Ok, so you use their JSON API with an FB app token?
386 karma · joined October 11, 2008
https://freeradical13.github.io/
kevin@myplaceonline.com
> Over the past few decades, probiotic applications of E. coli have gained scientific credibility, though a lot of research has been conducted with in vitro or animal models only, while relatively few human studies support the claimed or predicted effects. Of the three products discussed here, most is known about EcN, which is a surprisingly poor long-term colonizer of the human gut. This strain was originally isolated based on its antagonistic capacity in order to combat infections, but this treatment application became out of fashion as antibiotics entered the field. Now that these threaten to backfire, with pathogenic bacteria sooner or later developing resistance against the antimicrobials they are exposed to, interest has increased in alternative methods that have been applied in the past, including phage therapy and probiotics. This could introduce a revival of the original concept introduced exactly a century ago by Alfred Nissle.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063008/pdf/euj...
The first sibling comment of the third highest voted comment throws out a worry, and it was downvoted.
I don't know what this means exactly, but I think it's worth the average HNer to ponder.
I like Rails, but to be fair, doesn't Rails also require a list of 30 random gems? Unless things have changed, authorization and authentication aren't even built-in, so people have to navigate random third party gems, and remember, you don't want CanCan, but you want the fork, CanCanCan. Again, I like Rails, and maybe it's still the nearest to an all-in-one framework, but I think somebody who took the next step and created a truly all-in-one framework would win big.
My current project:
$ grep -c ^gem Gemfile
75> How has Zimbardo responded this time? [By reasserting that](http://www.prisonexp.org/response) 'none of these criticisms present any substantial evidence that alters the SPE’s conclusion'. And at the same time that he berates his critics (without engaging with their arguments), he reworks his story to now say that, yes, Guards were told to be tough, but not how to be tough. For Zimbardo, then, this is all just fake news. Except that it plainly isn’t.
Here is Zimbardo's response from that link:
> From the time of being recruited with national ads to be actors in a "university-backed social science experiment to be shown on TV," every participant knew their actions and voices (from lapel mics they had to wear always) would be seen and heard on national TV by family and colleagues. Any similarity to the intense build-up of emotional confrontations between SPE guards versus prisoners, 24/7, was diluted by the daily itinerary of the British research team (Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher). These researchers frequently intervened, made regular public broadcasts into the prison facility, administered daily psychological assessments, arranged contests for the best prisoners to compete to become guards, and as in many “reality-TV” shows, created daily "confessionals" for participants to talk directly to the camera about their feelings. Ironically, the results of this show could be interpreted as further evidence of the “power of the situation,” although in this case the “situation” was that of reality-TV.
> Among the participants in this BBC-TV prison show, several of whom had contacted me afterwards, was Philip Bimpson, the ringleader of a prisoner rebellion against the hapless guards. He said, in part:
> > The prisoners won because they had organized themselves quicker than the guards; their subversive actions and organizational skills outwitted the guards who were disorganized in their new surroundings. They did not understand that they had to organize themselves and form a set of rules that they all agreed on… I think the group is being exploited by the BBC for commercial gain. Me and my new friends in the group joined the experiment for the furtherance of science & not to be used as a form of cheap entertainment." (Personal email communication, 26 Feb. 2002; supplemented by my subsequent visit in Glasgow, Oct. 10, 2004)
> I therefore reject the use of this “replication” as a scientifically valid challenge to results from the SPE (for a more detailed response to this criticism, please see my article in the British Journal of Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 127.).
Various page transitions can be set using `defaultPageTransition`: https://demos.jquerymobile.com/1.4.5/transitions/
Click the "page" button to the right of a transition for a demo.
Great article overall but one premise I question is: how often do you really need a non-jQuery JS framework at all in the client?
It seems to me that most apps are simple CRUD apps and server-side rendering is sufficient. Sprinkle in jQuery for simple client functions. Use jQueryMobile for the SPA framework which improves performance by making an AJAX request for any navigation and replacing the page body (instead of doing a full page reload).
I recommend only moving to a full non-jQuery based framework if the design or functions require it (and question that) or the app evolves to require it. As fast as computers, phones, and the internet are today, doing server-side rendering seems good enough for most apps.
> The project is mainly(opinion) dead.
I don't think it's dead so much as they are really worried about backwards compatibility (rightly so), so they're taking their time. It could also be argued that, for its purposes, it's not so much dead as nearly complete.
On top of JQM, there's PhoneGap which I've also used for years and created both an Android and iOS app in the app stores. It allows you to access most native APIs through JavaScript shims.
Overall, I've enjoyed the simplicity of JQM+PhoneGap (I use Rails as the backend). You can still layer on any other JS framework on top, so it's not limiting. My friends and I use the app daily and performance is fine on a modern phone.
