Reports suggest the app is currently making around USD$3.8 million a day or around USD$54 million per month.
1,956 karma · joined October 7, 2011
The opinions I express here represent my own and not those of my employer.
Reports suggest the app is currently making around USD$3.8 million a day or around USD$54 million per month.
I always thought that FP and OO were orthogonal concepts and never considered them mutually exclusive. To me, the antitheses of FP would be imperative programming. Maybe I'm missing something?
CLOS, OCaml, Scala, I can think of many examples of languages that include components of both FP and OO. Or maybe we're simply considering that OO means this special paradigm used in C++/C#/Java (that really only claims to be the true and only OOP by the commercial entities backing these languages)?
PS: I googled around a bit, this Clojure article [1] seems relevant.
foo = lambda x: x*2
As far as Hy goes, lambdas won't have this limitation.
I appreciate the effort, (I can't say the same for other Microsoft projects), but it's still not fun to play with typescript in emacs (as opposed to more mature projects like Python, C or, of course, Lisp).
For the people who got introduced to the web before me, how was "web browsing" done in the earlier decade of the Web? I'm assuming Google is not the first search engine available, but I'm pretty sure search engines were not the only way to go around.
I understand the concept behind the web, "a globe spanning network of computers linked by hyperlinks pointing to useful information". But was it as simple as that? You only had access to addresses you knew or links available on these pages? Where did you go to find interesting websites or how would you look for specific information (like, for instance, how would you research the working internals of a car engine for a school project?)
His lack of education is relevant because when you have at least some understanding of the depth of complex systems, it becomes very hard to imagine that a self-taught person has enough knowledge to speak competently about multiple such systems.
Whether it's a choice or not should be irrelevant. However, used as it is in the modern political context of "gay harassment issues", I believe we're actually doing a great disservice to the gay community by using "they didn't have the choice" as an excuse.
Maybe it's just me, but every time someone argues that we should accept gay people because they didn't have a choice, I can't stop myself thinking: "So if they had a choice, would it be okay to harass them? Would it be okay to ask them to change?". The problem is not that gay people can't _change_. The problem is that it's f*cking wrong to ask them to change. Even if they could _change_ (whatever people mean by that), it's absolutely nonsensical to ask them to.
As a society, we ask murderers to change, criminals, people generally harmful to others. But gays? Since when is it okay to criticize the choice of someone that affects nobody but this someone?
I like pizza. If that bothers anyone, should I just say: "There's nothing I can do about it, I was born this way?"
"Alan M. Turing thought about criteria to settle the question of whether Machines Can Think, a question of which we now know that it is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim."
(http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EW...)
Let's not fall prey to the temptation of thinking:
Turing believes machines think
Society acted terribly towards Turing
Therefore machines do think.
How else would you explain the widespread of tobacco smoking, over-eating, and other behaviors that are extremely dangerous but not immediately punishing?
devstack will work on Debian as well, although it is not officially supported.
"By ignoring the problem and not talking about it, you're perpetuating it." Either I agree with you or I'm part of the problem? And you call me narrow minded!
"Every time that you don't say something, or you make an argument like this one, you are sending the message to people who are being discriminated against that the people who say something sexist are okay to do so." Did you even read my comment? I said I'm not spending time pondering why there aren't women in tech, because I don't necessarily want more women in tech. That's, by definition, the opposite of sexist.
Do I think women in tech face some challenges that men don't? yes. (Incidentally, I also think that men in tech face challenges that women don't. It goes both ways). What I'm fed up with is people instrumentalizing the sexism issue to create more drama, problems, and good ol' American hypocrisy (we prefer the term "political correctness").
I do not necessarily agree with my grandparent comment, but are you advocating going out of your ways to find a problem out of statistics?
I'm also fed up with the whole "sexism in tech" bla bla. I don't want more women in tech. I want more talented, more dynamic, more interested or more passionate people in tech. More humble people. More beer lovers (there's no such thing as too many beer buddies). More video game players. More runners I can go jogging with. More team players. Less people only in it for the money. Less pointy haired bosses. Less consultants and less auditors.
These are my own personal preferences and guess what? In each single case I don't care about the sex of people in the industry.
By now, the "sexism in tech" has caused much more gender segregation than it did any good. Now we're afraid to talk at a conference or at the office. We never make any joke that might be remotely sexual around female coworkers (note that my female friends usually take it really well).
