I think you're missing the point. The jimmies are getting rustled up because someone provides false information about the performance to make his own argument seem better. This is something anyone should be against.
Really? I have the exact opposite experience, I feel much more free to study and work on whatever I want now that I graduated. I would always feel bad for working my own stuff instead of just working on the class project or homework.
For me the problem is that the number of sites I'd like to support to some extent. I'd love to donate to The Guardian, but I also frequent The Atlantic, BBC and many other sites. Actually supporting all these sites would take time and effort. I took a look at some chrome extensions which try to make this easier (namely tipsy) but they seem to have very few publishers signed up.
I currently have a thinkpad with ubuntu in it (not preinstalled should it matter), and unfortunately I'm considering switching the other way around. There are just too many things with this combo that don't work the way they should, like webcam and microphone not working, public wifi with redirection not redirecting etc. I'm completely fine paying some 50% premium to get the support and customer care of a major corporation.
A lot of the people commenting on the article seem to be pretty adamant that something like this matters. Personally, I've never been confused by a period (or lack of thereof) at the end of a commit message. And if such a time comes, I'll give serious thought to whether it's worth anyone's time to teach the team to use/not use periods or whether I'm better off investing that time to teach them something more useful.
>Finland has a cultural problem: working for a big company is considered good, working for a small one is considered being unsuccessful and failure at founding a startup is considered a shame.
Maybe 10-15 years ago. Now with the rise of successful startups and the national interest towards them, working at a startup is considered good and trendy and rather, most of the CS students avoid large companies. Even my mom was proud and supportive when I cofounded a startup, and she's always been the one to advocate for a good and stable job.
Same goes for Google, but you could argue that it's for a reason. FB/Google have a reputation to uphold and they strive to make sure their name isn't associated with subpar stuff. Plus, they have a lot of brilliant developers to work on this stuff. In the end of the day, it's largely about knowing which of these cool utilities have a better chance of being usable and well thought-out, as nobody wants to spend time on figuring out a utility which turns out to be unusable.
I think most people from those companies (I can't speak about Wall St) would make more money in other companies. The employers those companies usually hire are exceptionally good at what they do, but simply the reputation of those companies is enough to make a lot of really good people want to apply and accept an offer, ever if they could get a more senior position and more money elsewhere.
While Google's this year's submission was good, it didn't seem to contain any particularly inspiring ideas, as it was mostly just a collection of small improvements on previous ideas. Personally, SPP-nets seem to be the most interesting idea to come out of this year's competition.
>This article makes it sound like Spatial Pyramid Pooling is something new and amazing
Hardly, the paper specifically states "Spatial pyramid pooling ... is one of the most successful methods in computer vision" and "SPP has long been a key component in the leading and competition-winning systems for classification".
That's a regional Federal Reserve Bank, not "the Fed". Also, you leave out that those share holders get at most 6% annual return for their investment, since it's capped by law.
I think it has something to do with the idealistic view of "pure, well-written" code. There's something appealing about a code base consisting of only code, not comments. But in my very subjective experience, I've noticed that the more programming experience people have under their belts, the more likely they are to appreciate commenting as a tool among other tools to make your code readable.
The programmer who doesn't change the documentation when changing the code is usually the same one who doesn't change the function name when changing its functionality. If a bad programmer is tweaking your code, it doesn't really matter if the documentation is in the variable names or in the comments.