freddref

Agreed, we may be doing interesting work horizontally, reimplementing things that have already been solved. (Maybe this is natural in the evolution of things, searching for a breakthrough.)

I feel like there is not enough "interesting" work to go around. Maybe more experimental work is seen as less likely to be profitable or too risky to implement?

writing, not using.

It's only intuitive after you understand it ;)

This is a very unfortunate state of affairs for science in general, giving the amount of tools we have to make an experiment more replicable.

Replication is perhaps simplest in the field of computer science, yet many papers do not release the associated source code and configuration used in experiments. It's very easy to make the code available to all so I find it a bit dishonest and unscientific not to share an experiment.

There may be other things at play which prevent methodology being fully shared, it may get too personal, for example experimental code is sometimes developed quickly, and people may be reluctant to share their own messy code for fear it might reflect badly.

This is an excellent solution. Schools should really advocate for this. The law is counter-productive in it's current form.

How many people are typically involved in this type of decision?

Isn't everyone hard to recruit? The difference in perception of coders might be that the evidence for a bad recruit is obvious in the code they produce. There could be many bad recruits in all other areas but are less obvious.

I generally like the idea of clearer quantification of a persons output but it should be done very delicately. As in, if you are going to measure everything someone produces, maybe that data should only be available to that person and it's up to them how they share it.

The uncertainty principle likely applies to people too. Hard to measure people without influencing them. Trick is to do it in a positive way. Managers measuring people for the purpose of firing them would be perceived, and have a negative effect on morale, than measuring people to identify opportunities for education, training or skills development.

If we don't really object to sharing our data with a wide range of u.s. companies, why would we care if it is shared with China or anyone else also?

Elephant in the room is of course the amount of data that is sent to the u.s. from phones in the rest of the world. Hardly a surprise that China is getting in on the action too.

Either or, or both. The book is short.

Each new language seems to provide diminishing returns from the previous ones if you consider only the language constructs. It appears that everything surrounding the language has more of an impact, how easy it is to get started, how big the community is, how good the package management system is, openness of the language ecosystem.

Maybe what we need is more automation and support around the language instead of new languages. Building automated compilation, testing, linting infrastructure could be a way to go.

Probably.

But it would be irresponsible to make roadworks appear and not make that information available for those that need it.

I'd assume roadworks are usually planned and can be checked beforehand especially when attempting bold experiments for the first time.

edit: removed sass

Well I think it's a great idea in general, so thank you! :)

It is something I had been wondering about, and it's something only the hn and google people probably have access to.

Wonder could you generalise it for any discussion site, could make a nice simple analytics tool if you could point it at some site and get stats. Just a thought.

How about time of day?

"Mrs Clinton told bankers that they were best-placed to help reform the US financial sector" - which is true, but she failed to mention that was also the problem.

Bankers are in the best position to reform, but the most unlikely to provide meaningful reform.

edit: formatting, emoticon removal

People shouldn't be writing code at all. A lot of testing and small code corrections should be automated at the very least. We have the iron, lets put it to work.

I would guess many people see "office work" as a form of UBI, where people self-regulate how much they work. Office blocks may not be physically empty, but the amount of work getting done appears to vary drastically. Lot of (logical) places to hide in large enterprises.

I couldn't afford the required mustache wax.

I'd like one of these just for text with an E-Ink screen, no GUI, boot straight to Emacs. What to name it though? Emacs-book, text-book, clibook...

"We got tired of all that cheating in the industry" - runs windows

Thinkpad's are great, X120e still going fine here despite being years old.

Mac hardware is lovely, pity it's such a struggle to get control over it (ie install linux :)

I just nearly choked looking at the price of the x131e, how is it nearly 3 times the price of comparable machines?

Is using "boring" tech odd for startups?

Choosing and using tech is only one of the things a startup does. I would guess it's more important to do something odd for everything else than it is to do something "odd" tech-wise.

Maybe they're measuring demand before getting too far into the game. Getting people to pay is arguably the best way of measuring demand.

I really like the idea of using something similar to the stack overflow model to help with peer review. It could open up the peer review process to more people for a longer period of time, giving a higher chance that more people will contribute if there is interest and a higher overall quality of discussion. All contributions give you a clear increase in reputation points.

Groups of academics could band together to form online-only journals on a specific topic and then allocate medals to papers that are considered accepted. So while there may be many loose papers out there with little or no comments (like on axiv currently) only a few will get the seal of approval.

> Should publisher's work be free?

Publishers work is not needed, it can be distributed among authors who can do it at a negligible cost.

Will the public reaction be considered at all in this proposal? In line with current trends is it not more likely that public reaction will for the most part be ignored?

I too use a netbook (Lenovo x120e) and an Xperia mini pro. I want to replace both and really like the look of the Asus X205TA but there doesn't seem to be any updare on the mini pro. The Pyra seems awkwardly in between the two, without the advantages of either.

no tape deck?

If the price goes to near-negligible, and people (eventually) reach some saturation level for the amount of easily replaceable stuff they have access to, what will a feeling of infinite supply do to consumer demand? Surely you can only need or use a certain amount of stuff. And what will this do to the value of money if having more money doesn't change your life much. Is money becoming worthless?