nothiggs

As for using it for military purposes - wouldn't any country it flies over that has the ability to detect it, just shoot it down?

Serious question: Knowing what it's like to feel burned out,I don't understand how you found the energy to create the app. Did you create it after recovering ?

Ironic you bring up the term ignorance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fko9F1EAU2g

Although I don't want to discuss politics on HN (there are plenty of more appropriate places to do that), the interesting issue to me is how (presumably) intelligent people in a certain field can drop all intellectual honesty when it comes to a different field.

I don't know enough about the subject to have the pretence to judge whether it can work, what I do know is that: 1. It seems the naysayers are doing nothing to try and change the situation, but then again, history books aren't populated with names of critics... 2. A partial solution is better than no solution. It doesn't solve the problem of microscopic plastic parts ? So what ? It also doesn't solve world hunger and global warming, but having more people with the attitude and vision of this young entrepreneur just might.

Just look at the latest ruling on Oracle vs. Google using Java...

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

It seems people always have a tendency to worship something, to let the means become the end or what is supposed to be their servant become their master.

TDD is a tool to ensure software quality. If TDD works for you then great. If you can achieve the same results with another method it's just as great. But I find the religion wars over it quite silly.

On the contrary. We should strive to correct all the "wats" that obviously exist in all these languages, but most of what I see is just complaints, most of them ignoring the amazing things that can be done with these technologies. Over 30 year I've been programming in more languages than I care to count, and I don't remember at any point having a specific language stop me from achieving my goal because it has some traps or design flaws. Always made sure to know about them and make use of the language's strong points instead of concentrating on the weak.

And we both understood the point of the video. The fact that there is much to be grateful for does not mean that we shouldn't improve on what needs improving. But for heaven's sake, if you're not going to improve on it, stop whining about it and be grateful for the amazing things it does enable.

The following perfectly describes my sentiments about all the complaints people have about JavaScript, PHP, <name your favourite hated language>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEY58fiSK8E

Simply ignoring your feelings to get a job done is just a tactic, and IMHO, not a very good one as it is not sustainable. You should always want to do what you are doing; not necessarily in the sense that this is what you would like to be doing for the rest of your life, but in the sense of recognising that this unpleasant task will get you closer to that something you would like to do the rest of your life.

I think the best method to get something done is to first have a clear vision and passion for the bigger picture. Then, understand how this unpleasant task gets you nearer to the goal of that bigger picture that you want. If it does, you won't need to ignore your feelings. On the contrary; your feelings will push you to do it. If it doesn't, there's a good chance you should be doing something else.

As you say, it seems that the main point of creationists' argument is that historical science isn't valid, because "you haven't seen it happen".

There are so many things wrong with this argument that I don't even know where to begin, but let's play along with this ridiculous line of thought anyway. The obvious question that follows is why is the "historical science" given by the bible any more plausible than the "historical science" of any other creation myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths) ?

Of course there is a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, but even if you can't guarantee that your interpretation of the circumstantial evidence is true (something which by the way you can't do with direct evidence either), one should strive to find an interpretation that has the highest probability of being true given all the evidence at a given moment.

I guess it depends to how detached from reality the average choice is when affected by these biases, and obviously it's not worse than suboptimal as you said, otherwise we would not be getting anywhere. I guess just viewing that large number of biases made me feel like we're lucky to get through the day, let alone make progress as a civilisation :)

I'm a bit skeptical regarding the weight of these biases on everyday life. Looking at all these biases, and the fact that no one is actually free of them (except perhaps some enlightened few) would suggest that we're all making choices which most of the time are based on assumptions that have little anchoring in reality. If this were so, shouldn't there have been total chaos here on earth?