So to answer your question, we should be satisfied with that explanation. More women want to come, they're welcome to join. It's not going to be easy for them, but guess what, it's not easy for guys as well.
And to make one last thing really clear: I believe that there are a few problems women deal with in the industry, and we should be doing something about them. I'm thinking about uneven salaries or about the way they get treated if their nickname is ever slightly girlish.
So to make it clear, I care about women already in the industry. We should help them with these minor inconveniences. But I'm not going out of my ways to figure out why aren't women joining and what should I do to help them.
- It's a minimal Debian. I have a good idea of the installed packages on my system. Very few surprises.
- Openbox is great. I cannot ever imagine myself going back to GNOME/KDE/Unity/XFCE and all these "desktop environments".
- #! looks great. The theme, the icons, the fonts, ... Very good work is made for this. A special effort has been put on proper and pretty compositing.
- cb-welcome script is run the first time you login a non-liveCD session. It lets you configure your install nicely.
What I dislike:
There's only one thing I dislike about this distribution. It includes some questionable apps by default (like GIMP or Abiword). This wouldn't be a problem, except that ever since the latest 2 releases, the size of the iso has risen above 700MB and won't fit on a CD anymore.
Who should try it:
Everybody can try it, but you should know what you're stepping into. I recommend it strongly for people who enjoy minimalism and control over shiny magic. As far as skill level go, there's nothing inherently difficult about using #!, but I think it will be more appealing to people already familiar with Debian.
My rule of thumb is that if you know how to manage your sources.list file (and you understand the difference between running Sid or Stable+backports) then you're good to go.
Shameless plug: I have written a more extensive review of the first build of #! 11. You can find it here: http://www.tech-thoughts-blog.com/2012/05/first-builds-of-ne... Keep in mind that the distro has had one year + to mature since.
As mentioned, any hacker could turn off whatever restriction you're going to put. Pretending that we're preventing something is stupid and wrong. It's a hypocrisy that is so typical it makes me angry.
To a large extent, secret photographing/recording is a technological revolution, and it will, predictably, meet some resistance. We can either:
* pretend to do something about it.
* help people resisting transition into it.
There are really no other options. Preventing it from happening is not an option. What would you do?
It's very similar to the whole "illegal downloading of music" business. Millions of dollars are spent, laws, national (global!) debates are held, all sorts of technological hurdles are put into play, and ... nothing prevents any kid from downloading whatever they want from the Internet.
All this "pretending to do something about it" has a cost. Some scapegoats are going to suffer greatly along the way. Aaron Schwartz's example is famous around here, but it's absolutely not the only one. Do we need more innocent victims?
Are we getting so disillusioned that we consider to be "such a small potential userbase"?
* They try (and arguably succeed at) cloning Unix.
* The adopt a permissive license for sharing and copying.
Beyond this, they're 2 completely different projects with nothing more in common. Heck, even the "permissive licenses" they each use are contradicting in philosophy.
You seem to imply that Linux has reached ubiquity on the desktop because MacOSX is based on BSD. This is just wrong.
It's virtually impossible to get help from a bank if your previous startup has failed. There's a bigger picture here. France is so incredibly intolerant of failure it's not funny. There's the rampant myth of the "genius superstar that never fails" and you only get one chance to prove yourself. It's no surprise that people will (generally, there are exceptions) prefer steady and safe employment in big corporations.
I think the best thing we can do for entrepreneurs is to encourage people to take risks and fail a few times. But this needs a major overhaul of the mentality in the country. I'm glad to see the government is taking a first step.
The arguments you give are spot on, I would only add the need for backwards compatibility, or at least the possibility of maintaining the huge and ever increasing volume of mission-critical systems running Unix (Banking systems, the financial world, the Internet, ...).
However, while it's true that Plan9 failed to catch on, a lot of its ideas have been backported to Unix (/proc anyone?). I think that there's something there. Unix can be improved. But no one is going to look at your improvements if it breaks their existing systems.
I'm not going to say what Mozilla should or shouldn't do in this case. They know better, and more importantly, they are free to do what they want. I just want to point out to IAB, whoever they are, that if they want to make an appealing argument, maybe put the user forward?
