muaddirac

I know it's protected information, but I am curious which types of fraud these amounts are awarded for. There seems to be lot of unpunished public examples of securities fraud (MLMs, cryptocurrencies, legislators dumping or buying stocks at convenient times, etc).

I've noticed a related effect, where every problem discussed in a retro has a "process" solution, because the team's own processes are the only thing the team can fully control.

This can lead to both a constant churn in processes and a piling on of additional processes, which bog the team down with an explosion of on-call-like rolls that get rotated through team members.

I used to help teach kids (12-16ish) how to code.

One thing that we always did towards the beginning of a class was an exercise where we tell them to write down the steps to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Then we'd literally get bread, peanut butter, and jelly, and follow their instructions to the letter. No one ever adequately describes the process: "put peanut butter on bread" - With what? the jar is closed, I can't! etc.

You might argue this introduces too imperative a thought process - but it gets the "computers do exactly what you tell them to" idea across very well.

Since I didn't see this elsewhere - client certs have privacy concerns, because by the time you've done your handshake the other side knows exactly who you are. This pretty much rules out always-presented certs. Because of that, you would need to manage the certs more directly, and then you get into all of the UX issues around managing certs.

> DataHand, a two-thousand-dollar sensor-laden, ergonomic “keyboard without keys.”

Not as defunct as you might think! See: https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=41422.0

I think the McDonalds of the future may look more like a vending machine than a restaurant. Of the the things you listed, only "test a burger patty for the correct internal temperature" is actually related to producing McDonalds food, and that is certainly automatable.

But that aside, if all that's left is basic cleaning then McDonalds could simply contract a cleaning service. I'd guess that a single team could service at least 10 fast food restaurants a day. And then how many years before running the cleaning service only requires one person?

I loved the old Myst-like Connections game.

Might take some work to figure out how to run this on modern hardware, but I found it on myabandonware[0] if anyone's interested. They do have a guide[1] for how to play it.

I also just discovered there was a clip from it in recently-released and HN-discussed The Witness!

[0]: http://www.myabandonware.com/game/connections-3i2 [1]: http://www.myabandonware.com/howto/#mac

I really appreciate this description. Always nice to see the "actual" definitions instead of "it's like a thing you can map over."

I initially had problems understanding monads in Haskell having come from a math perspective.

> You’re unlikely to see +1-DDoS-type behavior inside private repos, for example.

Maybe not, but the lack of an "Approval" system is keeping us from moving from Bitbucket to Github. The proposed fix for +1 spamming could easily serve as an approval system for us.

(Bitbucket, I might add, has also become incredibly stagnant, as can be seen by this long standing issue to support Markdown[0])

[0]: https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/6930/support-some-o...

Where I live there is a minimum fare of $75 imposed on Uber cars leaving from the airport. I took an Uber there and had a great, simple experience ($34 fare) but had to take a taxi back when returning from my trip.

The cab was falling apart. One of the doors didn't open from the inside. The axles made horrible, periodic thunking sounds (I'd guess the CV joints but am no car expert). The engine light, the wheel stability light, and the SRS warning light lit up the dash. The cab driver drove 10-15mph over the speed limit and nearly side-swiped several other cars. I asked to pay with a card and was met with a grunt of disgust, even as I added a standard 10% tip.

I understand there are some regulation issues related to Uber in many cities, but given the experiences I've had, I can't wait to be rid of taxis.

I should add that in London I had the opposite experience, where the standard cabs (and official app) were fantastic, but Uber was price gouging during a tube strike.

One of the many good points that Lanier made was that there is not currently an inevitable, moore's-law-like progression that will take modern AI methods towards the "superintelligence" that is meant when AI is discussed as an existential threat.

Coupling that with the fact that any AI will be limited by its human-defined interface leaves me pretty unconcerned about AI, even if we ever figure out what truly makes a conscious, intelligent being and determine how to replicate it fully in some other medium.

That said, I appreciate Bostrom's work as a philosophical rather than practical matter.

I enjoyed reading it - it's amusing and some of it resonates with my experiences.

...But I don't think it's great satire, for the reasons you point out.

I think its ubiquity is important (installed by default on most non-Windows machines, at least in my experience) combined with the simplicity of running a python script.

