178 karma · joined October 4, 2014
Go is interesting as a replacement for a scripting language, perhaps. But it seems very lacking in many other areas. All of the points in the article, plus what libraries are available.
I think some of it could be explained by it being a young language, but if that's the case, why is it getting the adoption it has so far? Just because it came from Google?
>Nobody can really tell what they are collecting, what they do with it and how much of it they share with third parties (including governments).
http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/
Yes, this could all be lies, but so could literally anything anyone says. Either you choose to live as a recluse in the woods with no technology, or you choose to trust at least some corporations. That might mean trusting your search engine, your cell phone company, your car manufacturer. Heck, you're trusting your ISP right now not to do a MITM attack on you. The natural conclusion is that you should use strong encryption in everything you do. At this point, there is one company spearheading this to get it into the hands of consumers who don't know any better.
Again, I realize Apple isn't blameless, but there's an awful lot about their recent actions to show they are making decisions based on what is best for the consumer. I think that's a good thing, and it's hard to imagine why someone would argue against it.
That's just fear mongering.
Why would you not change your password before taking it in? You should be changing it regularly anyway, and you shouldn't be using that password in more than one place. The idea of it leaking from a technician's database is irrelevant because you would change it as soon as you get the machine back.
I mean, I get what you're saying... they should have verified those things up front before asking for access, but I'm pretty sure they work on the concept of getting you the fastest service they can, balanced with the amount of customers they need to help simultaneously. My guess is that the admin password is a default question because they know they _generally_ will need it, so it's best get it up front rather than waiting hours or days for the customer to get back to them.
Personally, when I had to take my Macbook in, I just zero'd out the sensitive data, changed my admin pw to something temporary, and let them have it. I know this will be a TOTAL surprise, but the multibillion dollar corporation didn't use this as a chance to hack my life. What a novel thought.
Seriously though, I'm really impressed by the fluid motion. Even though the actuators are still sort of jerky, they are fluid enough to make this actually a viable technology. It's just too bad every design seems to have actuators that take up more space (in X/Y) than the part they are moving.
I was at a concert and saw loudspeakers on the top of some poles. I immediately associated them with shelf speakers, and my brain told me they couldn't be more than a foot tall. Then later I saw a worker climbing the pole to do maintenance and realized each speaker box was taller than he was.
I've also noticed this illusion in the city. There's a particular street that has a hill. As you drive up this hill, the top of a skyscraper is framed by the road and trees nearby, and it looks absolutely massive. Then you crest the hill and see the entire thing (along with the rest of the buildings downtown) and they look so much smaller and distant. It's really striking.
Couldn't the other solution be less greed on the part of business owners? It seems like the bigger issue is that they just aren't paying their people enough.
Maybe I am falling into the illusion they speak of, but I am very suspicious of their claims, especially because of the quoted point above.
I realize that anecdotes aren't data, but I makes me think of two things I've noticed...
1) I have a family member with anxiety problems who has trouble just getting into traffic. She hates changing lanes because she perceives it as extra stressful, so she just stays put, content to follow the car ahead of her. While she always eventually reaches her destination, there are times when I've beaten her to a location by 10 minutes or more, all because I'm willing to change lanes.
2) When I am in traffic, I look at the car ahead (of course) as well as the farthest cars I'm able to see without obstruction. When I see the lane 'breaking up' several cars ahead and my own lane staying still, I tend to change lanes to take advantage of the temporary speed advantage I'll have. I can't count the times this has worked very well. The main reason is that people tend to get lazy in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and when cars start flowing there is inevitably one who is looking at his phone or just slow to react. By timing it so that I can overtake these slow-goers, I tend to make quite a bit of progress.
Maybe this study is focusing on people who only change lanes in response to the movement in their immediate vicinity and not up ahead? Either way, it seems like a shortsighted conclusion.
If they didn't have issues, I wonder how much could be chalked up to the teamwork they experienced while playing counter strike...
Of course, this only works well when the overlord behaves in a way that the subjects agree with. As soon as the overlord makes one too many bad calls, the subjects revolt.
I think down deep, the author is looking for the web to go back to the http://www.csszengarden.com days. I really wish web designers would put forth the effort.
> That people are not currently willing to pay for it doesn't mean that it's irrelevant, just that the correct business model has not yet been found.
Just like the MPAA and RIAA a decade ago, they have been fighting market pressure rather than taking the hint and changing their business models. They want to keep the same profits they received from their captive audiences of yesterday, and they don't understand that people don't need to pay historical rates for the vast majority of the information they offer.
If the NYT fits that description, then I would love to see a reason why my conclusion doesn't apply to them. They certainly aren't relevant because of their name alone, are they? So I would truly like to know what percentage of their content comes from the real NYT reporters in the field, versus internet research, AP feeds, rehashes of yesterday's news, etc.
