threepipeproblm

I loved this because I have read most of the source material in the context of logic, but never made the lead to type theory in computer science.

No you'd expect people to be complaining about it somewhere at some frequencly...and it hasn't been established that isn't the case. However, if you search for "Google newsletter suddenly spam folder", you can easily find lots posts that are superficially similar-looking, from various time periods.

What if it happens to some high-profile newsletters over every/most any short span of time you might pick?

I only skimmed this so forgive me if I missed something. But could this simply be what happens to you when a sufficient number of email recipients classify you as spam, and you then reach some critical threshold?

>> I changed my sender email address to see if would help

But if the pattern of content got flagged as spam by Google users, the sender address might not be the only determinant.

>> I was relieved to discover that others with newsletters were having similar troubles very recently.

But if this results from crossing some sort of user-classified spam threshold, one would probably always be able to find some recent "victims".

This is not intended as a criticism -- I'm sensitive to Google's seemingly arbitrary power -- just an idea to consider or rule out.

This seems unlikely, based on a past experience writing software for a nuclear facility.

While nothing is unassailable, everything I experienced made me feel generally better about the approach these people took to safety. They wouldn't allow people to use spreadsheets to make decisions... literally this was not allowed, you had to have an app with testing and verification systems. Also, they pointed large automatic weapons at me while searching every crevice of my car, using long sticks with mirrors and various other instruments. It was a relief to see that they take security and reliability more seriously than any other kind of outfit I've worked for, ever. The monitoring had monitoring.

Thanks, that is absolutely worth pointing out. But there is only so much you can do to fix languages when they are designed with problems initially and you want to keep old programs working. I have the same concerns about ES6 BTW, although JavaScript foundations are arguably less flawed overall (excepting a few areas that are just bat shit crazy).

Is public perception the reason you are happy to be mostly using something else now, though?

This lack of insight is why PHP developers have lower average salaries than non-PHP developers.

If you think PHP is looked down on by those who care about language features because of a popularity context, rather than because of asinine language decisions and limited support for modern programming paradigms, I think it's you who is missing it. Since any program can technically be written in any (Turing Complete) language, the fact that some big sites were made to work with PHP also sort of misses the point. When most of the big "success stories" adopted PHP, options for web-friendly open source languages were much thinner. Now if you look at the new development projects they highlight, you don't see PHP come up that much. Facebook, for example, is prominently using Haskell. I don't know anyone who both programs in Haskell and is willing to touch PHP.

Of course, many thoughtful criticisms of PHP have been discussed on HN. e.g. https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/ & http://poincare101.blogspot.com/2011/11/php-sucks-but-some-f....

But MongoDB's own cite cites Indeed.com Job Trends data only through 2012, on the basis that Mongo's growth is a reason to use it.

Current Indeed.com Job Trends data actually show better numbers than the 2102 stats, but nonetheless show MongoDB jobs in decline.

https://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/q-MongoDB.html

Did you try clicking on the cat faces to see if they meowed? Not a proud confession here.

BTW this is a cool project even without the audio.

I was expecting meows.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned CubeHelix -- https://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~dag/CUBEHELIX/ -- which, as I understand it has the property of "working" just as well in grayscale. Handy not only for color blindness but for grayscale printouts of images featuring color. There is support out there for D3 and various other visualization systems.

Right. It's not really a binary problem. Perhaps something like the Windows Action Center, or whatever it's called, is really needed at O/S level to make non-stealing work best as the default.

Good point. It would be fine with me to place the burden of disabling the behavior onto such scripts, though, if I never had to deal with again. Apparently Firefox actually implemented this, so presumably it did break some people's scripts. But for an established O/S, I guess this would be a huge deal.

It seems like the O/S should have some idea of normal human response time and just filter out inputs that follow too closely.

I remember the first time I used X Window and noticed windows not stealing focus. It was one of those times where you realize you have not even understood the full extent of your abuse. Approx. 20 years later and Windows still can't get this basic thing right.

Intermittent fasting does not necessarily entail calorie restriction. However, if low calorie diets work one mechanism is probably autophagy, and intermittent fasting with much more moderate calorie restriction (or without calorie restriction) will also stimulate autophagy. So one could potentially get some of the benefits of calorie restriction while avoiding some of the problems.

All this said, fasting is an extra stressor on the body, I think... something to be aware of.

Autophagy can also be achieved by limiting protein over a certain time window, and some have advocated this as a likely preventative for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzehiemer's, involving "plaques" that are normally cleaned up during authophagy.

I blame https://twitter.com/InternetOfShit

Lol they charge to receive the papers, too?

I don't have any real data on this... my comment was based on my own experience of not being able to afford per-paper fees and certainly not being able to afford subscriptions, whilst observing that the academic institutions seem to have no trouble maintaining access. No idea what the per paper fees would actually work out to for universities (say, the ones actually downloaded/accessed).

