and explained things a lot of articles like this skip over (like the '-' in the cat command).
I think the only problem here is that not everyone can handle the internet. And worse, instead of realizing this, they expect websites to cater to their special needs. They are expecting websites to babysit them, to put people they don't like on timeouts, to exclude participation from anyone they don't like. This has been a huge issue since the internet became popularized. Things were not always this way.
So what exactly are you proposing. Are you saying that the large subreddits that appear on the front page should be replaced with other subs because the moderators aren't doing a good enough job of excluding the kind of participation you want them to exclude?
The article is about why so many people were able to customize their myspace pages but not their internet browsers. It's about the transition of a new user to that of a programmer. My response is in the context of the article. It has nothing to do with whether or not IDE's are good or bad for advanced users with large projects.
But that's the point. I didn't need to understand 10 commands in the terminal to run the application. A very small barrier. What IDE's did was create a huge barrier between me and all the other programmers. If something broke or I needed to learn something new, it was all in the context of this magical black box. I wasn't learning how to use my computer. I was learning how to use someone else's program. I could get from point A to point B without knowing what was going on, but ultimately that just caused a lot of frustration. How long would it actually take you to teach a student to compile and run a program written in C?
This example requires the user to be able to do the following that an IDE would not:
Versus throwing them into a black box where they are overwhelmed with buttons and gizmos and are encouraged to give up on the idea that they will ever know what's going on. Do you honestly think it's not worth the time to teach students how to use the terminal?
The article agrees with you. It tries to explain why millions of people can add waypoints in SC, but can't build a greasemonkey script for their facebook.
I think it's much simpler to learn 10 commands in the terminal and use text files than try to grasp what's going on in an IDE. I understand the corner case for GUI building. My first language was C# and this is how I learned how to program. I had no idea what was going on. I had no idea how events worked and the Property Inspector seemed to have a million nuances. I didn't care about learning how to program. I just wanted to make my ideas a reality. The result of this was a lot of frustration. I would say if you are just trying to get something done. You have a product or an idea that you just need to make a reality as soon as possible. If you don't have the patience to wait a month before you can make a GUI, then sure IDE's will do a lot of things for you. But if you plan on programming for more than 6 months, it's worth it to do it the simple way, that makes sense to you. Even if that means you won't be able to get a GUI up and running in 5 seconds.
Excellent article. The one thing I disagree with is IDE's. I think that they actually present an overly complex interface that is daunting to the new user, not helpful. Ditching IDE's and switching to a text editor and CLI has made every aspect of programming easier for me to understand. As a new user, the price I paid to be able to click a button and run my program, was far greater than the price of learning how to run it from a CLI. I wish I had listened sooner to all the people telling me not to use IDE's.
Why would there even be a spectrum? Maybe a 2 dimensional spectrum. I'm sure someone can be both an extreme introvert and an extreme extrovert. Honestly, I think the idea is ludicrous. People aren't so different. But if there is hard science to back it up, I'd be willing to have my mind changed.
Is there any hard science that supports that you can generalize the entire population into two categories: introverts and extroverts? I find this impossible to believe.
Let's be honest. The things the article is talking about are largely a reflection of people's demands. The type of people who are looking for self help are clearly not looking for lessons in humility. There is a type of person who would experience problems in their life from not having enough humility. Maybe the number of these people who experience enough personal problems to seek self help has gone down. Perhaps this means that our society has actually become more humble, since there isn't a demand for the value anymore. Or maybe it means that people without humility simply don't experience as many problems anymore? Or maybe a lack of humility would prevent you from seeking self help in the first place. You see these statistics could go many ways depending on how you want to interpret them.
My 2cents: Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" will always hold true. Additionally, many books on business relationships. One that comes to mind is, "What they don't teach you at Harvard Business School." Fake it til you make it is a viable self help strategy. But truthfully, I think the best thing to do is to surround yourself with people who represent the values you want to imitate.
Personally, I don't think it needs to be there at all. There are other ways to make it more interesting, like imagining a world where it's illegal for humans to drive, than to lazily call the cars boring just to troll.
BBC always seems to add commentary where there is no need for commentary. It's like they are trying to stir up controversy just to sell people on the stories. Personally, I don't think there's anything boring about a car driving itself. The fact that it is so safe, is actually really exciting. If it is proved that these cars are better, safer drivers than humans that is something really exciting. Can you imagine human driving being illegal in 20 years because it's so unsafe? How's that for excitement. There's no reason for BBC to try so hard to appeal to our emotion. The story is great in and of itself.
Do you actually believe that this is the first time that someone has posted a made up story to Missed Connections? I'm sure people have been posting made up stories since day 1. Made up stories on the internet are not novel. I'm sorry. Publishing fake stories has been around since publication. I guess you didn't actually read what I wrote. While the authenticity is not important, the believability of any piece of writing is paramount. Especially when that piece is trying to be passed as authentic. You would think that would go without saying.
A is not true. There have been many studies on eye witness testimony that disprove everything your saying. The reality is that our brain fills in many, many gaps.
B, you completely missed the point. Just completely missed the point to read that sentence the way you wanted to, "many of the details are completely meaningless to the premise that is presented" has nothing to do with memory. That's why it starts with "Even if we believed someone could have a memory this crystal clear...." So why are you even bothering to argue about memory with me when I gave the memory the benefit of the doubt in my argument?
Can someone clarify this for me? From watching their video, it seems like all they've done is build a tool that visualizes DNA? I don't understand how the tool assists with visual differences in DNA. I expected maybe a single DNA sequence in one color with the differences highlighted in a contrasting color. Maybe the video just didn't do a good job of explaining things.
Yes. The post is clearly fake. Even if the author hadn't messed up with any facts, the style of the writing gave it way. You'll notice that there are tons and tons of details. Everything is as specific as possible in an effort to adhere to "Show Not Tell". Even if we believed someone could have a memory this crystal clear after 40 years, many of the details are completely meaningless to the premise that is presented (a man thanking a woman for human interaction when he needed it most).
Presenting made up stories as authentic is by no means a new idea. To say it's an "evolution of artistic expression" is to give this piece and its author far too much credit. You're right, it does not matter if it is real or fake, but it absolutely matters if it is believable. You and I have read and believed many made up stories in our lifetime. Our instinct is to believe what we read. There could not have been a greater failure on the writer's part than to present us a piece that forces us to question its authenticity. The writer should give us no choice but to believe. Regardless of if the piece is true or not.
I don't believe this post, and I think the author should have done a better job of making it realistic since that was clearly the goal of using craigslist. There are countless authentic (and believable though false) anecdotes available today because of the internet. I would have liked to see the author do more research, to have read some of the aforementioned writings, ditch the traditional rulebook, and create something I could believe. They clearly have a knack for writing, but their adherence to so many traditional rules destroys what they were trying to accomplish. Every day people with much less talent make up stories that are readily believed. (Reposted links with claims of being the original poster are the easiest to find examples of this.) It's a shame. This was a marvelous idea. And I hope the next time I read this author's work, I'll have no choice but to believe.