Having the same code (and I'd argue, look and feel as well) for web, mobile, and native is the best way to go for a small project trying to contain time and costs.
I have no strong opinions either way, but one meta-point I personally find interesting is: why don't journalists send a final draft of an article to the people involved and get a final round of comments? That just seems fair. Zimbardo claims some facts in the article are simply wrong, and either 1) those errors would be corrected, or 2) Zimbardo's response to those claims could stand side-by-side, instead of this bifurcated situation of articles and response articles.
I think it would be even better if these arguments were in a wiki (or git) style instead of a series of articles.
In particular:
> I observe that I choose freely, at least sometimes; and if you introspect, you will see it too. There is no reason to assume that these observations are illusory, any more than there is reason to assume that vision or hearing is illusory. I frequently hear scientists declare that real science (as opposed to bogus Aristotelian science) rests on observation; that is, they take the observed facts as a given, and work from there. The insistence that free will does not exist has more in common with the worst a priori scholasticism than with modern science. The latter demanded that the facts fit the theory, while the essence of science is supposed to be that we make our theories fit the observed facts. […] Any argument for doubting our observations of our mental states would ipso facto be an argument to doubt the observations that confirmed atomic theory. […]
> This doesn’t mean that I am sure that no explanation is possible; maybe one day someone will show that this “brute fact” is not a brute fact at all, but one capable of a simple explanation. The point is that we don’t need to wait for this explanation before we can accept my view. We can gather all of the needed evidence for that if we merely turn inwards and observe.
$ wget "https://archive.org/compress/Harvard-Classics/formats=TEXT%20PDF&file=/Harvard-Classics.zip"It gave me a plausible alternative to Nihilism.
$ curl -s https://www.myharvardclassics.com/categories/20120212 \
| grep "downloads.*download" | sed -e 's/href/\n&/g' \
| sed 's/.*\(http:.*download\)/\1/g' | grep " - " \
| grep -v target | sed 's/"> - / /g' | sed 's/<.*//g' \
| while read link rest; do \
if [ "${i}" = "" ]; then i=1; fi; \
wget -O "Harvard Classics - Volume $(printf '%02d' ${i}) - ${rest}.pdf" "${link}"; \
i=$(( i + 1 )); \
done> Systemic oppression: The ways in which history, culture, ideology, public policies, institutional practices, and personal behaviors and beliefs interact to maintain a hierarchy — based on race, class, gender, sexuality, and/or other group identities — that allows the privileges associated with the dominant group and the disadvantages associated with the oppressed, targeted, or marginalized group to endure and adapt over time. (Derived from Aspen Institute, via Open Source Leadership)
Edit: Added example ambiguity.
1. Climate change: Ridley calls himself a "luke-warmer". He doesn't deny that a doubling of carbon dioxide causes a 1 degree celsius increase in temperature, but he accumulates various evidence in the book suggesting that estimated feedback effects (water vapor, etc.) are in excess of what's likely. This claim certainly falls into one of the debatable aspects of the book and I'm not an expert to really evaluate it. I think it's a valid criticism that Ridley is excessively optimistic on existential risks. My guess is that he has a Bayesian prior that dooms-dayers are more likely to be wrong than not. He has many examples in the book of experts predicting existential risks in history and being wrong, and I think this colors his view of all experts. I think those historical examples of wrong doomsdayers is an interesting and important perspective.
2. Societal Collapse: I believe Ridley wrote about how the black plague may have been an important catalyst in igniting the renaissaince, so I don't remember him making teleological arguments. I don't think Ridley ever claimed that there won't be problems or collapse, but simply that if you look at the aggregate statistics, humans have been improving dramatically in the last few thousand years, largely driven by new forms of energy in the last few hundred years.
3. Materialism: I don't understand this critique. I already see evidence of movements forming to help people find more meaningful lives: the scientific field of Positive Psychology and Meaning-in-life research by professors such as Dr. Steger, The School of Life, etc.
I guess MoviePass thinks they deserve a cut of concessions since they're saving theaters - which might be true - but theaters control the end product, so I doubt they'd share revenue. They're more likely to compete against MoviePass if the plan works.
> The largest theater chain in the US instead described MoviePass as as an existential threat. “That price level is unsustainable and only sets up consumers for ultimate disappointment down the road if or when the product can no longer be fulfilled,” the company harrumphed.
(emphasis added)
Instead, this article claims it's:
1. Studio of movie $M pays MoviePass $X to market it to subscribers.
2. Subscribers see a movie they otherwise wouldn't pay for. MoviePass eats this cost ($Y).
3. Subscribers' word-of-mouth network effects bring in extra revenue $E that otherwise wouldn't have come in.
4. MoviePass stays alive if $E > $X > $Y.