zecho

Animation for the sake of animation is sometimes called "art." I'm fine with that.

yes, I agree. kids love animations. adults don't like animations, except for creepy adults who watch cartoons and college kids that still watch The Simpsons.

As a hacker on Hacker News I'd have to agree with the others that animations are a Very Bad Thing. They are distracting to me, an easily distracted person, who is currently avoiding work by reading Hacker News this afternoon.

Yes. I agree. I too feel this kind of animation library should not be used where animation libraries make little or no sense to use them. In fact, I'd go a step further and agree that no animation libraries should be used when animation libraries are not needed, not even this one, which looks pretty neat.

Where should animation libraries be used? I'd think they should be used where a user would appreciate an animation. Such places could be while waiting for something to load, or maybe on a website dedicated to animation libraries. I think that would be an appropriate place for animations. It'd be weird if a website dedicated to animations didn't have animations on it.

Greenwald and Poitras have said this publicly many times. They have years worth of material to report from the cache of files.

You would think, but management can often have difficulty seeing how macro trends affect them. From their perspective, they shouldn't have to pay more for the same and adding new staff at higher pay than old staff seems unfair.

My previous job had difficulty finding talented engineers, party due to comparatively low salary offers. When I and two others left our team of 8 and two more made it known they were actively looking because we saw all trends outside our office, it became clearer to management. Only when 3/8ths of their staff left did they make major changes to their existing packages. And even then, pay is significantly below market. (Though they have the best time off and fringe benefits in town.)

Doing so also blocks the brands from showing up as ads, in addition to blocking them from organically appearing in your timeline. It's a strategy that works well, imo.

Overstatements are hilarious no matter where they come from.

For example: "When was the last time the US Senate got involved after you went on a rant at a party?"

I am not a SVP of a company valued in the billions working in a highly regulated industry. I also didn't do the rant at a private "party" designed to improve relations with prominent members of the media that covers my particular industry.

Also, the Senate sends letters on all sorts of mundane matters. That is not the issue of proportion here. The issue is the media giving undue emphasis to stories involving the media.

Is that why Inbox requires Chrome?

This is kinda funny. Our reception back home (the wedding itself was an extremely intimate thing with only a dozen attendees partly because it was a destination wedding), had well over 300 people, but I think our costs were only about $2,000 for the whole thing, which included the destination ceremony and plane tickets.

My wife and I have close ties to our community, and lots of close friends, and my wife's family is large and tightly knit.

Anyway, a big reason our costs ended up so low was because of the size of the wedding. People donated food, services, time, equipment and everything else. If we simply paid for it all, it probably would have cost closer to an average American wedding.

With gifts, we ended up making money on the wedding. Not much, but enough to start our younger selves off nicely.

Or the series of small steps between primordial sludge and a man on the moon.

This is great and all, but of the 9 million merchants that accept credit cards at the point of sale, Apple says only 220,000 locations will accept it at launch.

Walmart and Best Buy have gone so far as to basically say they have no plans to implement and maintain NFC at the POS.

I'd be willing to bet no auto manufacturer will ever integrate twitter in their HUDs.

Looks like Atwood holds the commonmarkdown.com domain.

There are really two things in the code. There is the spec about Markdown and two implementations that conform to the spec, written in C and JavaScript.

The former is a standard spec and test suite about derivatives of Markdown, some of which have basis in implicit and explicit blessing to use the name "Markdown." I'm not sure claim to the name makes sense in the spec definition is a valid claim, though.

It would be like requiring every author to specifically request official blessings to write about trademarked (registered or not) subjects. That'd be silly as it falls well within fair use of the name. The name "Standard" or to a lesser degree "Common" complicate ownership, certainly. I think I would have preferred the verb instead: "Standardized." Regardless, "Markdown" is the subject of the spec, not necessarily the product.

The latter implementations, however, probably shouldn't use the name Markdown in them at all if Gruber doesn't want them to use it. They really don't need to exist in the spec. They're just examples of valid interpreters. Spin them off and rename them, leaving the spec and tests.

What's clear to me in all of this is there is value in portable markdown that will parse the same across applications and services, whether we call it markdown or not.