As someone who reads a fair number of papers, I definitely feel like the publishers' days are numbered, and not just because of Sci-Hub and LibGen. More and more often now, I can find papers that I want, legally, on the first try. Even more encouraging, I find that when I can't find a paper I often just have to wait a few months and try again to find an open Internet source.

Case in point: a few months ago I wanted this paper -- http://bit.ly/2tE4O4K -- but all the CiteSeerX links were broken and apparently had been for a long while. About two months later it's back. This is just one example, but I find this increasingly works with many papers.

There is also ResearchGate, which is a social network to get papers from an authors, which is legal if they are alive. But their sign-up process is also much harder for independent researchers. You have to "prove you are a researcher," as though attempting to get access to research papers weren't prima facie evidence of that.

In CS the worst paywaller is consistently the ACM.

I believe there have been takedowns of SciHub... it's why they host in multiple countries and maintain multiple domain names.

That most of this research taxpayer funded is indeed a good argument.

Beyond that, people criticized other disrupted industries for continuing to provide poor customer service -- seemingly unable to fight back after decades of treating customers as captive audiences, and taking them for granted. Well if you think the music industry was bad at that, the academic publishing industry is way worse. These guys typically provide no significant value add, yet they want large economic rewards. Meanwhile, journal after journal has been shown incompetent to keep garbage papers -- even papers generated by Markov chains -- out.

My impression is that they also discriminate heavily against individual researchers, many of whom cannot afford exorbitant per-per paper fees, while large (typically subsidized) institutions get much better deals when they are able to afford bulk access.

Lol I don't believe it's worth my time to argue this further, since you haven't made any actual arguments, and you come off as kind of a jerk with all the unsupported claims, not responding to my points, and demanding that I do work for you. Sorry you are blind to this. If you want to understand your deficiencies in this area I'd recommend reading A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander, followed by Design Patterns by the 'Gang of Four', then thinking about the connection between architectural pattern languages and cutting edge software design. Perhaps think about why programmers have taken the time to assemble libraries of anti-pattern examples specifically, analogous to McMansion Hell's.

I guess you can't be bothered to look for yourself, so here is a recent post about architecture concepts.

http://mcmansionhell.com/post/161514422581/mmh-does-architec...

There are many such posts (explicitly theoretical/academic) in the site's history. More importantly, the day to day "McMansion" posts actually back up the theoretical concepts expressed in such posts. Much the way we programmers use both positive and negative examples of Design Patterns.

If you are not aware -- and it seems like you aren't -- the Design Patterns movement in software was inspired by an architecture book that did much the same thing -- showing patterns and anti-patterns -- just with less hipsterism, and more examples than counterexamples.

I mean you obviously have a point, since Zillow exists despite doing what they do. On the other hand, my parents are buying and selling a house right now and I just encouraged my mom to switch to Redfin based on recommendations in this post. As long as there are people who care about this kind of thing it will have some impact.

Its funny how giant douchebags who are trying to "mitigate their risks" never seem to perceive the risk of everyone realizing they are giant douchebags.

For those who don't know the history of the EFF, it is detailed in Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" which is available here http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html and on Amazon. The guy behind Lotus 1-2-3, Mitch Kapor, spent a sizable portion of his spreadsheet fortune setting it up. The events that Kapor and other founders were responding to make quite the riveting tale.

What's ludicrous is acting certain when you obviously don't have any experience with the site. I looked through that site for a few hours, at some point during the past year. It's very insightful and addresses one of the most difficult aspects of design thinking, namely when to use conventional forms and when to violate them.

I think it's largely just human nature. People don't know what they don't know, and those who "make it" without college are often particularly disdainful of academics. They may also be hesitant to hire those with a deeper background (which is a general phenomenon in many areas). In many fields, the percentage who can "make it" without higher education may be higher, but it's certainly do-able in our industry -- especially if they stick to a certain kind of software. Someone in this position may develop a real knack for avoiding hard problems (in the computational complexity sense) without ever quite realizing that is what they are doing. I almost didn't go to college, since I thought I knew it all, and had plenty of offers when I graduated high school. One of the most general things I learned was how much useful stuff there was to know, that I would have never fathomed.

In my experience, people are often hesitant to hire people who are higher on some (perhaps tacit) measure of nerdiness. Only when people want to win badly enough and it's clear that others are doing better, will many people start questioning such biases.

Pencil has many higher-res stencils now, but I prefer the old ones that actually look like Pencil drawings.

I have also given this to clients, to have them draw their own UI concepts (as a starting position / way of communicating) with good results.

You're saying that achieving 2.7% of the theoretical efficiency is good?

Many car engines have an efficiency of around 20% for example, as compared to the maximum theoretical efficiency of 67%. If car engines performed only well enough to meet your standard of amazingness, your gas costs would be 7 or 8 times higher. Or if you used a modern Toyota engine for comparison, something like 14 times higher.

Obviously I took an example from a different sphere for comparison... if you really find this to be an astonishing result can you elaborate?

Yes. It's the same dictionary as the one for non-programmers.