It would be even better if the tool ran your project's tests when checking upgrade combinations.
Something that would say: "You can safely upgrade to Django 1.9.12. Upgrading to latest Django 1.10.5 breaks 20 tests."
2,192 karma · joined August 8, 2012
Something that would say: "You can safely upgrade to Django 1.9.12. Upgrading to latest Django 1.10.5 breaks 20 tests."
Well, it's been over 8 years. And we've just reached the point where nearly all libraries are available in Python3, and Python3 is recommended for starting new projects.
Python3 was also a very unconventional backwards incompatible change. 90% of the incompatibility came from "you must correctly and carefully handle unicode vs bytes". All other backwards incompatible changes were trivial in comparison, almost fixable by search and replace.
And "careful handling of unicode vs bytes" was something that you already could do in Python2, and should do in Python2, but weren't forced to. If you did, then upgrade to Python3 was easy. If not, then you had a massive testing and refactoring problem on your hands.
I would not even see it as a language change, but would compare it to C and C++ compilers turning -Wall -Werror on as mandatory flags in the latest release. It would be sort of "good for the ecosystem" in the long term, but would also be a lot of effort for people with legacy codebases.
The difficult part is in transferring non-bitcoin currency to and from the exchanges.
If you for example buy bitcoin in the US and sell in China, then you end up with a surplus of CNY on a Chinese exchange's account. Getting this converted and transferred back to the US will incur exchange and transfer fees. The transfers might also take weeks - which will limit you to cycling small amounts of money slowly, or risking a lot of money at once if the exchange "has banking issues".
In the end, even a 5% or 10% price difference might not be worth running the arbitrage cycle on difficult to deal with exchanges in strange countries.
It never seemed to be a security measure, but an anti-spam measure. You can buy captcha solving as a service for fractions of a cent, and bulk create thousands of accounts for sending spam. Buying working phone numbers is more hassle and more expensive, and will leave a payment trail if you use a service like Twilio.
Apple was a company that Jobs founded and got fired from. Coming back to "save" it would have been a very personal battle, and a way to prove people that fired him wrong.
Why on earth would anyone want to do the same at Yahoo for free (and tie their personal reputation to the success or failure), even if they didn't need the money?
Linux would still be my favourite OS for development, and on a "work-only" desktop that's still what I would use. But I have one laptop, that I use for both development work and personal stuff.
OSX comes with a proper unix base, with almost all "Linux tools" installable from homebrew. It's not as good as apt-get, but good enough. At the same time, OSX handles hardware and multimedia out of the box:
* No more xorg.conf hacking. Can hotplug external monitors via HDMI and displayport, and rescale my screen resolution smoothly.
* When I turn on my bluetooth headphones, they connect automatically, and adjust volume to my previous settings.
* Power-saving and sleep modes work. I killed my previous Linux laptop by closing the lid, putting it in my padded backpack, and boiling the battery because it didn't go to sleep.
And probably countless other such "casual comfort" benefits that work out of the box, but would need a few hours of config file hacking on Linux for each. I'd rather pay $1000 in Apple tax than spend time on it.
Something I've wondered: was this focus change deliberate? Or is it just a result of becoming more famous, attracting many more applicants, and accepting more mature companies since their success to date looks better?
Nature/Science/Cell have a prestigious brand, so many scientists try to get their best work published there. The journals get first pick of new research to choose from, and as a result getting published there really is a good indicator that your work is impactful and high quality. It's a network effect that can be broken only if enough funding & promotion committees, or top scientists in a field take a stand together.
Something I have wondered though:
What if we separate the "measure of quality and impact" from getting published in the journals? Something like "shadow journals", that doesn't publish and edit any articles itself. Its reviewers would pick the top 30 new papers published in their field each month, and just publish links to them. If this would get established, it could be used by funding and promotion committees, and the brand of the original journals would matter less.
It entirely depends on what you are looking to explain or describe.
