I honestly think a lot of hacker types really do live in a bubble where they think it's still 2000, Microsoft is still the same evil company they were, Apple still can do no wrong, most people now use Macs "if they know what's good for them", RoR, node.js and Python are really the only valid technologies for back end development and so forth.
Certainly plenty of folks out there using the aforementioned technologies are more worldly than my previous statement would suggest, but there are still an irritating number of developers living in the past who haven't really got a realistic view of the technology landscape as it exists today, in 2012.
I also notice this on various high profile podcasts that from time to time downplay anything from Microsoft as having any value these days, despite not really having had recent first hand experience of what's available.
I prefer Chrome myself, but supporting IE9 really isn't that hard, and suggesting otherwise is FUD.
The landscape has changed in the last five years. Hopefully over time, especially as the landscape continues to change, the antifanboys will realise this and update their views.
Perhaps, but add to that all of the incidental trips to the store, to visit a friend, to go to the bank and so forth and it probably starts to level out a bit.
Your bus shows up on your doorstep on demand and will go wherever you want it to go? Your taxi will drive you for two hours to see your parents, then wait around for a few more hours to take you all to the beach and only charge you as though you're the car's owner?
Looks reasonably clean, though you can't get an aggregated list of invalid fields doing it this way. Instead, you'll have to discover your errors one by one, as you fix them.
Agreed. I think the author is focussing too much on semantics as opposed to intent, which is to filter. His over-emphasis of the word "lost" misleads us into thinking that the fact that we're searching suggests that we lost something to begin with. Perhaps an alternate view is that we didn't lose anything, but we had too much to begin with. Eliminating noise is the real problem. Doing so exposes that which we wanted, which was in fact always in front of us to begin with.
The problem is that if you try to delegate responsibility for avoiding the scenario where the information is "lost" to begin with, you have to make sure that the process performing the searching and organizing knows what to look for at least as well as, or better than, the person for who the finding is being performed. I'll be very impressed if you can create an algorithm that knows what I want, up to the second, better than I do.
I'd like to propose a ban on all programming tutorials which utilise screenshots of a given IDE's magic, visual tools as an integral, required step in the process. I develop with Visual Studio myself, but that doesn't mean everybody does and it doesn't help to further anybody's understanding of a given process when the foundations are glossed over by drag-and-drop/point-and-click programming. Instead, the author should specify what references the new project requires and why and optionally display the screenshots as a supplement.
I find it more likely that the harm done to your goal is not caused by public announcement of that goal, but rather announcing it is evidence that you aren't as committed to the goal as you are to other goals that you're better at sticking to. In other words, if you're having trouble with achieving something in particular, or working towards it, then you are likely to acknowledge that to yourself in the form of "needing to set a goal" and thus "announcing it to the world", thus automatically ensuring that announced goals are less likely to be kept by the very nature of the fact that they needed to be announced in the first place. If you want something badly enough, you are more likely to "just do it", thus foregoing the need to announce it to others.
Google doesn't just ban accounts for no reason. Sometimes accounts can be suspended due to false positives in their ToS violation detection algorithms, but there is a good reason this account was banned.
Google does not like affiliate marketing via their advertising services. This is because they feel the best user experience is one whereby the user goes directly to the merchant without an intermediary padding out the middle of the process, and/or competing with the genuine advertiser and artificially inflating the number of ads attributed to a single end-merchant.
So in a nut shell, if you don't want your account banned, advertise your own unique thing that is of value in and of its own right and can stand alone without any further affiliate links. If you're offering something of value and it indirectly may lead a visitor to an affiliate link, that's ok, but it can't be the point of the ad. Google were burned by this early in the days of Adwords and customers were routinely led down the affiliate path, which caused serious quality issues in the ads they served up, hence the current ToS.
It amazes me how many commenters here seem to be missing the point. The point is not to take these sites offline in a kind of "do what we want or you can't have our services" move, but to bring the issue to the attention of everyone who is unaware that this may affect them. These sites have the eyes of millions of americans who are completely unaware of the SOPA threat and turning the sites off for a day, or even showing a "stop censorship" notice will spread the awareness that previously was missing.
The flow of money is a very important point I think, and I think the global elite who are somewhat dependent on the existing world economic structure are going to ultimately see it forcibly evolved into something new over time. If nearly everything "dumb" can be automated in the future, there will simply not be the practical requirement for everyone to have a job and that leaves the existing structure as a relic of an obsolete past. Society will have to come up with new ways to think about the majority of its citizen's roles within itself.
That's the wildcard though isn't it? Some, such as yourself, decry this form of futurism because it is predicated on the assumption that energy will become more expensive. I personally think it will become cheaper and personally am open to the possibility of breakthroughs making it negligibly cheap. See http://www.bloomenergy.com/products/, http://ecat.com. E-cat may or may not be real, but I do see interesting possibilities as a lot more time and research starts to be put into these sorts of technologies as conventional fuel becomes more expensive.
Seriously though, every now and again I've noticed some supermarkets upgrading to newer machines and invariably the newer machines are much less prone to these sorts of issues. In one supermarket where I sometimes shop, I had experienced the difference before and after the upgrade and it was significant.
