2,720 karma · joined November 3, 2010
Really a shame that they went for such a strangely click-baity title for what was otherwise a good article, though. This has nothing to do with Copyright and nowhere does the article even attempt to hold up the terrible metaphor.
It's a question of which human folly you magnify with your technology. Whether it dies out quickly does not matter once the damage is done.
Also - keep in mind that what you dismiss as a flood could be mistaken for popular opinion by others.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Yeah, the entire post had this strange whiff of anti-intellectualism.
Well, how about we look into the actual documentation?
https://docs.angularjs.org/guide/providers
What you find is that you define a provider like so:
myApp.provider('Car' //...
myApp.config(["CarProvider", function(CarProvider) { //...
----
Next up he still does not seem to understand the difference between Services, Factories and Providers. That's cool and all and might even prompt some to, you know, investigate further and assume that maybe they haven't understood it correctly yet before clicking "must blog now" button. He jumps the shark (straight to ridicule) by making up his very own nonsense:
> Of course we we can configure providers if we need to configure our applications. How else could we configure our applications and make them configurable for our enterprise scale configurable applications.
You know, actually the distinction makes perfect sense. A provider is an object that you know you will want to configure globally before it is being used (data source providers, url routers etc.). A service sits on the other end of the spectrum and is being called freshly right when you need it (more in the direction of the pure objects he has in mind). Factories sit in between those two - they cannot be configured ahead of the application, but allow for more internal functionality instead of just returning an object.
Having the distinction helps people editing the code figure out what they want to do and others, in turn, to understand what the other programmer was up to. Yes, you can use them somewhat interchangeably, but that's life for you: things overlap. How well and strict they are used is up to the programmer.
Now, I'm not bashing plain, custom OOP Javascript - If that's your thing, by all means do it, knock yourself out! But what's with the hating on people who seem to have a different approach? Wouldn't it be healthier to first try to understand where they are coming from? Surely they can't all be totally in love with wasting their time on "ruining it".
----
In the end what this comes down to is that the author doesn't seem to have sufficient experience with the kinds of environments that make the structures in AngularJS not just pleasant, but actually a life saver. That's fine - we don't need to all have the same perspective. I just don't get this style of argumentation that boils down to "don't understand, must bash".
He also makes fun (as does one of the SO comments) of this quote from the (old?) angular docs:
> An Angular "service" is a singleton object created by a "service factory". These service factories are functions which, in turn, are created by a "service provider". "The service providers are constructor functions". When instantiated they must contain a property called $get, which holds the service factory function.
You know what? Fuck it. When I tried to understand the Servicy/Factory/Provider distinction, I stumbled upon the same SO post and you know what ended up being the perfect way of understanding it? Forcing myself to go back to that paragraph right there until I understood it.
> No, you are not reading a thesis, you are reading the angular docs apparently. If it were a thesis it would probably be trying to explain a solution to some sort of problem instead of describing a made up solution to a made up problem. (Actually, that's not strictly true because academics are in a world of their own too but close enough).
> It's okay, I don't really do enterprise any more.
I'm as sceptical as the next guy about frameworks, hate "enterprise" with a fiery passion and I escaped academia before it fried my brain.
But I don't think myself too cool to do my due dilligence before dismissing something that I very obviously don't understand yet.
Having experimented with Lucid Dreaming... I'll call bullshit.
> NDE studies also suggest that after physical death, mind and consciousness may continue in a transcendent level of reality that normally is not accessible to our senses and awareness.
By definition, if the instrument that is failing is the one that is measuring (itself!), you're not going to get results that tell you anything at all.
I encourage everybody to try lucid dreaming, it's very instructive. After my experiences, I'm 100% certain that it is responsible for everything from alien abductions to NDEs.
It's a lot of fun, too! Not to mention a lot cheaper and safer than experimenting with street drugs, although usually, you have to pay for the difference with patience.
> Shipitsyn says that the impedance monitor in the Gobe can measure glucose by monitoring the water moving in and out of cells. Insulin opens up the cells when you eat sugar, he says.
No matter from what angle I try to make sense of that statement, I only arrive at it being bullshit.
At best, they have a standard grade sensor that, in a narrow band of perfect circumstances, makes a statistical guess that arrives at barely workable accuracy (article notes 80-90%) for a reading of something that is almoste entirely unrelated to your blood glucose level. Even if it was reasonably related, it would still not tell you anything at all about what you've eaten.
