chupa-chups

I do understand the general reasoning of google complying with the embargo on Iran. In this case though I really hope this app gets an exemption.

I'm in europe in a region with lots of connections to Milan, and extrapolating from what's going on there right now to what must be going on in Iran exceeds my imagination.

Remove this.

Crap. Just don't click, or some idiot will earn some money. Been there, done that.

I just uninstalled firefox and switched to chromium for good (or bad).

BS-o-meter: V is not a unit of power.

The intelligent ones aren't freaking out but are computing

* economic impact of fear of a pandemic

* economic impact of shutdown of > 60,000,000 people in china to the rest of the world

* economic impact of panic of people not educated enough to judge real risk of becoming infected

* media inertia

* china specific cover-up tendency

* actions in china

* 2nd and 3rd derivative effects of fear of a pandemic (i.e. delayed/missing deliveries of required medicines)

* fear-caused outage of food etc., since the delivery chain may collapse if fear raises into a critical level

etc.pp.

In other words: from my POV (and my peers), nobody really fears the virus itself but the effect it causes to the social environment.

This was discussed one day ago here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22306801

I know it's against the rules but still: thanks for this link. Very interesting read.

This is the exact opposite of clean multi tenant login.

A "clean" multi tenant login separates the user from the account, i.e. the same user has different rights depending on the account he is using.

I'd like to see sources please, since I don't believe that claim. The years and years of research of many teams all over the world should exceed the amount of money required for large-scale trials by orders of magnitude.

Please note that I don't speak of an individual research team but of all teams globally combined working on that goal.

Couldn't open the link, got a cloudfront error instead.

archive.org to the rescue:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200209133850/https://www.wthr....

Sorry for the edited title, but the original title was too long.

The article is from 2013, but, from my PoV, quite relevant today.

Apple? Isn‘t this about google?

(Sincerely puzzled, but it‘s late over here)

Still it takes easily 50% of the time available for actual coding, even using modern IDEs.

Programming shouldn't exist. Problem solving, algorithm development and logic decomposition/recombination should exist instead.

To me, and I presume to the author, "no code" doesn't mean no engineering but the exact opposite: do away with mechanic vocabulary to vocabulary translation work and focus on the actual skills, which are decomposing requirements into atomic units of work and (re-)combining them in a manner making the domain understandable if expressed as code.

This is what is said. So why do you appear to oppose?

Programming today still means 85%-90% doing repetitive stuff. Tools could do away with this, freeing the developer/engineer to spend more time on solving actual problems.

If you oppose to this, please state the reason why, since I'm probably fogged.

To be more clear, I don't propose to make programming easier. I do propose to make so-called "programming" go away, to focus on the actual problem-solving part. "Programming" to me means mostly translating requirements into code (without having to deal with decomposing and recombining requirements, which is the real work).

Could you explain why you think this?

Programming is 75-90% repetition of patterns. The remaining 10-15% are the difference between a simple translation of usual human language into a foreign language vs. developing algorithms and/or logic to solve a problem.

If we can get rid of the non-algorithm, non-logic part we'd be better off, and this is what i read into this sentence.

It is an issue, especially if spreaded by trustworthy organizations. Maybe you can see through it, but your neighbor probably not, or your mother, or your child.

Don't believe anything without verifiable sources (which is scientific standard, but unfortunately doesn't apply to press yet).

If you do only believe in stuff with verifiable sources, simply not reading or believing online available material without links to original research, you'll save yourself from around 95% of propaganda out there, including online hate spreaders on youtube, facebook and even the (more than just a few times appearing) journalist spreading government propaganda out there.

I'm aware that most of the readers here know this, but still it appears to me that a vast majority of readers in the internet do not have the "verify sources yourself" mentality yet. It'd be great it you educate your peers accordingly.

Sounds interesting. Would be interested in a post detailing the tech stack.

Well, I'd like to apologize in this case. Provided you don't sell the collected email addresses ;-)

Yeah (spending karma on a nonse reply to a nonsense question which should be flagged)

This appears to be an ultra-primitive todo-app targeting gullible people, semi-cleverly asking them for their email address in order to make some money.

(https://surge.sh/pricing)

Edit: I want to apologize and believe this is sincere.

Actually, the real title is

> A plume on Betelgeuse

Nasa itself links to https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0927d/.

Off-by-one kind of fits here, no?

Since leadership requires lots of human <-> human interactions, involving empathy and other illogical behaviors, are you sure this is the role you should seek?

This is an honest question. Suppose someone with not-so-good skills in arts wants to pursue a career as an artist, s/he would have quite a steep learning curve ahead.

Speaking as someone on the autism spectrum (though I don't like to identify myself this way) having leadership experience, my personal life improved after I was able to detach myself from people management.

There are lots of career paths available which skip people management.

I consider yegor256 to be a troll (and I'm ready to spend some karma on this).

Most of the mentioned positions are either totally one-sided (as if there is the one right answer independent of context) or dismissive of counter-arguments.

But to be honest I like to browse his site just for snickers.

Shouldn't you at least link to the site in question? :)