I never said Stack Exchange websites were “perfect” for anything. I’ve just been using it today and I hate it. Stack Exchange websites use competition to achieve answers to questions a paradigm that is completely at odds with collaboration and understanding necessary to actually have conversations in which multiple opinions can coexist and learning can occur.
Thanks for the useful reply. I’m giving MailMate some serious consideration depending on whether the smart mailboxes feature can distinguish between threads I’m involved in and threads I am not.
> Also look for bloggers who have quality comment communities
Yeah that’s quite a good point. Twitter too I guess. The trouble with blogs and twitter is that you can’t ask a question unless you have a blog or a twitter account that is popular.
Oh yeah, this is not a book to use for learning Haskell. I personally recommend Graham Hutton’s Programming in Haskell or Real World Haskell if you want to learn Haskell. Hutton’s book focuses more on the principles of the language while RWH on its applications but still covers principles well. RWH is a significantly larger time commitment.
I know a lot of people wax on the virtues of Learn You A Haskell but I found its explanations sufficiently full of inferable minutiae that my brain switched off safe in the knowledge that thinking is not required and I stopped learning. Maybe this is just me though.
The first part is all about logic and it tells you everything you need to know. You have to approach it like reading a big academic paper though. It’s not like you’ll be flipping through the pages rapidly but it is definitely understandable. Can’t comment on later parts because I stopped reading. I might start again one day though. I quite liked it.
The absence of that executable flag does nothing to protect you from using an existing executable and some data such as an interpreter and source code.
That advice creates startups that are more likely to work, yes, but also seriously narrows the range of different startups likely to occur. You’re optimizing for reliability—not surprising, you’re an investor—not for where the need is greatest.
Perhaps once you’ve made a lot of money you could afford to optimize for where the need is greatest instead of reliability and fund tech startups tackling problems less familiar to their founders or founders from different backgrounds. This will probably be more risky but greater needs should produce greater rewards, right?
Except the overall effect of this startup will be the opposite of what you just describe. Prim isn’t creating more dirty laundry, it’s consolidating the laundry jobs into batches that will be performed by fewer businesses than would otherwise overall.
If you happen to own one of the laundromats that Prim doesn’t want to use you will see a reduction in your business. There is a saving grace for that situation however, you could apply for a job at Prim.
> There's no legal obligation to do that, so why should they? Because of morals? Are your morals demonstrably more correct than theirs?
The people get the government they deserve. If you demand fairness you might get it. This is why it is important people demand ethical behavior from companies and institutions. The quality of any individual’s own morals has little to do with whether one is entitled to do that or not. And even if it did why should they have to demonstrate it? Can you imagine a world like that: “we’re not going to help you until you demonstrate your morals”
I think people are going to try to avoid the tester experiencing errors. Why would anybody write something badly if it’s just going to come back to them in a couple of hours as wrong? But any half-decent culture is probably already thinks this way.
I have no objection to that. I just don’t want those words written by people to make it sound like the application is a person. The app can talk about itself doing things (it does do things after all) but not as a human being with feelings and stuff.
Good UI design is all about effective communication. If you have a UI that is pretending to be something it isn’t (a person) then it is basically lying to you. That’s hardly good communication. It’s confusing and dishonest.
And believe it or not there are some users who won’t understand that it isn’t really a person. Some minds are very prone to anthropomorphizing especially when they are dealing with something they find hard to understand and unpredictable like a computer.
But versions of Windows before 95 didn‘t have the prefix. In Windows 3.1 it was just Program Manager, Write, Paintbrush, File Manager etc. So they took a step backwards in 95. It took them a decade to get back to where they were in the 80s.