This really struck a chord for me. What I got from it was that many people try to build some form of success on pure IQ and get frustrated when they are outmuscled by knowledge in the market.
I think that cuts back to Xerox PARC as well - by focussing everything on IQ, they created the knowledge that allowed Apple to be so dominant.
Where the talk falls a little bit on the obnoxious side is when Mr. Kay makes dismissive statements on how they created what others sold, just 10 or 20 years earlier. I think that ignores the enormous amount of work you have to put into connecting this knowledge that they worked out to the current state of mind that people are in.
Xerox PARC may have invented the future, but the failure of their parent company to bring that future to market shows that even with that knowledge at hand, you have quite a bit of way ahead of you.
Now you have two choices: A) Hate yourself for it. B) Not hate yourself for it.
Lightning struck - you were unable to continue working. There are a number of ways to deal with that, a number of lighting rods to take away the pain from the impact. Some work better than others. Some might even make more sense than others. Procrastinating may not make the most sense.
But the problem is not that you were procrastinating, the problem is that you couldn't continue to work. In procrastinating, you were coping. Your brain told you in rather strong terms: "This is currently not working out and there is no way this is going to get better if we continue staring at it. So let's do something else for a little while."
What you should not do is hate yourself for setting up a lightning rod. Because hating yourself does not increase your chances of being productive. Most of the time what it does is the exact opposite - you're simply increasing the pressure for the next time you get stuck on something. The higher the pressure, the higher the chance that you will grab a coping mechanism from the lower shelves of your arsenal.
It's a cycle of self loathing that only has one out: Stop punishing yourself for not succeeding and instead figure out ways to make it more likely to succeed. Hating yourself is easy, hating yourself for browsing reddit is particularly easy. What's hard is helping yourself to enjoy yourself.
After talking to a friend of mine about his issue and how it reminded me of my own struggles, I tweeted the following:
> "I get stuck browsing reddit and I hate myself for it". Consider that the problem may not be reddit. The problem may be you hating yourself. [0]
Procrastination is often a lightning rod. Try working on the lightning part of it instead of blaming the rod that may actually be saving your life from spiralling further into darkness.
Let's not forget that a huge part of the pitch was to be part of a developer community that sets out into an as of yet unknown realm.
I don't think people are worried about what Facebook might do to Oculus, the product. They have a hard time seeing Facebook the social engine and Oculus, the developer community coexisting peacefully. In a way, they're already making a rather concrete case against it.
> And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.
> Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social.
He is right - "social", especially in the way Facebook is doing it at the moment, is terrible for VR. Terrible for any technology that has such an incredible potential to change the world.
This acquisition makes one thing very clear: VR does not need social. Social needs VR.
Whether or not you agree with his decision, having Notch pull away from talks with you creates an instant credibility "situation".
It's also noteable that Notch had been meeting with the Oculus team just two weeks ago[0], was tweeting about them in rather gushing terms[1] and seemed incredibly inspired to work on VR ideas[2].
He is now the personification of the a near universal feeling of betrayal in the community. Will be interesting to see how this develops.
[0] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/443541395543162880
I'm undecided, but leaning towards seeing a trend (yes, even with historical uncertainties). I'm absolutely willing, though, to attest that to the fact that I'm seeing a trend that would suit me.
Maybe in the US, but internationally is another matter entirely.
Also: I'm not agreeing with your wording of "blacklisting people for political views". I do, however, think that the higher your potential impact on society, the higher the scrutiny towards the outlier nature of some of your opinions should be.
In other words: The further up an employee in a company or a politician in the respective political field moves on their ladder, the more is it justified to hold them closer to the standard set by median public opinion on certain matters.
As they were in India. That's why it's usually more instructive to look at the median, rather than the outliers.
Furthermore: It's debatable to what extent it makes sense to include historical timeframes on which we have lacking or inconclusive data.
52% of Californians voted for Prop 8 in 2008. But: Had you asked 10, 25, 50, 100 years before that, what would the outcome have been? Draw a graph along that line through 2008 and you can track the development of public opinion.
"Similar Parallels"
No, there is a looooong gradient along which the issues you mention (and issues like homophobia) can be placed. Society moves in a certain direction - if you graph public attitude towards homosexuals, there is a clear trend. Similar graphs can be drawn for abortion, womens rights and immigration reform.