The drama of it all is amusing, in any case.

I don't consider a self-checkout lane to be a "robot" in any sense. It's a customer doing the job of a once trained employee. If you've ever been behind someone new to one of these things, they're slow and annoying experiences.

The main reason for them is reducing workers necessary during slow sales periods (like overnights, or weekday mornings).

And anyway, the job wasn't replaced by a robot in this case. The job was replaced by a customer.

Thank you for taking the time to write this.

Regarding the doctor bot portion, I found the claim that knowing the reactions of a cascade of drugs is beyond the scope of human capability to be an absolutely ludicrous position to take. That right there is a huge portion of internal medicine. Pharmacists, nurses, doctors and respiratory therapists, etc. all spend years learning these matrices before even entering practice. Maybe knowing the totality of all drug combinations is difficult, but it ignores the fact that most—if not all—drugs are prescribed under known, common patterns, often now with the assistance of programs to make sure they don't accidentally prescribe something that will interact poorly with other meds. Medical professionals end up specializing and work with only subsets of the matrix anyway, but I really doubt a robot will ever be able to replace a doctor in this area, let alone all of medicine. If recent history is a decent guide, robots and software will only augment a doctor's capability to work accurately and efficiently.

With the creativity bot, I also wondered about this. With creativity, a bot creating sound based on rules isn't a musical genius, let alone "creative." They're a performer. They'll have difficulty 1) creating new genres of music and 2) creating music that is popular or meaningful to people. Technical performance and creativity are two very, very different things. We tend to think of the rule breakers as the geniuses of creativity. Hard to do that when the act of telling a machine to break the rules is itself a rule. How boring.

Lastly, we've found that a robot that plays Jeopardy! against humans to be an interesting gimmick, but nobody would suggest a game show where robots continually compete against other robots. Who would find it entertaining?

Historical URL. Bush was the original president when first filed.

When I bought my house, my grass was a mess of thatch and weeds. My neighbors all thought I was insane letting it grow so tall every year before mowing, and for not hacking it down to the dirt like they do. The first few years I would let it overseed itself. Didn't take long to produce a healthy lawn with minimal effort. Now my neighbors tend to follow my lead on grass height. Their yards are coming in nicely, too.

The key isn't infrequent mowing, it's letting the grass grow tall, especially in the spring, before bringing it down. I mow just as often as others, just not as short. The article nicely lays out the reasons why one would do this.

Nature doesn't need hacking. It needs to be understood. Learn about the root systems of grass, and that stuff on top everyone seems to care about is simple.

Exactly this. If you want to create a bleed, don't use a container, but if you want content inside that bleeding element, put a container inside of it, which will keep content from bleeding.

If you need multiple bleeds on a page, use multiple containers. Just don't nest containers inside of containers.

This is the only reason I have installed the app. Patiently waiting for a good desktop notifications system. I'm on far too many projects at any time, some high volume open source, and I really would like notifications built in. Currently giving The Hub App a spin.

http://thehubapp.com

I think you're conflating statistics and probability.

It's useful to see how others apply vim's grammar in interesting ways. To me, it's like seeing a new design pattern. Not necessarily immediately useful, but a maybe a new way to think about something I may not already know.

Speaking of plumbers, an anecdote. I had to have a plumber at my house a few months ago and I flat asked him why I had to pay him so much.

He looked at me (I'm 30, he was in his 60s) and said, "because people your age don't want to become plumbers."

I really do think the community and technical college system should be better utilized and promoted, but I'm not going to blame four-year college degree students for economic problems well outside their control.

It's an open question as to whether this is generation Y's failure, or the baby boomer's.

The canard is that you've accepted that there's a "primary message" of "do what you love" or "the-world-is-your-oyster" without showing how it has actually affected society. I argue that the perception of such a message has had nothing to do with any of youth's current economic woes.

It completely sidesteps the real issues. Let's say nobody told any young child of the 80s and 90s that they were special and the entire job market shifted on them anyway. They'd still be living at their parents' house, because they have no jobs, high debt and not much of a financial independence ahead of them. It's a logical thing to do when your parents have stable incomes and you do not.