Mean is appropriate for investment returns if you can diversify risk over many investments. Median is appropriate for looking at incomes in terms of social policy. 95th or 99th percentile might be appropriate when you are looking to ensure that your web server provides reliable response times.
If the app backend is not also available from a network where IPv4 is completely blocked, the app is rejected.
At the same time, AWS does not let new accounts to create EC2 instances outside of VPC, and only provided IPv6 support in the non-VPC classic stack (only available to old AWS accounts that signed up years ago).
So for the last few months, AWS has been unusable as a backend for iOS apps unless you have an old classic AWS account.
The monthly budget cap should be allocated to existing storage first. This covers the existing data for the next month. If there is any free limit left, it could be used for new data writes + 1 month of storage, and/or running services. Once the limit is reached, then writes are blocked and services stopped.
The only situation where you would need to delete data is if you want to set a new monthly budget that is lower than your existing monthly storage-only bill - but the UI could just disallow this.
But when it was time to upgrade, I got a laptop again. Because even if 95% of the time you use it plugged into big monitors and keyboards, you really miss the 5%. You still need a laptop to go to client meetings, conference rooms, conferences, hotels, hackathons, airports, etc.
And if you're getting both a portable desktop and a "basic laptop", might as well buy a good laptop for the same total price, and avoid the effort needed to keep all the data and configuration in sync on two computers.
However, if you are sure that you can live without having a computer that is usable outside of places where you have previously dropped off a monitor, it might be the most economical option.
It seems unnecessary (and easy to lose) to carry them around in your wallet. I print them out, and leave them in an envelope at my parents' house.
I have data on my laptop, an external disk that I keep at home, and BackBlaze. The likelihood of all three failing in the same week so that I can't restore from any single copy is low.
$850 million was blocked before they went through, and about $40 million of the remaining has since been recovered.
How would a blockchain have helped in preventing or recovering from this attack? If the hackers got access to their blockchain credentials, they would have been able to issue similar transactions. It would just have been much harder to block the transactions or reverse and recover them after the fact. It seems to me that running this on a blockchain would have made things worse, not better.
When people talk about bringing back the good old days of journalism, they dream of the time when cigarettes were unfiltered and you could make a living researching a single story for three months. Or this Request for Startups talks about making mass media write stories that are good for the society (as opposed to people's immediate reading preferences).
I don't see any good technical solutions for achieving these goals, because these goals require changing people's preferences, and require funding that goes against people's preferences.
How do we decide that "high quality" content gets more per view than "low quality" content? We would need a human who makes subsidy decisions. Or if it's just an equal split of each user's monthly payment, then:
* I'm not sure that readers of "high quality" content read fewer articles in total,
* I'm not sure that they completely avoid clickbait, maybe just read a bit of "high quality" in addition to the "low quality" ones. Often I just read comments on HN or browse pictures on reddit instead of a long thoughtful article, because after a long day of work that feels more relaxing,
* The number of people who click on those articles is still going to be a small fraction of the whole population.
So, this can finance a small number of national or even global sites with sufficient readership. Just like the Economist, New York Times, Washington Post, etc still survive on advertising revenue today.
But how do we make sure every small 20k population town weekly paper can afford similar articles on local issues? How do we encourage or guide people to actually read them instead of looking pictures of cats? How do we make a "good for you classical music collective" get paid 10x more than Nirvana when everyone wants to listen to Nirvana?
A subscription with pay-per-view revenue share cuts out advertisers as the money middle man, but it still rewards clickbait headlines and easy to consume top lists over deep investigative journalism.
The core problem (or "problem"?) of journalism today is that what people actually want to read is very different from what is "good for the society" for people to write and read. You can't fix it with technology that optimises based on market economics.
Some of the ways newspapers financed deep journalism in the past were classified ads (now split into separate businesses like craigslist) and the inability to track the readership of individual articles. Now that each click is tracked, it is obvious that a Top 10 List article costs $10 to write while bringing in more revenue than a $10000 months-long investigation.
