I have Ubuntu running in Parallels on an iMac, retina display, and the Ubuntu fonts seem noticeably less "nice" to look at than the Mac. Now, I didn't take the Pepsi Challenge here, i.e. a blind test, so it might just be internal bias -- but to me, the Mac fonts are noticeably better.
I don't know much about the physics, but it seems like you'd want square miles of solar panels, even in space, and then there's the problem of getting that energy back to earth. On the other hand, in space you'd get a lot of light frequencies that are rarer on Earth. It's not clear to me if those could be harnessed somehow. Regardless, it's a creative idea.
Plate tectonics has everything moving, so although I am an amateur, it seems the fact that the British Isles are moving away from Europe doesn't prove much.
I think the author is trying to say that _from a teaching point of view_, thinking of multiplication as a kind of addition is suboptimal.
Because you can indeed multiply through repeated addition (which she acknowledges), repeated addition is one valid way to look at multiplication. But it might not be the maximally helpful framework for students.
It's difficult to account for every possible case while still remaining brief.
Seeking expert knowledge is good advice in most situations. If you have the time, and the issue is potentially costly or valuable to you, then you should almost always gather the best information before deciding.
Agreed. Unless the long-term need for software begins to decline, if you are skilled, hard-working, and able to communicate and work well with others, a lot of people will hire you.
To the extent he is speaking only for himself and not making any kind of larger point, I'm not sure why it's on the front page of Hacker News.
To the extent he's making a point such as "I gained nothing from this experience" or that he's asking for advice or thoughts, I think some of the thoughts -- such as working toward your strengths rather than through your weaknesses -- are interesting.
When faced with an oppressive law, people are entitled to do everything within their power to deal with it. Changing the law itself is certainly a great solution when practical, but it is not always practical.
$50K is kind of cheap actually. I've seen people pay $200K and more for basic CRUD websites with a little extra this or that.
In fairness, if your web app does more than CRUD, or if you expect it will in the future, then PHP and jQuery wouldn't be my first choice. I'm very familiar with how much of a mess an app can become when pursued that way -- a nasty soup of callbacks and conflicting states. As tooling around React improves -- and it's already quite good -- it will be easier to cost-effectively write a React CRUD site.
If you just want a CRUD site that works, and you want it fast, a Rails site with scaffolding will probably give that to you in an hour or two -- with almost the whole hour being spent thinking about your data model.
I started programming on an amateur basis in 1984, professionally in 1997. I'm 52 now. My experience is that coding has become more and more interesting and pleasant. In the early days, I had to deal with under-powered languages that either couldn't do certain things or that made them very difficult. Then I encountered languages that were much more pleasant to use, but had other problems such as not scaling well to team-level development -- sometimes even I couldn't figure out what I had been doing. Languages are clearer now, they make thinking about problems easier, and while this issue has not disappeared, it's less bad for me than it used to be.
For me, tools, including languages, do matter. I can well imagine that programming in Java would be soul-deadening (although Java is still better than some languages of the past).
Incidentally, I am not dunking on languages of the past. Lisp has been around for a long time, as has Smalltalk or Haskell or ML. Many of those languages were not accessible to anyone without a mainframe or expensive workstation. This situation has improved greatly in the past decades, which to me is another reason to prefer coding today versus the past.
Obviously, most of us are not able to cherry-pick our toolset for work. We use whatever our employer says to use, or whatever the demands of our project require. This may be part of why many people find coding to be an uninspiring experience. Also, the problems that people work on might be dull, it's hard to get motivated about a basically tedious problem.
Last, it's worth acknowledging that some people just don't love coding all that much. It's hard to imagine doing really well at something you don't deeply enjoy day in and day out. And your passion can change over time: you might really enjoy something in one part of your life, and not derive much joy from it at another part.
Possible credulous users cannot be the one-size-fits-all excuse for blocking the freedoms of everyone. There are many ways to mitigate any conceivable concern without abrogating the freedom of a phone owner to run the software they wish on their own device.
I don't see that at all. The value Apple supposedly provides is safety. If consumers want the safety that Apple offers, they can continue to limit themselves to Apple's App Store offerings, while those who don't value safety as highly can use a different app store. Just because you value something in a certain way does not mean everyone else should be forced to adhere to those same values.
The arguments are well-repeated by now, but your comment is analogous to saying if I buy a Ford, I can only fill it with Ford gas. It's OK to have laws that prevent and forbid that because it's not good for the people.
This isn't really an option if you actually want iOS apps. It's an all-or-nothing play by Apple: accept all our rules, including the ones that greatly limit you, or get none of the benefits of iOS, including the large collection of high-quality apps. And the option of jailbreaking really isn't an option either. Apple does its best to prevent jailbreaking: they'd stop it outright if they could. This is their way of keeping that market unpleasant, small, and marginal.
The argument is that that approach is anti-competitive and unfair, especially since Apple itself gets a large cut of app sales.
I'm not coming down hard on either side, just yet. But I don't like the feel of this sort of lock-in, and almost no one would question the use of a term like "lock-in." Some lock-in is surely legal, even if almost always unpleasant. But it's only a hop, skip and a jump to full-fledged antitrust.