Please read through my other comments in this thread, but my point is that the entire market shifted, which we agree on. Where I disagree, and frankly, get really annoyed about, is placing the blame on how these students were raised for wholly unrelated economic trajectories.

This has nothing to do with expectations and everything to do with realities. Realities that are being dealt with by boomeranging.

As for "WHY do these kids have high debt and low wages," I've also discussed, but blaming debt-to-wage ratio for choice of study seems bizarre to me when the problem is school is more expensive than ever and jobs are scarcer than ever, especially for recent graduates. They have high debt and low wages because they have high debt and low wages. An ontology, for sure, but just as likely a vicious cycle: One must have a degree to get a good job in one's chosen field, but having a degree may no longer advance one's position and yet, not having a degree could be far worse.

As noted throughout this thread, students have been choosing essentially the same degrees for decades, regardless of job prospects in those fields. The things that changed to create the boomerang problem (assuming we see it as a problem), are all outside of those choices: increasing education costs, poorer job prospects across nearly all fields, etc. etc.

If job prospects were related to field of study, you'd expect to see shifts in completed degree fields over the years, but we don't.

So back to the "primary message," as you put it. Was it inherent in that message that students get similar degrees as boomers and Gen Xers? It worked for them just fine. Why wouldn't it work for their kids? Seems hardly criminally negligent or idiotic to me and, again, it's completely unrelated to the real economic reality. To me, that framing sounds a lot like "kids these days" and doesn't isn't helpful at all, especially when it appears "kids will be kids" seems the more apt cliche to use when talking about choice of degree.

Maybe? There was a time in the recent past where any college degree could get you a good job in nearly any field. That is no longer the case. Also, one would expect that students move with the economy, but that doesn't appear to happen, either.

My gut says the problem can't be solved by changing the nature of students. If they go to school without regard for job prospects, and we continue to believe that education is important regardless of job prospects, then we should look for other solutions. Changing human nature doesn't seem to me the best way to go about that when there are many other issues at play accounting for boomerang twenty-somethings (high school debt, mostly government issued, appears to be the lowest hanging fruit).

Elsewhere in this thread I've addressed this. I'm not convinced that a mismatch in supply of majors and demand for recent grads of those majors can account for much of the boomerang phenomena. It's far too prevalent among under-30 to be reduced to this.

Also, my use of across the board was probably inappropriate. I agree. I should have said in general instead. There are some fields, primarily STEM and the service industry with high wages and/or good job outlook, but for the other sectors, this is not the case at all.

The underlying rates of degrees from the various fields haven't changed all that much. Finding a few humanities students who can't find jobs isn't all that helpful.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_318.20.as...

The main issues are that, since the 70s, a handful of things have happened that students (as a massive whole) haven't reacted appropriately to:

1) There are simply fewer job openings in many of these fields than there once were. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm (you'll have to step back through these reports over time, but note that the increasing industries tend to be the lowest wage industries)

2) The massive rise in the cost of education, coupled with the fact that almost any of the few good-paying jobs requires a bachelor's degree or higher. Supply of workers > demand for workers depresses wages. https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tabl...

3) Private sector jobs in a good many fields have been outsourced, with low wage service jobs on the increase. http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/MULTINATL0419

4) Public sector jobs have become increasingly rarer. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/sep/16/census-shows-big...

5) Home prices have dramatically increased over this period (which may actually be a good thing, since the workforce is now more mobile than ever before) http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/us-hous...

6) Unions, for all their problems real and perceived, were once actually pretty good at holding the line on wages, but have seen ever-decreasing membership. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

7) An increasing portion of the workforce is contingent (temporary and/or seasonal). http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/dunlop/section5.htm

Does any of this mean they didn't pick the "right" degree? Maybe part of the problem can be found here. However, the problem is so large among millennials, I'm not sure choice of degree accounts for all that much of why recent college grads have boomeranged. My point is that while students with degrees in various fields hasn't changed much, the rest of the world around them has changed quite a bit. Most of it can't simply be solved with a different degree or more passion.