tnone

Yet people learn best from examples, so I don't get why every monad explanation is in reverse like that.

The Z is Y. The Y is an X that does W. ...omitted... Here's C, B and A. Now you understand!

First comment in this thread is exactly like that. Definitions, not explanations.

And then after telling you how monads are different than map for things that are _not_ lists, a bunch of follow up comments talk about... Lists.

Pedagogy does not work like that. What is it about haskell that ruins people's ability to explain things?

An internet finds a bitter satire of his industry and is endlessly amused at taking the piss out of sincere but naive youngsters who debate technical concerns without understanding the appropriate context and history. The mocker misses the point entirely: Hackernews didn't fail, the generation that came before did, in letting their culture die.

Slack, minus the ability to gracefully run in any sort of long term roaming context without babysitting. There's no decent reconnecting logic on either client or server, you just have to notice it's gone quiet, and then figure out the undocumented way to restore it without nuking your settings. Only figured out by accident "/connect" without parameters is valid.

I tried to fix it, but the client is a pile of terrible code and needs a complete rewrite.

I thought pointing out post-truth politics was good? But only if the left does it, I suppose...

Character assassinations from afar are nothing new. It's been the progressive activists' favoured weapon for sure.

That donation ad at the bottom is hilarious, in context. Sorry Guardian, but you're not getting a cent from me after all the tripe you published. Throw out all the click bait opinion pieces and stop removing comments that show they're full of it, then maybe we'll talk. Your writers' egos are not more important than the truth.

It's the sharing of content that plausibly bashes the outgroup and confirms the ingroup's dogma that continues to polarize, keeping people hooked on the superstimulus of having their opinions confirmed.

I see very very few people trying to see and understand that. Start by ungagging the ones who have been silenced and silod under the guise of false civility.

"Diversity of opinion? For starters, American newsrooms are not very diverse along racial or gender lines, ..."

They're just categorically unable to see what's staring them right in the face, aren't they? Stop. Equating. Race. And. Gender. With. Diversity. Of. Opinion. It's. A. Non. Starter.

Not everything has to be equally discoverable. By that same logic, the majority of right click interactions are off the table. You can right click window icons in Windows too, with no visual cue either, they just act different and the surface area is much smaller. Titlebars also don't tell you you can drag them, and essential productivity shortcuts like alt-tab are not advertised either.

It's okay to have to be taught some things, it makes it better for pro users when the handholding is minimal.

Here's another one: hold alt when a menu is open to see some options change into alternate versions. Instant feedback, works on dialogs too. Keeps the UI uncluttered for noobs and power users alike without significantly impeding you.

You can right click on the folder/document icon in the title bar in any app, and you can left click it to drag it. The icon, not the window. What's bizarre is how Windows has trained people to see icons as non interactive stickers instead of reactive proxies for the underlying object. The fact that many labels in Windows still don't update until you close and reopen the dialog is ridiculous, as is the continued use of "ok" "cancel" preferences.

I recently discovered the detailed and amazingly accessible Aqua Human Interface Guidelines from their golden years have been completely gutted and replaced with the macOS guidelines that cover only the basics. They've abandoned years of accumulated wisdom. Luckily the old versions still float around in PDF form, the first few chapters are just good timeless UI design advice.

If you're ever in doubt about the regressive left's tunnel vision and lack of critical thinking, just visit one of these threads, and watch the people unable to distinguish descriptive from normative claims come out of the woodwork, dropping the mandatory moralising chastisement about toxicity and sexism.

From the article it seems the problem is that women continue to seek providers, despite what decades of feminism have tried to tell them they should want.

You know that thing about how old ideas in science can only really be replaced when their supporters die?

Unix greybeards, this is about you.

Ffs why use code formatting? This is unreadable on mobile.

No it's because XMPP's multi device semantics are the opposite of what you want, and they never got offline messaging and file sharing to work reliably across clients.

XMPP was created for and by geeks who roam from workstation to workstation, not people who need to preserve history and state while using multiple devices at the same time under spotty connectivity.

I like the party line analogy, and for once the spectre of anonymous trolls isn't used as a catch all.

Twitter definitely jumped the shark a while ago. The hashtags got hijacked by brands and activists for hollow signaling and marketing. Retweeting and quoting got repurposed to shame and bully. Forced brevity got redirected into hot takes and memes. It was the core community who did it all first.

I suspect Twitter has been pushed aside by many for more private and granular services like Discord and Slack. Discovery there is a problem though, a million chat rooms of 10 people each make for a poor community. In some ways it's like the living rooms of Iran: most know public discourse is messed up and broken beyond repair, so they only speak openly behind closed doors.

If Twitter could admit that and shift gears, there might still be some hope and a future in it. As it stands, all they're doing is giving people better shovels to dig themselves deeper into the hole of their own making.

You can flip this around just the same. These "women in tech" have never heard of men being treated awfully, while women complain loudly and get easy attention when they do, so it _must_ be much worse for them.

This too is a bias, that coverage is proportional to incidence.

When men get shit treatment, they can't play the gender card, so they don't. It's not going to get a sympathetic ear, damseling and crying makes them look pathetic, and you're a loner creepy neckbeard unless proven otherwise. So men are out to prove themselves by default, and women who are not used to this see it as discrimination in an industry where "put up or shut up" is the norm to cover up bad management and shitty work loads.

This is a logical consequence of applying privilege theory back onto tech feminism, and it's a truth they refuse to face, instead dismissing it with the same sort of gendered epiteths and generalizations they shriek at when on the receiving end.

Nobody seems to be capable of explaining this properly. It's like monad tutorials, they explain what happens while mistakenly thinking they are telling you why it happens. I keep trying to fit this idea into my head and I can't because the information is not given.

