melloclello

But Bitbucket is fricken awful though. I think I have an allergy to everything designed by Atlassian

I'd imagine it's not easy to render the text out into Times without UIKit or equivalent? Pretty cool that it has that built in, though.

Wow, Swift is perfect for doing this kind of thing

Keen as, would love an invite. (daniel {at} protonome.com)

I did the same thing once for a dialog box on an iPhone app. The check would fail instantly if the phone was offline. It didn't feel "right" and we didn't really have the time to change the UX so I just added a random delay of between 1.0 to 1.5 seconds. Still in production today.

Unison bears linking in this thread I think.

- http://unisonweb.org

- http://unisonweb.org/2015-05-07/about.html#post-start

Expand?

I found the same thing, in Ruby -> was split up, while in Swift it was fine.

I'm finding it works fine in OS X's Terminal.app and (by extension) emacs and vim (El Capitan 10.11).

Cheers mate! That's probably the first sale I've had in about four months...

Shamelessly plugging my iOS RPN calc : http://protonome.com/apps/calx/

Which 2048 app?

Oh my giddy aunt the lark syntax bit~

As if it wasn't obtuse enough, why the fuck does it alternate -+/<> ???

I just want to say I recently fired up an old ThinkPad from 1999 and man, pixels were big back then. I opened up Word '98 and started typing and those big, pixelated, non-antialiased Times New Roman letters looked fantastic on that old screen.

Wow, it's crazy to see just how little CoreAudio code you actually need to get up and running - I was always intimidated by this and have always resorted to frameworks (first TheAmazingAudioEngine [1], now AudioKit [2]) in the past.

Has it been easy working this way?

[1] http://theamazingaudioengine.com/

[2] http://audiokit.io/

I found this tutorial somewhat more cogent than most of the previous literature... I don't mean to be a dick but did Curtis write this one or someone else?

There may not necessarily be any 'tricking' going on, perhaps our hypothetical oil company started prospecting under one government and there's been an election/regime change since then...

And I guess if the other country can seriously threaten force without bluffing then we never really had sovereignty all along...

Call me socialist but I actually kinda like the idea that my country can just nationalise whatever if we just so feel like it. Sure, it would ruin our reputation, but I like to think sovereignty means something, right?

I tell you what, if I was PM of my country and, say, a foreign company discovered a significant oil field within our territory, I would want to nationalise the shit out of it, reputation be damned.

There used to be this great video online, 'Three hours of MTV from 1983' [1]. It began with the VJ giving away t-shirts to promote the new Police album, Synchronicity. Looks like it went down when Youtube ate Google Video.

[1] http://www.appelogen.be/2008/01/25/3-uur-mtv-uit-1983/

"a string can be slack in many ways, but taut in only one"

0 is true, everything else is false. At least that's my intuition.

You would think with all the posts about East Germany on here lately people would recognise this.

Edit: playing devil's advocate, you could almost argue that the surveillance system in the UK is at least a lot better than that of Airstrip One/the GDR - while the level of surveillance is perhaps about the same, the Thought Police/Stasi used it to feed their obsession with picking up harmless political dissenters, while at the very least GHCQ seems to (thankfully) be focussed on (somewhat) more genuine existential threats.

Hoon?

The Book of the Machines (Erewhon chapter 23 [1]) predicts networked machines and even that we would teach their programming languages to children:

“As yet the machines receive their impressions through the agency of man’s senses: one travelling machine calls to another in a shrill accent of alarm and the other instantly retires; but it is through the ears of the driver that the voice of the one has acted upon the other. Had there been no driver, the callee would have been deaf to the caller. There was a time when it must have seemed highly improbable that machines should learn to make their wants known by sound, even through the ears of man; may we not conceive, then, that a day will come when those ears will be no longer needed, and the hearing will be done by the delicacy of the machine’s own construction? — when its language shall have been developed from the cry of animals to a speech as intricate as our own?

“It is possible that by that time children will learn the differential calculus — as they learn now to speak — from their mothers and nurses, or that they may talk in the hypothetical language, and work rule of three sums, as soon as they are born; but this is not probable; we cannot calculate on any corresponding advance in man’s intellectual or physical powers which shall be a set-off against the far greater development which seems in store for the machines. Some people may say that man’s moral influence will suffice to rule them; but I cannot think it will ever be safe to repose much trust in the moral sense of any machine.

“Again, might not the glory of the machines consist in their being without this same boasted gift of language? ‘Silence,’ it has been said by one writer, ‘is a virtue which renders us agreeable to our fellow-creatures.’”

[1] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/butler-samuel/187...

Blimey, it's a Teasmade for 2015

I feel like it could be used to construct mechanical calendars.

It's worth remembering that most people who work in customer service have been around the block so many times they hate the people they have to deal with by default. Most folks I know who work in retail or the hospitality industry will openly state they hate you just for walking in the door.

Professionalism be damned, whether you're a disgruntled barista or a disgruntled anaesthesiologist, everybody needs to be able to vent by ripping into their customers sometimes.

> Machines will never understand why

humans don't really understand why either, if it didn't stop us, why should it stop a machine?

I'd say the sport is less about who defeats whom but the style in which it is done, more figure skating than boxing.

You're probably right, this is a far more realistic scenario. I have a bit of a soft spot for dystopia.

I expect in the short run we'll see different tribes of self-driving cars - say Google vs. Uber - who will actively communicate cooperatively with their in-group, but actually compete against the out-group, depending upon whether or not their host companies decide to cooperate or not.

In the long run, I expect cars to become smart enough to be self-owning, in which case it's every car for himself.