drvortex

vortex [at] emergentnoise [dot] org

I specifically want to see what difference there is to Whatsapp/Telegram, given that these apps also share photos.

It doesn't seem to be able to work Python 3.5. It doesn't find the path and now the interface is stuck.

They are probably comparing amount of pollution per km travelled, per tonne of vehicle.

I agree, the article is so imprecise as to be completely worthless in terms of information content.

Well, at least Telegram is open source. So this is something that is easily fixed.

Is this a joke? You actually want people to upload their history to the cloud. People don't even want it on their own computers. That was the point of incognito mode!

As someone who has actually found Apple's design principles to be stupid and dumbed-down to the point of being dumb, I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this article.

? Where did you see more customizable options in Vivaldi. Their technical preview is just basically a Chrome reskin and a very clunky reskin, for that matter.

Binary blobs on the web? Have we learnt nothing from ActiveX?

Oh my bad. It does run but with extremely high input lag. I am on Windows 10.

Game Player Demo does not run on Chrome Version 47.0.2526.35 beta-m (64-bit)

It has always been ridiculous to think about something ambitious, until it gets done.

Ref: History of Humanity.

ChromeOS is portable browser. And Google has shaped the eco-system to ensure that that is all 50% of the userbase needs. This is an achievement.

1. Effective communication of a protocol has no relevance to its efficacy. So that's a plainly unscientific test of the 'truthiness' of anything.

2. No phenomenon ever, scientific or not, can be guaranteed to be stable in the face of all 'unknown' factors. They are unknown, you cannot make any statement about that.

I understand where you are coming from, but that puts you right in the middle of the philosophical quagmire mentioned in my earlier comment. If you mean 'variation in people performing the experiment' by those 'unknown factors' then essentially you are making the assumption that the people are not a factor that is expected to influence the result. As such, even the same team repeating the experiment would suffice. Anyway, you get the point.

Independent replication does occur when someone furthers the research, usually as a preliminary test of current knowledge before diving into new experiments. I personally took great joy when what I had reported was used and confirmed in the preliminary experiments done by other labs for their further studies.

But there is a deeper philosophical issue with your idea of the scientific method :

Consider what is meant by independent replication. Does it mean that the experiment must be repeated from scratch with different material etc. such that it is an independent test from the previous attempt?

Or does it mean that it has to be repeated by different people as well ?

It raises a conundrum. If people are a factor that must be controlled for by this definition, no replication can ever occur since the exact individuals that performed the experiment will have changed by definition during this 'replication' attempt. The skill and knowledge of people is a factor that is notoriously difficult to objectively quantify. This often results in statements such as "X method/assay/procedure does not work well in our hands ".

On the other hand , if people are not a factor, then replication of the experiment by the same group of people will also qualify as an independent replicate.

>I don't see how a method that does not require independent replications can be considered science.

There is an implicit benefit-of-doubt here - that the scientists themselves have independently replicated the experiment before publishing the result. Most papers will list how many times an experiment was repeated by providing the sample size, number of biological replicates, number of technical replicates, orthogonal evidence etc.

Very often, one reports that a particular phenomenon or result reported in previously could not be reproduced in a different experiment. This is just reporting that that particular result may be complex and context-specific. This is a negative citation but has no negative connotation, it does not even imply disagreement.

Only in relatively rare cases where an exact experiment is repeated in the same context and the stated result could not be reproduced, it is an attack on the credibility of original work and is truly a 'negative' (as in bad) citation.

The issue here is that the 'negative' used in a scientific sense is exactly that - a 'negative'. In colloquial usage, 'negative' means bad. The headline is just using this semantic difference as clickbait.

I am wondering if people really use SMS anymore these days. At least here in Europe and also in India, SMS usage has dropped of precipitously.

Site down.

We all know what keeps Facebook going. Facebook isn't running on well-paid, well-employed family dudes who want to get in touch with relatives. Nor on intelligent commentators on society and tech. It is kept going by gossipy teenagers who want to snoop on their bff, bored housewives and creepy middle-aged men who want more 'social' interaction than they can possibly manage in the physical world.

Google+ failed because of they didn't give anyone a good reason to move away from Facebook where such networks already existed, and they insisted on lack of anonymity. The intelligent commentators are all on Twitter anyway.

But the demographic of teenagers, bored housewives and creepy middle-aged men on the internet is very large, and they are on the side 24/7. Pretty much everyone else who uses the internet uses it for work and hardly uses Facebook. But they trudge along to Facebook a bunch of other people who of course need to stay in the communication loop.

Email is not going away because no other system is a wide-spread. Slack could come close, if only they took away their silly way of logging in. It was a shame that Gmail is rooted in email. Heck, if Gmail changed their backend to something like Dlack, 50% of internet users would be no longer using email and they wouldn't even know it. I dream of a Slack to Email gateway.

40% of women quit tech mid-career. That is a just a statement of fact (I presume). But is that a bad thing ? I mean, it is possible that there are several good reasons for the phenomenon.

I donated and got the Pro version. But upon removing and reinstalling it, it seems to have forgotten that I have the Pro version. It's back to the free version now.

How do I put in my email address so that I can reactivate Pro features?

Biologist here : This belief of increasing complexity is just a relic of the times when we thought humans were the pinnacle of evolution.

It is a basic misunderstanding of evolution. The single-celled organisms of today have evolved longer. Their DNA has been mutating, adapting for 10-times longer than ours (as a species) has been.

There is no reason to think that they would be any more simpler than us. They are just adapted to different environments than us.

Thanks, I have found it since then and use it on my server for all my email.

I am unsure why anyone would use this, since web space is cheap (there are less 20$ a year domain and hosting plans) and its pretty trivial to get a Flatfile blog running on PHP.

I personally prefer Yellow from datenstrom to run my blog. And it doesn't need a third party site to pull my blog either.

Android, or it didn't happen for me.

Umm, no. See Firefox gives no one any reason to hate it based on idealogy. It's a pro-consumer, pro-internet user, privacy-respecting, standards-compliant browser. What is not to love in this ideology?

All the same, as of 2015, it is a poor implementation of a browser from the technical point of view. Not because it was designed badly, but because it has simply not kept up.

If you had taken a moment to actually scan those search results, you would have realized that "Chrome is the new IE" is typically a reference to its ubiquity.

Safari and Firefox is typically called the new IE because they are lagging behind the times.

Which is why I said "IE6" in my original comment. The later versions of IE were very decent. They certainly didn't seem like the frozen accident of history - an issue Firefox continues to grapple with.

Why is anyone still using this browser anyway? Firefox is the new IE6.

Right. That's all we need. More encouragement for code.

Yes, I program on a netbook. I find the resource limitations useful in writing programs that are very efficient. I do mostly scientific programming, so if it runs on my netbook, it flies on my cluster.