I'm curious if you've read much about Activity Theory. (in particular, Yrjö Engeström's Learning by Expanding.) I feel like it's compatible with much of what I've heard you discuss in lectures. Is it something you have an opinion on?
Because it's not like marbles. It's not a math thing.
It's more like a canary in the coal mine. If the canary dies, you should check on the air quality. If they went through the trouble of removing the brown m&ms you have a fairly strong indicator they actually read the document in the first place. And a strong indicator they have a good attention to detail.
Money is influence, the source of that money is influential.
What are the perils of the other sources of money in open source?
For quite a long time the best documentation and guide for using Rails was a book.
Quite a few of the top contributors to Rails have published books about it.
Documentation is very much a weak point for open source. Should we criticize those who contribute to open source and request money for the documentation?
If not, why spread FUD around the idea of asking for direct monetary support of the code itself?
Can't speak precisely to the application used in this example, but a common and important feature of programs like this is mapping the knobs and sliders of the UI to real-life knobs and sliders on a physical control station.
Some consoles even have servos so the binding can go both ways.
Would anybody be seriously interested in this? I'm currently writing code for a printshop that does fine-art reproductions of various size on paper, canvas, and stretched canvas.
We're somewhat under our print capacity and I could easily justify the time building an API on next to our shopping cart and fulfillment backend if anybody has genuine demand for on-demand high quality prints and reproductions.
I lifted the run loop concept. Damn good one. I don't really spend any time pushing my work for use by others. But I agree it ought to be copied by others.
Run loops make a great partner in crime with requestAnimationFrame.
yeah, it's not directly attacking your 'inactive' memory. Just the disk cache, which shows up in the chart as 'inactive'. I'm not familiar with other cases that fit into the 'inactive' piece of the pie.
I have regularly seen 1-3G of ram get free'd up on a 'purge'
I'm curious if you've read much about Activity Theory. (in particular, Yrjö Engeström's Learning by Expanding.) I feel like it's compatible with much of what I've heard you discuss in lectures. Is it something you have an opinion on?