smcq

That particular visualization wouldn't show an average global temperature increase until after the artic was quite dry.

As the author says, a picture is a story. His story is "at an extremely high level we have seasonal temperature fluctuation."

Your entire second point shows a complete misunderstanding of well, everything.

Were you alive in the 90s? I'm just wondering out loud.

In this post, we see the strange assumption that large corporations inherently make more efficient bureaucrats than elected officials.

You can't handle the truth.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you because you have no idea what you're talking about. Go away.

Do the same thing you would do in SQL, run the efficient query (you're almost guaranteed have a view for date limited for a specific customer) then filter it based on product. This is exactly what your RDBMS does, and I don't see how you're gaining anything except a different language.

You don't seem to understand how stored views work. This computation cost is felt at insertion time and is not theoretically worse than the exact same computation cost at insertion time in a rdbms to build almost identical index structures.

What current implementations of rdbms's gain you is the ability to write completely ad-hoc queries and get reasonable performance most of the time. This is an implementation advantage, not a theoretical advantage.

You know, I was going to point out how amazingly brain dead that comparison was, and how inappropriate it was to try to guess my skill level in various languages based on my claim that a language that requires 1/20 the LOC is 50x faster.

I will however finish with, there's a reason C applications don't have features or agile development cycles, and it's not because the coders are absurdly productive. Also, please don't ever try to be a manager.

I've had this before, it works pretty well to say "do not contact me again" and go on with your life as if it never happened.

Yea, I'm 100% ready for touch screens to become a reality so I can start playing with more complicated keyboards. The idea of physical keys (even with a better layout like Dvorak) seems so antiquated when everything else we use on the computer is infinitely customizable.

I easily program software 50x faster in python than C. If I didn't, I would be using C for speed.

They promote offline caching, so I'm betting speediness was because his edits were modifying a local db then going through diff resolution after they displayed.

Every single day when we don't program in COBOL. I'm at a bit of a loss, have you never switched to a more productive language and cringed when you went back to the old language?

You're effectively arguing that all languages/frameworks are equal within an order of magnitude. I think this has been demonstrated false time and time again, and you even demonstrate it again in your own post (saying Forth is unacceptable for web development).

Why so negative?

This language looks pretty awesome, reading the example code I can see how it would slash my loc for ajaxy stuff by at least an order of magnitude.

However, I am confused about this announcement since I cannot discover what your company does from the web page and except the video there's not much to go on about the language. Perhaps you want to fill in some blanks in the comment section?

Programming languages aren't that hard, so I'd say, if it makes them way more productive later, then no it's not a waste of time.

Exactly what compensation do you think entry level employees should be getting? Exactly what should the be making 10 years later after you've (nearly) doubled their salary.

Yea, but it's right pinky which is weaker for most people. By moving it you also gain the -_ being on the home row (which you type less than semi-colon while programming in syntax demanding languages)

Copyright is not patent. Patents expire inside our lifetimes. H.264 will be a viable product for startups to use in 2017.

(As an aside, don't cast this as a FF vs. the world, patent fees kill startups as well as open source companies.)

As a dvorak programmer, it just prompted me to write more python. If you're typing {} characters all day, you should consider how much semantic value that's adding to your programs vs. the cost to type them.

Other characters (',."<>) are clear wins on dvorak, and they contain considerably more semantic value than {} do in any language. ";" is also easier in dvorak.

Eh, deciding ergonomics by a democracy of internet users is pointless (99% of them are probably just repeating things they read on the internet anyway).

Dvorak will reduce the amount of finger motion. Other claims require further proof, but it's fairly trivial to demonstrate that dvorak is better for your hands.

It's really quite easy to do with a bit of javascript magic and some backend work. Not sure why you'd think it's impossible.

I was quite curious what modern languages the author was referring to, wondering if I had missed some magical language boat that left without me.

Custom dock connector, since I'll need to cary a dock converter with me to plug in usb devices.

I'll probably by the first version with a standard port onboard and a camera.

As someone who hosts videos, I hope that you don't get control over the internets. Bandwidth is already expensive enough without having to pay licenses per-stream!

You wouldn't. Moving the goalpost is a fallacy, though given your complete inability to do original research I doubt you could ever find that out on your own. This thread started because you asked for unreasonable evidence in response to a post that said "They are proven to be unreliable over a signifcant period, and we don't know if or how often that's also true of the past." (emphasis mine).

This is a clear claim that climate science researchers have not done basic statistics when presenting new models. This claim has been substantiated by nothing except you requesting more and more detailed analysis from non-experts, which you discount every time we provide it because you assert that you would only listen to an expert.

Ironically, you are actually failing to respect the authority of experts, because the discussion is fundamentally an accusation that experts are failing to do basic statistics. You are accusing us of not being experts so you can't listen to us in the defense of the experts you're attacking by proxy.

I seriously fucking doubt you understood any of this. But it doesn't matter, I won't return. I have no tolerance for people who argue by asking questions and petulantly demanding unreasonable proof while providing absolutely nothing of their own.

Thanks for ruining hacker news.

Moving the goalpost. God damn, this place just became reddit. Cheers. Enjoy the cesspool you created.

Moving the goalpost.

No. You are wrong.

If you're really this interested in it and really suspect an entire scientific field has engaged in completely terrible statistics, it's basic statistics and I suggest you publish a paper yourself.

That or you go look for the papers or the reason the papers have not been written.

This game is old. The standard of proof to demonstrate the method is flawed based on poor correlations is on your side. The method to do the correlation is public knowledge. The data to correlate is public knowledge. R is open source. Go forth and correlate.