I still think it shouldn't stop us from doing the exercise anyway. We might draw "whatever conclusion we like about" it, but it's still a way to move forward. The wiki page in the original link is not trying to convince the reader of anything (or at least the first few posts). It's a user sharing his or her insight on his experience with Lisp. It resonated with mine. Reading this helps me put words on something I've been feeling for a while. We might both be wrong, but at least it helps me in some way.
What I'm trying to say is that languages may be equivalent (Turing!), they're not exactly equal. Our inability to measure the differences with precision should not prevent us from comparing experiences. I am not interested in adopting the manager's point of view of "which language should be best for my project/team?"; I'd rather take the young pupil's point of view of "let's discover how these guys do it". After all, I'm a younger (in programming years) than many people around here.
Your original comment seemed to imply that a language's worth is tied to the popularity of the platform running it. I personally find this aspect the least interesting in programming languages. Maybe because I'm not an entrepreneur and I don't necessarily feel like one.
Unfortunately, power has a very positive connotation. As a programmer, wouldn't you want to use a more "powerful" tool? However it's different when it comes to programming languages. Too much power can hurt you. Realising that there can be such a thing as "too much power" is new to me or at the very least, it's counter-intuitif enough to deserve being debated. That's the point of, or at least that what I take away from, this page.
Arguably, the success of Java comes from its complete lack of Lisp-y power. Python may be "powerful", it makes a big deal to enforce the "one way to do it" culture and has always had a love/hate relationship with functional features for this exact reason. Speaking from experience, I find it easier to read and understand Java or Python than I do Lisp or Lua (another "powerful" language where every project will inevitably implement its own object model, basically rebuilding Python or Ruby).
So yes, I believe that there's a spectrum of "power" between programming languages, and more "power" isn't necessarily better. It's a characteristic, nothing more.
But more importantly, I wish we could start discussing and comparing programming languages without talking about something as meaningless and volatile as popularity. I don't care if my favorite language becomes the most popular. I don't want to unify all programming languages into one. I am happy when different languages solve the same problems differently, more or less elegantly, and I have so much fun learning all these approaches. I don't care what "succeeded" and what "worked".
I sincerely mean no offense, but I'm tired of having people cut the debate short by turning any meaningful comparison into a popularity contest.
This story is shared on ... HACKER News. Are we all criminals aficionados here?
The revolting issue is that a Wikipedia volunteer got bullied because of this incident. Let me rephrase this: They went through the legal channels, met with a refusal from the other party's lawyer. Instead of moving the issue to a judge or a competent authority (remember, the article had been up since 2009, I really don't think they were in a hurry), they harass a kid who had no idea the page even existed.
Talking of whether Wikimedia should take this down or not has absolutely nothing to do with this far greater problem. And most of us probably don't have a fraction of the info to grasp the bigger story. Let's focus on the real issue here, the one where government stepped out of line!
The only difference between standups and status meeting is that you're not there to fill a report card. You're not there to show your manager you did something. You're just there because it's the only 10 minutes in the whole day where the whole team comes together to discuss. It's (at least in my place of work) highly informal, very chilled and very genuine. What we do is say what we're working on and ask for help and/or ideas.
We have a private IRC channel for this, but the fact that we meet face to face for 10 mins a day really does bring up interesting fast conversations.
The whole point of standups is not to take notes, not to keep track and just have a quick break to talk (not type) about work.
From the first line of the script: "stack.sh is an opinionated OpenStack developer installation". It doesn't provide nearly the flexibility of Puppet (or Chef).
Devstack does one thing, and one thing (almost) only: get a simple installation of OpenStack up and running as fast as possible (predominantly for developers to test their modifications against).
Puppet can handle much more complex scenarios, and is really meant to deploy production.
If you're interested in discovering OpenStack, you should check out devstack[1]. It's a bash script that (git) pulls different projects of openstack into a machine and install them.
The script itself is very readable, thoroughly commented, on purpose. You're encouraged to read it while the whole thing installs (which can take several minutes).
Feel free to launch it inside of a VM (preferably running Ubuntu or Fedora), in order to avoid polluting your current system.
[1]: http://devstack.org/
You say "Schema migration with Django has had a long and complex history". Can you explain, even briefly, why migrations haven't been a part of Django's core so far? I was under the impression that it was a deliberate design choice. What made you change your mind now?
Parsing `ls` is inherently fragile[1] and it will break at some point. Please don't do it.