Joe Q. Public certainly doesn't miss out when he avoids paywalls. He typically gets better (and faster) information through his RSS feed than he ever has by reading the NYT directly. They might offer a unique opinion, or an extra line from an interview, but it's rarely vital information. He's not going to pay monthly for the privilege of reading an article written by a 'distinguished journalist' when it's really all about the information, not the prose. So what does that leave? Exclusive photos? Infographics? Op-ed?
I really don't mean to imply that journalists who go into dangerous situations aren't worth being paid. They certainly are doing important work. But to imply that the ones employed by one news corporation are any better than the others is just silly. They are all witnessing the same event from different angles, and I now have the ability to see the situation from the eyes of ALL of them through multiple sites (often within hours), not just the one who graces my newspaper's front page every morning.
So in the end, they have built a business on being a person's sole channel for world news, but the average person has many many many more channels available today. If they don't change their business model (indeed, their entire way of thinking about news), they will become unnecessary, extraneous, pointless... irrelevant.
> original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose.
What percentage of their content are truly original, first-to-break stories? Really, be honest. Now how much of their content are fluff/opinion pieces, rehashes of the last month of stories, and info that has been 'repackaged and repurposed' from the internet? If you try to claim the larger percentage is the former, you're just being obtuse.
You're quick to defend traditional media, but you totally glossed over the other points I raised. It's obvious (based on your comments here) that you have a bone to pick with anyone who doesn't believe your employer (and others like it) are worth what they think they are worth.
Again, it's clear based on market force that the PUBLIC doesn't agree with you. If they did, you would have seen success in the methods you mentioned.
> Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access"
Whether you personally agree with me or not, the public is speaking, and they are telling you that your business model isn't worth what you claim.
Otherwise, if people saw truly unique content from you (and others), they would be paying in one or more of the options you mentioned. They obviously don't see the point, however, because very little on the web is truly unique.
This seems like more evidence of the thing we all already know... large news/opinion organizations, especially those who started in print and are trying to maintain their business models, have become irrelevant.
It's still hard to part with my money (even at 50% off) when the ship date is next year though. I've been burned by various kickstarter projects that get delayed ad infinitum.
I wake up at the same time every day, and go to bed at the same time every night. Basically, I start getting tired when I'm getting near my 'bed time' and I use that as a cue to go to bed. Since I'm very regular with my routine, I rarely have any sleep issues, and I get around 8 hours of sleep per night. If I'm sick or something, I might get tired in the afternoon and want a nap, but that's fairly rare.
That said, I totally agree that his post screams of shortsightedness, and in fact, seems like satire in order to call people out for their abysmal work habits. It's too bad, but based on his comments, it seem he feels forced into this. Hopefully once his startup is fully started, he'll be more healthy.
There's something very significant and special to me about the idea that pieces of wood cut in certain shapes can measure time as accurately as a computer. Ok, not even close to "as" accurately, but +/- a few seconds in a 24 hour period is close enough for me.
Facts don't require your agreement. They're still facts.
You're suggesting that the "2 decades of hardware tuning" is equivalent to programming, and that just isn't the case. While parents definitely provide instruction, each child's brain is fully on its own to program itself. It teaches itself how to make sense of the visual signals it's receiving from the retina... no one teaches a child up from down, how shading and colors differ, how to use both eyes in tandem to provide depth perception. It's all automatic and 'magical' in a way, because literally NOTHING you can do as a parent can speed that process up in any meaningful way. The same is true for hearing. You can't just upload your current understanding of the world... the closest you can come is by trying to help them along mechanically, by holding them up as they 'walk' their legs, for instance, but their brain is still figuring it out entirely independently. Showing the child how to move their legs is NOT the equivalent of showing them how to detect orientation using their inner ear, or teaching them how to send impulses to their muscles in the right order and at the right time, or teaching them to predict momentum so that they don't just fall on their face.
> computer learning is orders of magnitude more effective than human learning
The only reason one could even ATTEMPT to make that claim is that a computer's learning is something that can be copied digitally. A single machine can't even approach the learning abilities of the brain. Computers are so fundamentally different that it's not even a fair comparison to the computer... the brain will win every time.
> I find it very strange that people leave out the 2 decades of hardware tuning and supervised knowledge building that humans get
It's because it just isn't relevant. Take the most advanced AI available today, slap it in a robot and spend 2 decades raising it. I guarantee it won't end up anywhere close to a human in abilities or intelligence. If you can't see that, you're being intentionally obtuse.
The more likely situation would be that the logs are stored on a shared storage server, and the machine you are using to look at the logs doesn't have the logging system installed.