So to "fix" it, you first have to decide that you are going to deliver people journalism that is "good for them" rather than what they want, and then find a way to subsidise producing that content above its natural market value. I think that a "rich billionaire owner" willing to lose money to earn reputation as an owner of a serious newspaper is actually a more promising funding model than spotify for media.
Using dkopi's example, at a company with 2M users, it's worth hiring a developer for each "penny per user per month" problem. A company with 1B users, it's worth hiring a developer for each "0.002 pennies per user per month" problem.
Or similarly, if you look at developers who work on internal tools that save other developers time. At a startup with 40 employees, each new tools developer must save everyone else two days per year. At a large company with 20 000 developers, each new tools developer must be able to save everyone else 6 minutes per year.
As the scale gets bigger, smaller and smaller problems become worth hiring people for.
But the subset of the labor force that takes international flights?
The Adore.me scam (and a few others) that you refer to are about signing people up for recurring billing without their knowledge. A customer buys an item from an online shop, which is expected to be a one-off transaction. But there is a well-hidden checkbox in the checkout flow to sign up for a "discount club" of some sort with a monthly fee. These are hidden on purpose, and hopefully will get banned.
But there is nothing wrong or dark about having recurring billing for a subscription service in general, as long as it is obvious that you are signing up for a monthly plan for something useful.
Something I've been wondering: why are all small cubesats designed as stand-alone satellites that are detached from a launcher? Why not instead build one big satellite, with shared solar panels and a deorbit engine, and sell "shelf space" for numerous small scientific modules that remain attached to it?
Some friends are working on a courier dispatching system, which includes very clever optimization for choosing trucks and mapping routes. But most of the effort goes into making sure that the mobile app works on 5-year-old smartphones, and the fonts on the PDF invoices look right, and so on.
If you want to work on just the optimization algorithms, then that can be done only in academia or at very large companies which can afford specialization.
On both Windows and Mac, all big and many small app developers have their own billing and sales. When you buy Photoshop, MS Office, IntelliJ, or even many small tools, then you skip the app store, pay them directly, and download from them directly. So not even Apple or Microsoft know the numbers.
This is the average for all cars on all roads, in all driving conditions.
To have a meaningful comparison, we would need to know the fatality rate for new luxury sedans on divided highways in good weather conditions.
Much fewer people will pay $15 to avoid 40 minutes of driving or waiting.
The main challenge when moving from a single freelancer to an agency is not the salary payments, but becoming the manager responsible for other people's work.
* The entire point of starting an agency is taking on more, larger projects. This means more discussions, negotiations and planning with clients.
* With more than yourself working on the project, suddenly you need to start communicating and planning among the developers. You need to start estimating the complexity and time required based not on your own, but other people's skills and experience.
* You take the risk of having to deliver the project to the customer on time and on budget even if your employees or contractors fail you.
* You take the risk of paying out to employees or contractors, even if the client does not pay you.
This means that you need to dedicate a significant portion of your time to "management" rather than billable work. Even with a part-time remote contractor, all these issues are present, and you will get less rather than more work done at first.
All friends who I have seen starting successful agencies have used the "partnership of 2-3 freelancers in one office" as the starting point. You work together daily, so that you can quickly solve any planning and estimation issues. You work as partners not employees/subcontractors, and take the risk of not getting paid equally.
Once that partnership is going smoothly, then you can start scaling out by hiring employees or subcontractors. Having 2-3 senior, trustworthy people is important for that - then you can afford to split risks, split management overhead, and cover for each other when someone goes on holiday or sick leave. Doing it alone is very difficult.
If you order from Seller A on "Fulfilled by Amazon", then Amazon will ship you from the nearest warehouse that has the same product, even if it's technically stock of Seller B.
And Seller B might have handed a crate of counterfeits to Amazon. Angering both the customer and Seller A who has no way to actually enforce the quality of what they sell on Amazon.