lackbeard

Here's a snapshot that might work for you: https://archive.is/CFboh

Yeah, that's basically what he says.

This is a reflection for priggishness and humorlessness.

If you're interested in graphic novels, Fatale by Brubaker and Phillips is a noir/Lovecraft tropes mashup. Really well done.

Keeping a significant fraction of your investment portfolio as cash (it's typically actually very short term T-Bills), to buy up assets during a crash is actually something lots of people do.

Regarding #1: he did mention, offhand, that folks might use json instead of xml, which is basically what happened.

The logo they used from 1999 - 2010 [1] was the best. It was clear, distinctive, and pleasing to the eye. The one they used after that until 2013 was a step backwards, but not too much worse. Those two are better than the rest by a huge margin.

This latest logo is... I don't have the right words. Looks daycare copy. Welcome to Google. We're not useful, we're safe.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo

I agree and I wish I had insight into what exactly is going on inside Google. A couple of hypotheses:

1. Someone (or a group of people) within mistakenly believes this design aesthetic[1] is good and have gained a lot of political power. I guess they like things that look pretty in screenshots instead of things that are actually useful or intuitive?

2. They're heavily optimizing for some metric (engagement, user growth, whatever) that is orthogonal to (or has a small component along) the usability vector.

[1] Simplistic defaults, not easily configurable, flat, tons of whitespace, etc...

The same story is given in the Ken Burns's prohibition documentary. Alcoholism was rampant in America at the turn of the century because americans were drinking whiskey like they'd been previously drinking beer.

I remember a social studies teacher reading this to my class in high school, and thinking the language was ostentatious but it all sounded pretty normal (except the stuff about the dentist... and now that I re-read it, I don't remember what I thought seemed wrong about it.)

Most candidates can speak well about interesting projects they'd worked on in the past, but a significant percentage of those can't pass a coding test.

Also, not being able to speak well about a past project is highly correlated with doing well on a coding test.

Sounds like one or the other should be thrown out. (Or maybe only the small percentage who do well on both will go on to do well on the job?)

>If I can be convinced by evidence, but you cannot be convinced by evidence, then it is you who has a religious belief, and not me.

He just stated that his belief is religious...

(Well, he didn't state that exactly, but he did state that you may as well treat it as such.)

I can't figure out the point of this article. Why does adding one more seemingly arbitrary layer of abstraction help anything?

Expressing disagreement is an appropriate use of the down vote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171.

"Too much gratuitous negativity might be the difference between someone giving up on a crazy idea and building the next Airbnb."

This is melodrama. Ignoring the negativity in comments on an internet message board has got to rank as one of the smallest possible challenges a startup can face.

Nowhere in this blog post does he say that the supply of immigrants ought to be restricted...

I don't use android, but I've been frustrated with pretty much every change to gmail over the last 4 years or so. Not to mention the new Google maps.

It seems that some bad designers have gained quite a bit of political power within Google somehow.

You're right. It's definitely a popular (and I'm sure profitable) game. And I don't think OPs comment really belongs in this thread, but like him, because it's a bad game, I lament (maybe irrationally?) that it's so popular.

It seems almost abusive to foster an environment wherein one can accuse another openly but that other cannot respond openly.

It seems that the low-carb/paleo alliance is turning that controversy on on its head by theorizing that the polyunsaturated vegetable oils (e.g. corn, canola, peanut, soybean) are really bad for you. http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/02/07/surprise-s...

This was an interesting article, but isn't the title begging the question? Unless I missed something, no one made any criminal charges, or even raised any suspicion regarding the author's behavior.

Blizzard monetized the game by selling it for $60 a copy.

That image you linked shows that the drop rates for items take into account the existence of the auction house. That sounds like a purely game balance decision. I.e., it would still be true even if only the gold auction house existed.

I never got all the outrage over the existence of the auction houses. In Diablo 2 you'd grind for hours looking for good drops and then have to spam chat rooms and trade with people. In Diablo 3 you'd do the same grinding but just for gold, and then you buy what you need on the auction house with that gold. What's the difference? (Other than in Diablo 3, once you're done grinding its much easier to get what you want.)

Do you have any sources which confirm that Blizzard built the game around AH monetization? I see this claim made frequently, but I've never actually seen anything that wasn't pure speculation.

How do you know that Blizzard's reasons for making the "game inhibiting decisions" you list are a result of their desire to monetize with the RMAH?

It's a horrible name.

Nowhere in the post does its author imply that a game is good if and only if it was built using good technology.

You present a reasonable idea. But it's totally orthogonal to the content of the post, so I wish you hadn't made it here.

So what are the actual terms of Kickstarter? I always assumed it was something more like venture capital than a loan, and if a project wasn't completed... that's that, the funders get nothing.

Related: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1269951

Interestingly, that article recommends a different book by John Sarno.

They recently removed wiki formatting from their wiki in JIRA. If you want to edit a page you have to use their in-browser rich-text editor.

This (on top of a bunch of other friction I have with JIRA) makes it clear to me that JIRA is not a product they're building for hackers. It must be for program managers, or for check writers at enterprise companies.

I recently switched from Trac & ReviewBoard to JIRA. Crucible is ugly, clunky, and unusable compared to ReviewBoard. I would switch back if I could.