On the other hand, directly equating "raising taxes" with robbery sits at a very steady equilibrium of whoever currently uses that sort of logic to kill arguments. Most recently (ie. past couple of years), it is mostly being picked up by the libertarian mindset which is in turn utilized by the more mainstream political right in the US.
We all make choices and our combined choices influence how that graph progresses, but you can directly compare an individuals position with the median position in society. Removing or blocking people from powerful positions when they seem to be too removed from that median is a fundamentally and democratically sound mechanic.
would have fit snugly in 79 characters ;-)
OP: Revealed: Apple and Google’s wage-fixing cartel involved dozens more companies, over one million employees
HN: Apple and Google’s wage-fixing involved dozens more companies, over 1M employees
Maybe this is too nit-picky even for HN, but: Why does the headline here on HN only name "wage-fixing" (aka the symptom of the problem) instead of also naming the underlying cause like the article does: This is a cartel. Dropping the word has a whiff of spin.
I sure as heck hope they get the treatment they deserve and that this will strengthen the understanding that this type of stuff is exactly why you want strong unions. Judging from the history of both in the US, I'm not holding my breath, though.
"It's 5σ at .2"
His wife, also a theoretical physicist - blank stare "Discovery?" - immediately melts into a hug.
What a great thing, to be able to see the human side, makes you all warm and fuzzy for human progress.
> [...]when I ask whether he is flattered or frustrated when he sees his designs so widely referenced, reworked — ok, copied. “It’s theft,” he replies in a heartbeat, his eyes narrowing sharply.
Isn't that the real shame here? I admire Apple for their undisputed ability to strike these marvels of design and the way in which they are immitated does reinforce that they have condensed their solutions into something true, something fundamental. And - fluffiness aside, I do think they serve as demonstrations "against thoughtlessness and carelessness". I admire it in a similar way that I admire how wikipedia has become the encyclopedia. The difference is that in the latter, we have realized that it is a common good that needs to be shared, not an asset that a company posesses.
I understand the enormous amount of work that Ive and his team have put into these devices and they are justified in thinking that they deserve a lot of glory for them. But maybe they are looking for it in the wrong places?
Maybe the identity crisis that Apple has isn't so much their inability to find the next big thing, but their over-attachment to their past hits? Perhaps the key to new glory is letting go of the old glory and sharing it with the world, their ego removed from the equation?
Oh come on, with the romance and everything. Don't you see that our friend yummyfajitas here has bodies to fuck?
He is really just trying to help society to a more sophisticated and unfiltered understanding of his urgent needs and minimal concern to the accidental personality that may be contained in those bodies he desires.
Back before he was ushering in his new era of "rude honesty", it might have taken weeks to figure out whether a body is available to be penetrated by his penis. Now we can all rest assured that he will save himself and the bodies he surely deserves to boob-touch to his hearts content (if the feeling is mutual, of course, he's not a monster!) a good chunk of time.
It's really a win-win.
Looking at the videos - to an outsider like myself, they look massively ridiculous. So there is a societal problem where girls are either not empowered to lead or are discouraged from leading by others. To stop that practice, we will get rid of calling them a specific word.
Words only have the meaning that we put into them. "Bossy" can be applied correctly or incorrectly. How is the word at fault?
I think "only in America" applies here. Instead of understanding that this is a complex, complicated issue in society, let's find a catchy campaign title and rail against intangible things. Oh aren't we all happy we have dealt with the problem in a format that we can easily post to our facebook wall instead of, you know, doing the hard work of actually figuring out and dealing with people on a deeper, personal level.
And yes, I get it, the campaign uses a reductive catchphrase to get a foot in the door and then deliver a more nuanced message. But I think a campaign set on a weird, possibly destructive premise may do more harm than good. It may lead people to think they're doing something when they're actually doing nothing apart from perpetuating a meme.
How about we all just stop and check ourselves before reducing others to adjectives in general? Grown-ups and children, women and men alike?
Maybe this tendency to grasp for the simple answer, the quick phrase at all times is the root of the problem and should thus not be utilized as a solution.
Wait, how is this supposed to compute?
"Checkered past" (= "sleazy business practices to maximize profit") plus this IPO (= "woo! shareholder value!") suddenly equals "enhancements for web professionals"?
I'll believe it when I see it.