- Where did this difference come from? When did it develop?

- What are the basic premises that a Bayesian believes that a frequentist doesn't, and vice versa? Reason it all the way through front and back.

- What does the B/F's model look like? What are the pieces they use, how are they arranged, what are the dependencies, how does causality flow?

- Why are the choices made by one invalid for the other's model? Where do they agree deliberately despite this?

- What are the consequences in the real world? Give me a real example on why this difference matters? "Real" meaning I don't care about dice, I care about engineering and science.

Instead you get some bullshit about fitting a distribution you don't understand to a model you can't see, while relying on understanding the nuances between words like probability and likelihood which is what you are trying to learn in the first place. Plus I swear the numbers agree in 99% of the "examples" given, with some handwaving "but it's different" to excuse it.

Fucking explanations, how do they work? Not in academia.

If they were good sports they could've gotten their revenge in the fictional realm. Or the DM could've intervened. As explained, there was an unspoken rule broken, and the response was to escalate to complete silent treatment and ostracization.

What bugs me most is the idea that OP demonstrated untrustworthiness and therefor the reaction outside the game is justified. The complete opposite is true: the clique demonstrated an inability to separate fiction from reality. If this is how they react, what do you think would happen if something actually goes wrong at work? Do you think they would suddenly drop the backstabby attitude, examine things without pointing fingers, and communicate openly about what needs doing?

I've been down that road before. Complete shitshow. Resentment only builds, and saving face takes priority over putting out fires. If the company starts having 2-3 hour vision meetings in times of trouble instead of making action plans, run away, the cancer has gotten to the brain and is fatal.

"Stop, apologize, until you understand what you did was wrong."

The OPs coworkers are pulling the most obvious high school mean girls routine, and OP must grovel to be let back in? F that. It's just a game, and instead of giving the new person some leeway they close ranks. That work environment sounds terrible, petty and uncooperative.

How about _they_ stop and apologize for being immature children.

Why are trains required to blow their horns? This is what guarded crossings are for.

Except that WP has its own arcane laws and policies used to great effect by regulars to ensure no outside voice is given a say in truly contentious articles. e.g. If you try to get involved, you are a "single purpose account". If you contest the veracity of a source, it turns into a meta debate where you are expected to provide an alternative view that is nevertheless considered a reliable source by everyone there who thinks otherwise.

It's a trap, because it ensures the only people who direct it are the ones who also have time to get fill the site with unimportant trivia and camp out. Unsurprisingly, anything to do with the current culture war is a lost cause.

This thing of turning fan bases into named tribes weirds me out. Yet another sign most people just want a club to belong to, and actual principles don't matter.

Strange how this new awareness about class lead to identity politics becoming the left's focus for the subsequent campaigns and activism efforts, resulting in a president who ran purely on her own gender losing to one who ran on economic grounds...

The Women's March was just more of the poison posing as a cure. Yes, they had a big showing, but like Occupy before it, it's entirely coopted by progressive side issues and the professional rabble rousers who need them to persist for their meal ticket. Just look at what's happening to the science march.

No, signaling in this context is a term referring to conspicuous behavior meant to substitute a difficult to prove characteristic (e.g. being a principled person acting morally) with an easy to perform ritual (e.g. sharing opinions with like-minded followers on Twitter).

Not everyone who dislikes this behavior is alt right, or rightwing at all. Stop focusing on the scape goat that's easy to dislike.

There's a lot of scrutiny on the present, but the same applies to the origin stories around us.

If history is written by the victors, what did the people who lost have to say? Reading books from the early 20th century for instance shows a society far less backward than some progressive goggles would have you believe. One should never confuse those who complain about things for those who actually intend to fix them.

The problem is the new MBP is a new product masquerading as an upgrade. Had they called it the Macbook Touch and just bumped the specs on the current Pro, everyone would be happy, and they could see for themselves whether anyone cares or whether it's a useless gimmick. That's how they handled the Air.

You cannot teach taste and vision. Apple giving up monitors is the clearest sign of that: it's the face of the computer, so much that novices confused it for the computer itself.

The Jobs-style answer was the all-in-one iMacs and the monitor-as-a-dock, a computer that wants to be seen. The Cook-style answer is to put somebody else's logo right on their product's display case. Madness.

It's not so much one group as an ideology spread though media and academia, but some did try to take on the label sincerely in an attempt to reclaim its reputation (Guardian columnist Laurie Penny comes to mind). Regardless, columnists like Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, industry professionals (see LambdaConf) and cling-ons (Shanley Kane, Adria Richards), activist students (like Emma Sulkowicz) and professors (like AW Peet) have sought their pound of blood from Professors (Jordan Peterson), scientists (Tim Hunt, Matt Taylor) and professionals (Brendan Eich). Accusations of fascism get thrown around, censorship is demanded, careers and families are targeted. Usually under the guise of morality and standing up to bullies, despite the timeline of events and what equal application of policy would say.

They are excellent as seeing themselves on the right side of history, and they were the ones who pioneered the kind of mobbing and shaming techniques online that they consider to be harassment and violence when the shoe is on the other foot.

Install iStat menus, watch the download bandwidth gauge, look at per process bandwidth in the drop down when it is unexpectedly high.

A computer without a network bandwidth display is like a car without a speedometer. I wish all OSes had this, would cut down on people's mystery wifi complaints.

Hey look, it's yet another movie advertising campaign masquerading as social politics. Social media takes the bait, because of course they do.

Unfortunately that sub is as politically left as it can get. Downvotes galore if you dare to disagree with the agenda of identity politics.

Best part: they upvoted and agreed with NPR that lefties are impervious to fake news and can quickly spot it because of their superior reasoning skills.