Permit me to explain how I see this. You may disagree strongly with me but I hope to convey why your comment aroused so much passion.
I don't see Amit as considering himself to be more important than anyone else. I see a man who is trying to save his own life (with very little time to spare) and I have sympathy with his cause. I don't expect him to take this cause further when he is well, even though I know that many people in the world are suffering.
My position is very different from yours. I find it difficult to agree with the sentiment of your comment because I don't expect Amit to be looking out for anyone else but himself at this moment. In this case, I suspect that many others here have similar views.
Andrew, your comment is correct when literally interpreting dictionary definitions but misses the spirit of the situation.
If we take the current criticisms (of your comment) as being morally representative of the general population (probably a decent approximation) then most people would consider the dictionary definitions of ``shameless'' and ``modest'' to be incomplete and not applicable (at least not to someone that is possibly dying). That is one reason why you see so many upset comments here.
In the end, saving Amit's life is better than not saving it, all else being equal. Especially when the goal is so clearly defined and within reach.
It's alright to disagree strongly with someone else but mutual respect is one of the attributes that keeps HN an open and interesting discussion forum.
I found it neither confusing nor hypocritical. My take-away is that with an educated work-force and working market, a city can improve its productivity by allowing density to increase. Cities that don't do this - typically cities with well-heeled citizens who don't want their backyards ruined - will see their competitive advantages eroded.
I have respect for people that can deliver, regardless of what they use. The allure of cool tech is strong but tech doesn't make products: people do.
I cannot see what is wrong with your using plain PHP if you can get the job done faster (as long as you avoid things that make exploits easy, such as raw mysql db functions). When the time for a framework comes, you'll know.
Stop worrying about what others think and good luck!
codedivine has a point and it's even admitted in this posting: "we expect the initial performance to be abysmally bad (maybe 10x slower); however, with successive improvements to the locking mechanism, to the global program transformation inserting the locks, to the garbage collector (GC), and to the Just-in-Time (JIT) compiler, we believe that it should be possible to get a roughly reasonable performance (up to maybe 2x slower)."
It will likely be difficult to beat expertly written code using explicit locks. But most people aren't experts in concurrency and will either get it wrong or have slow implementations. And if transactional memory catches on, we may even see some hardware assistance in future CPUs.
(S)TM is definitely worth exploring more and even a 2x slower implementation (as envisioned by the PyPy team) could cover most concurrency needs, which will make it a success in most people's eyes.
It is also possible that the efficiency gains brought by technology allow previously inaccessible services to become accessible to more people, thereby increasing demand for those services.
For example, some types of legal discovery can now be done very well by software. On the face of it, one might think that many lawyers will lose their jobs (as discovery normally requires the attention of many lawyers). However, since the process is now cheaper, companies that could never before have afforded such legal services can now afford them. The lawyers will no longer be doing the actual discovery work, but will instead guide the software.
I realize that my example targets a highly-paid group and that litigation is perhaps not the kind of thing anyone gets excited about, but this is what popped into my head first. You can apply this thinking to other fields.
Technology sometimes leads to job losses but it also leads to new jobs. It's not much consolation to people who lose their jobs - and how to redirect talent on a large scale seems to be an unsolved problem - but in the long run, if done right, tech improvements can improve all the lives of many people.
A number of days ago, I downloaded Textmate and started playing with it. In the beginning I almost wanted to just delete it and go back to Emacs. But as time went on, its simplicity became increasingly pleasant; so last night, I purchased a license.
To me, it's good to know that innovation in text editing is not over. I don't think that Textmate is the last word by any means but it is a beautiful tool and I'm curious to see how Chocolat stacks up.
The tabloid presses seem to have blunted Occam's razor. I have used AirBnB in the past and have come to realize that a lot of renters lose enthusiasm in time and simply don't respond - sometimes they respond half-apologetically after a week or two. Also, given that it's summertime, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of New Yorkers are on holiday (and perhaps ignoring their e-mails).
I am pissed with AirBnB for how they've handled the recent events but speculating like this is just kicking them when they're down.
I have some pretty strong feelings about IP (I oppose software patents and I think copyright terms are too long) but I suspect that IP will become more sophisticated and pervasive. Robin Hansson has a post about what he calls "IP+" (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/07/ip-like-barbed-wire.ht...). I don't like the future he paints but it is better than today's setup.