Now that Microsoft is supporting non-Windows with .Net core, C# is more attractive. That said, if I was thinking compiled Python with static typing my mind would go to Go.

Lots of options!

I'm not an expert, but there is some evidence that nicotine alone can lead to heart disease.

I would recommend listening to this sometime: http://www.maximumfun.org/sawbones/sawbones-vitamins

I'd be curious to see if you still hold the same opinions. (It's a very entertaining podcast too!)

I could see an object-capability based scheme working well.

Apple is probably in the unique position to actually implement such a system successfully, controlling the hardware, os, and even language choice.

That's very interesting, but other than in name not related to the article.

If you didn't read it I would recommend you do - it's possibly one of the most interesting and reflective things I've ever read about programming as a profession.

I always liked the mathy symbols used in The Five Doctors (for more see: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/67524/can-gallifrey... )

I think object-capability based access control would solve the problem as well. If the login screen is only given the capability to talk to the authentication program, then even if you could force opening photos, you wouldn't have the capabilities to hand to the photos app to actually view them.

That's perfectly reasonable. Sorry if it seemed like I was making a fuss.

Wasn't trying to pass judgment on the kid; even if he bought a brand new clock and stuck it in a case, I still think that's an admirable quality. The media is picking it up as he "made" a clock, and to me that didn't fit well with the photos.

I don't think it has much bearing on the reaction to bringing the clock to his school, but man it really bothered me when I saw a picture of it - who adds a 9v connector like that to what would almost certainly be a first or second shot at an electronics project? (If it were only powered by 9v, like a small headphone amp, sure, but who's that concerned with backup power on a learning project?)

Sure, for consuming the API - but does RAML have to be used this way? Couldn't RAML be used to generate test expectations or even (with tooling that probably doesn't exist) actually generate the API itself?

I studied monads in a Categorical context in college (Domain Theory, if interested).

Monads can be understood very simply in Category Theory if you don't care so much about the details: pick a couple of your favorite categories (which is just a bunch of objects with morphisms) and find a functor between them. Then find a functor back the other way. Composing those two functors gives a Monad - a functor from a category back into itself (an endofunctor). Not just any endofunctor will be a Monad though, so if you start with an endofunctor (instead of two functors) you need to also have two other "natural transformations". (That endofunctor + the two natural transformations is why monads are sometimes called triples).

The application of monads to programming was not obvious to me, even having dealt with them a bit mathematically. I started looking at Haskell earlier this year and it turns out that a Monad in haskell is defined on the Hask category, where objects are types and morphisms are functions between them. Even that wasn't enough for me to get why they're useful, and that seems to be because as far as I can tell they're only used for "threading" state through a series of functions...but perhaps I'm still missing something?

I can't shake the feeling that this will just measure of how willing people are to follow instructions for no reason whatsoever.

"In some of these cases, we have explicit permission from the authors to relicense sections of relevant code." (from linked page, though only very recently added)

Will a major OS vendor ever start taking object-capability ideas seriously? It seems this is part of a class of vulnerabilities that simply couldn't occur under that model.

Out of curiousity, are there legal ramifications to the "asshole" scenario? What recourse would the person being fired have?

> Talking about documentation, purists claim that the only piece of information API should expose is the root URI, e.g. www.example.com/api. Everything else, including allowed methods, resources, content types and documents should be discovered via HATEOAS. And if URIs are not officially documented but instead should be discovered, it implies we should not rely on hard-coded URIs in our code but instead traverse the resource tree every time we use such API.

discoverable != must be discovered

This is a misconception and criticism I used to have. However, it's a misunderstanding of the point of HATEOAS - the point isn't that you can't use hard-coded URIs, but that any given URI should be reachable by traversal from the root URI.

In other words, it's fine to keep a bookmark to your favorite article, just make sure you can get to that article from the homepage, too.

(I guess I would say modulo redirects as well)

I'd say they're on par with das.

Wouldn't you want your arrow to wobble so that it has a node right at the tip? The archer they interview says he that he times the wobble to be able to hit an aspirin, but in the slow motion video at the end, you can see that while the arrow shaft wobbles a lot, the tip of the arrow remains relatively true.