lehmannro

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101298

There were solutions for this Internet thing 50 years ago, even if it's hardly imaginable today. If the problem you are speaking about is communication we had that 2000 years ago, in form of smoke signals. It sucked and was dog slow but it was not an unknown problem.

[1] http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

[2] http://www.google.com/+1/button/

[3] https://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answe...

While I agree that its search engine is its most popular product it is not profitable in its own right. Google claims that "advertising revenues made up 97% of our revenues" in its Q3/2010 filings and that means advertising placed through AdSense/AdWords on other sites too:

We derive most of our additional revenues from offering display advertising management services to advertisers, ad agencies, and publishers, as well as licensing our enterprise products, search solutions, and web search technology.

-- http://investor.google.com/documents/20100930_google_10Q.htm...

If you cannot name at least 5 things you dislike about the tools and languages you use you're either in the honeymoon period, or irrational. --Jesse Noller

Crash 'n' Burn is the practice of trying impossible sets (ie. girls) with the assumption of being rejected. If you are sure you will blow it big time, you can as well do and learn something from it.

Another tangentially related technique against rejection angst is the Three Seconds Rule which mandates you talk to some stranger before thinking for too long (which is really a different, short-term approach to the Rejection Therapy game).

From your other comments I understand you are from the US and I guess its a wholly different matter across the pond, but I for one cannot reproduce these effects here in Germany. Sure, most -- rough estimate: all -- of my contacts do have accounts on various social networks (me included) but we have never critically relied on it. It never gained quite as much traction as I always hear from Facebook.

I could make up a similar argument the other way around: to me, services like Facebook provide little to no value; I can quit them just fine. I have communication details of a lifetime in Google, I store my documents with them, organize my calendar. (Note: I have heard Google's export features are quite okayish so that argument does not really hold.)

I'm unsure about the handiness of that, given that I usually do not struggle do find a working implementation of an algorithm (think Rosettacode http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page) but rather which algorithm I actually want to use. I appreciate Python's standard library largely hiding the implementation details from me but rather concentrating on use cases.

Edited to clarify: the list of algorithms is fetched from Wikipedia. I think he wants to publish his algorithms in Wikipedia, not sure abut that though.

   >>> x = (lambda: (yield 1))() # generator with one step
   >>> y = tuple(x)[0]
   >>> y
   1
   >>> list(x) # exhausted
   []

   >>> x = (lambda: (yield 1))()
   >>> y, = x
   >>> y
   1
   >>> list(x) # exhausted, too!
   []

It's based on the commit history rather than local actions and should work on Git, Subversion, Mercurial, and Bazaar. I am still low on achievements (about half a dozen implemented) but tried to make the API for third-party achievements as easy as possible; patches welcome!

I think this is not helpful at all, probably harmful. There might be use cases for my code I did not even think about and third-party programmers should well be able to use it as they wish. And if they feel like modifying internal state (which the author deems fragile in his article) -- oh well! We are all adults here.

NB. I agree that the library he's examining is sub-par quality and is well worth a look.

Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript.

Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.