A large (and growing) part of the world's population will want some kind of guarantee that they'll be compensated for their time and they'll be pushing for some kind of IP. Whether or not this will be better or worse for society, only data can tell us. But regardless of that, people want to optimize for what they think is best for themselves and their offspring and will vote on the basis of that.
Right, but we have to limit ourselves to the upper segments of the smart phone market. If we include the cheapo Androids when talking about smart phones then Apple's relative market share may very well drop in the coming years (unless they come up with a lower-end iPhone but even a low-end iPhone would probably not exactly be low-end).
But I agree that they cannot afford to lose ground to HTC, Motorola, LG and Samsung's high-end phones.
New Mac user here (I've had mine for less than 12 hours now). Caveats upfront: I'm a long-time Ubuntu user and I'm a programmer, so I'm not exactly a parental-class user.
The most confusing thing for me was to get my Mac onto our university WPA2 enterprise network. It is actually impossible to configure Mac OS 10.7 for this (at least via a GUI). After an hour, I realized I could use the .mobileconfig file for the iPad/iPhone (on our network) to set up a profile for my Mac and then things went smoothly. This was annoying to be sure and I'm not sure what benefit derives from this removed functionality (since 10.6 can do this).
But other than that, I've had a blast of a day. Everything else has been fairly discoverable and I figured out the gestures very quickly. In contrast to some of the complaints, I like the reversed scrolling and I like the way that Mission Control works.
I'm certain that if I were to give this machine to my parents, they would be fine. Perhaps I would disable Mission Control but otherwise I cannot foresee stumbling blocks.
If I had to give a name to this approach, I'd call it "adversarial debugging".
It's an excellent technique for software improvement, as it somewhat mirrors an evolutionary game. You have your prey (your software) and a predator (the chaos-like monkeys). When the predator is successful, you improve your prey until the predator is under control (with non-chaos monkeys). Then you improve your predator (chaos-like monkeys). This cycle of prey/predator improvement can be repeated as long as needed.
As saurik points out, this has the potential to lead to cascading failures. But this is true of any complex system that has multiple levels of self-repair - repair systems in biological systems can also work against the host organism.
I'd love to see commonly used software hardened in this way - Apache for example. Imagine a contest where the aim is to find creative ways to bring down sandboxed Apache servers (executed on the machine of the contest participant). You (the contestant) come up with an Apache killer and submit it to the contest website and get points based on how much damage your code can do. This gives the Apache developers an idea of where to harden Apache.
The obvious danger with such a system is that it's a treasure trove of DOS attacks against existing Apache installations. But the argument in favor is that some black-hats might already have similar code anyway and they won't be publishing their code. Also, the code is a good test harness that can be used to verify that major architectural changes (such as what would be needed to integrate Google's SPDY into Apache) don't make Apache vulnerable to previous attacks. And of course, other similar software (Nginx et al.) can also benefit from some of these test cases.
I'm not sure if this is behind a paywall (my uni has access to everything on Nature's site), so here is the salient bit:
RESULTS: Primarily, subjects aged 40 y have been studied (39.5±0.4 y, mean±s.e.m.) who are only moderately obese (92.7±0.9 kg, 33.2±0.5 body mass index (BMI), 33.4±0.7% body fat); for short durations (15.6±0.6 weeks). Exercise studies were of a shorter duration, used younger subjects who weighed less, had lower BMI and percentage body fat values, than diet or diet plus exercise studies. Despite these differences, weight lost through diet, exercise and diet plus exercise was 10.7±0.5, 2.9±0.4* and 11.0±0.6 kg, respectively.
I don't know enough about economics to give a qualified answer but let me try. All currencies are vulnerable to feedback loops but governments can do things like change the interest rate to encourage/discourage spending. I don't understand how this would be possible with Bitcoin.
I overlooked the Bitcoin limit - price inflation will certainly be limited through this mechanism. But I wonder if this might not cause prices to drop at a constant rate (since Bitcoins are so divisible) - this would include labor costs (although how wage stickiness would hold up to this remains to be seen).
Permit me to explain how I see this. You may disagree strongly with me but I hope to convey why your comment aroused so much passion.
I don't see Amit as considering himself to be more important than anyone else. I see a man who is trying to save his own life (with very little time to spare) and I have sympathy with his cause. I don't expect him to take this cause further when he is well, even though I know that many people in the world are suffering.
My position is very different from yours. I find it difficult to agree with the sentiment of your comment because I don't expect Amit to be looking out for anyone else but himself at this moment. In this case, I suspect that many others here have similar views.