kenko

Earlier one might have referred to "self-murder": http://blog.oup.com/2013/08/self-murder-killing-suicide-etym...

It's a shame that NYRB published Urn Burial separately from The Garden of Cyrus, since the two pieces were conceived by Browne as going together. You can get them both (along with Religio Medici and several more) from Penguin in The Major Works of Thomas Browne.

Bankrupt your company, and probably do some serious damage to the airlines or plane manufacturers that bought them from you, and also kill a lot of people. But, you know, move fast!

Did you read the article. I do wonder if that is true.

"usage changes" which have been around since long before you were born. Are there other long-established regionalisms/dialects you have a bug up your butt about?

It might be pragmatic to care about the judgment of one's ignorant elders, when the ignorant have power over you, but in no other sense should one care about such opinions.

> the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher

Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.

"We are moving forward with a restructuring of our workforce so we can put our company on a stronger path to grow. Emails like this are usually riddled with corporate speak so I'm going to give it to you straight."

Riddled with corporate speak like ... the very first sentence.

You know a lot about modern dance choreography and tap?

I'm more interested in knowing what was used to toggle in and out of the mode that made everything but the comment disappear!

""" First, the article notes that the old-style bagels are hard to find now, even in cities like New York with large Jewish populations where they used to be everywhere. Even though they still had people there who preferred them, they were driven out of those markets by a combination of factors arising from the rise of the machine-made bagel. Since "bagel-maker" isn't a career that an artisan can make a living at anymore, for instance, the knowledge of how those old bagels got made doesn't get passed down from one generation to another like it used to. Eventually that knowledge will be lost, and the machine-made bagel will be the only bagel. So it's not a straight case of everyone's better off; if you're one of the people who lives in those markets and prefers the traditional bagel, you're losing it. It's possible to argue that loss is outweighed by the benefit everyone else in the world gets from having access to any kind of bagel at all, but it's definitely a loss. """

Disruption in a nutshell.

I completely agree with this.

My ideal job? I get paid a hefty salary (presumably by an eccentric patron or institution because who else would front it) to read around in the OED, essays, philosophy, novels, and whatever else catches my fancy, occasionally writing up responses or pointing out interesting or striking connections. My remit also includes writing doggerel, shaggy dog stories, and academic papers. I think I'd be really good at that, and I'd definitely enjoy it, and I could absolutely start on Monday.

But you know what? I've never, ever interviewed for that job, and I never will. I'm interviewing for this job, which presumably I know something about and chose to apply to, even though it's not the ideal. (It's something even better: it exists.)

> When you present people with an economic system that does have a social-utilitarian purpose, those people will select capitalism over it on the basis that capitalism is better at fulfilling that purpose.

No one has ever offered people that choice, as far as I know, certainly not in a way that wouldn't in many cases be confounded by rational or irrational attachment to the present mode of social organization. (And in fact plenty of people seem to like social democracies just fine. And, for that matter, plenty of people seem to want socialist or communist modes of social organization.)

There are several monad libraries for Clojure---mine (of which I'm fond) is here: https://github.com/bwo/monads/

Have to admit, that approach makes a lot of sense to me. It's still chugging along and bringing in $, so why not just have a policy of benevolent neglect?

So ... why is it free?

Immorality? Trespassing? Come on.

Can one commission Jepsen analyses from Kyle? Or is it more a matter of hoping he'll do it on his own?

Their truck is also much bigger than those carts, meaning they can store a lot more coffee (and water, for that matter).

Right, and I specifically would not patronize a cafe or cart that didn't allow me to hang around for an hour or more.

yes, this headline is a perfect example of Maciej's recent complaint: "The other part of our exponential hangover is how we build our businesses. The cult of growth denies the idea that you can build anything useful or helpful unless you're prepared to bring it to so-called "Internet scale". There's no point in opening a lemonade stand unless you're prepared to take on PepsiCo."

Why not back this company to, you know, sell good coffee and be a success on its own terms?

There's some less great new stuff in 2.x, too, sadly: https://github.com/magit/magit/issues/2076

"Mozilla did user testing before integration and found that people do want it. Remember that techies complaining on HN doesn't mean that the majority doesn't like it."

I'm really not convinced by this as an argument. People might like all sorts of harmful things, once they see them. And the fact that people might want something that provides the functionality that Pocket provides, or something like it, doesn't mean that using Pocket specifically is a good idea.

No, a -> b -> c always means a -> (b -> c).

a -> b -> c -> d always means a -> (b -> (c -> d)).

"->" is right-associative.

Why would you only be able to do this if your dealings are private?

It's still true that you have limited practical redress if you're fired (especially in an at-will state).

Yep!

Some companies try to prohibit their employees from discussing compensation, precisely because they see the benefit of keeping people in the dark about each others' salaries, benefits, etc.

This practice is actually illegal, but it's also mostly unnecessary, because so many people have internalized the idea that such things are Not To Be Spoken Of anyway.

syntax-rules macros can break hygiene: http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/macros.html#dirty-macros

How does that article not mention Gass's The Tunnel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tunnel_(novel)

Similar issue at Stanford, right down to there being a Keeper of the LaTeX Style. I certainly couldn't have used any old off-the-shelf style that I happened to like.

"As a result, a business can't pay to train it's own work force."

I believe in Germany consortiums of businesses in the same industry subsidize training. Seems reasonable.

In any case, your observation would seem to be refuted by the fact that businesses in general used to do precisely that, and many businesses still do do precisely that.

"Having employees pay for (and be compensated for) their own training is the most reasonable workaround."

For the business, maybe.