The point though is to look at why the customer service is needed in the first place. The ultimate user experience is one that never requires the user to seek any support or assistance of any kind. Having human-driven help is of course important while seeking that goal, but as we get closer to it, the need for humans becomes less and less.
It's just a case of technological progress. I find these things (I live in the UK too) work for me 98% of the time and when they don't, you only need one store assistant amongst 8-10 self-service checkouts in a busy supermarket to assist customers when these issues crop up. Ultimately the technology will get good enough to alleviate this for the most part as well.
This is interesting because it is a great example of how technology is in the process of automating the world out of jobs. That is not a complaint mind you; it's simply an important indicator of the change taking place in the world at the moment. With every passing year, new, more advanced technologies become available and the ones from the year before get cheaper and with artificial intelligence and automation technology becoming more and more powerful and capable, I am 100% certain that most "dumb" jobs - the kind for which low wages are paid due to the lower skills required, are going to become obsolete and replaced by technology. This means we'll go through an ever-more-apparent period of politicians becrying the losses of jobs, the need to create new jobs and so forth and whatever they try, they will fail because jobs lost due to automation are going to dwarf those lost due to economic/recession-related reasons. Personally I think this will eventually bring about something of a new age where the masses (the 99%) end up forcing in a new paradigm surrounding how we live and work. I am not sure what that would look like, but it is certainly inevitable.
My argument is more against the sentiment that could be summed up as "meh, just use Linux". What you say is absolutely fair enough, but should Microsoft (or other contributors) overcome the expressed limitations, then a promoted Windows port makes sense.
It's a shame you feel that way. I understand there is technical limitation due to the blocking nature of one of the subcomponents, but if Microsoft (or some other organization) solved that issue, it sounds like you'd continue mixing open source politics with your product development decisions which I would argue isn't conducive to more widespread adoption of the software or the health the software's ecosystem.
It does of course make sense as I assume you're developing this because you want to, and not as part of a company's bottom line, which means really you can do whatever you like. No sense developing something if you're not enjoying the process. If however you ever take this to a level where you have a financial incentive in furthering the software's adoption, I'd urge you to do whatever it takes to get an official Windows port in there, which would mean looking at any aspects of the implementation that cause issues on that platform, and doing what you can do to overcome them.
Plenty of developers learn a specific platform and are comfortable using that platform, setting it up and know the ins and outs of securing it. Yes, yes of course they should learn the other platform but really if you're trying to get a job done, you want to be sure you know what you're doing. Learning a different platform to a competent level is not really what you want to be doing when you're trying to implement production-ready systems under time and cost constraints.
So when he says "even if you want to run your code under win32 systems what's wrong about installing Linux boxes to run Redis", I can't help but feel he's being a bit narrow-minded. If it were a valid argument, then why port any software to work under win32 at all? Why bother with node.exe? Why bother with Windows implementations of MySQL, MongoDB or PostgreSQL?
In fact, lots of software starts out as Windows software and is ported to Linux. Why not just tell Linux users to get a Windows box if they want to run that software? I would suggest that the author revisit this viewpoint and consider why the majority of products with which he competes have chosen the platform-agnosticism route.
Powershell + msysgit work just fine. It puzzles me why people still keep referring to ye olde command prompt as "the windows command line" when Powershell has actually been around for years now and (while significantly different to bash) is extremely capable. My only complaint really is the lack of dynamic resizing without first consulting the options box.
According to one of the residents in the video, all you need to do to purify meat is to freeze it and then cook it. Doing so will make all the pollutants magically disappear! Who knew?
Bottom line -- if Zynga feels that an employee is not pulling their weight, they should let the employee go for that reason alone. Stock should never enter into the equation and the fact that it has shows that Pincus' motivations are not as pure as he'd like people to think.
I have the same gripe with the word "revolutionary". It seems every other day I come across some business touting their product as "a revolutionary new... blah blah".
Sorry, your product or service isn't revolutionary until you ACTUALLY create a revolution.
This is absolutely true. I've worked both solo and in small teams many times and whenever I've worked with others (particularly senior developers) who had decent skills I always learned a lot. When you work by yourself you don't have the benefit of other people to bounce your code off of, or of being exposed to various techniques, methodologies and tools you may not have discovered if left to your own devices.
There's the obvious allure of Silicon Valley given the investor/startup culture there. I suspect the question was probably more focussed around SF than the US in general.
Does PG listen to the StackExchange podcast? There's some great information on there sprinkled throughout the various conversations they have. Jeff Attwood is very passionate about online community management and he and Joel Spolsky get into some interesting debates about some of the community-related problems that they have to deal with on StackOverflow and the other StackExchange sites.
If only broadcast media organisations would take this on board. If a movie or an episode of a popular show is released even one day later via convenient streaming media channels than it is through other traditional mediums, it'll be pirated. Piracy is an international issue and will never ever be solved, or at least reduced significantly, until these companies accept the internet for what it is -- a ubiquitous global distribution channel -- and release content everywhere simultaneously.