I believe that Zed was striving for Zen in his post.
As a college student and someone who read LPTHW, I'm quite happy to see this entry. I have seen the negative attitudes of many self-ascribed "programmers" in the CS department at my University. I feel like a lot of this comes from the point that Zed was making - the old dogs are upset because new people are circumventing how they learned to code. It's strange that some people hold so dearly to their old methods of learning, but I do feel like one must let go of that way of thinking if they wish to be happy.
The new methods of learning are great and they usually don't cement anyone into thinking they're a "programmer." One of my best friends goes to RISD and he learned to code from LPTHW and he is one of the best coders I know (although I think his style is weird sometimes... but that's beside the point). What matters is he is making cool things and he is humble about it. People shouldn't be too attached to any one thing on this earth, it takes away from our complexity as humans. We have such boundless potential and I hate to see that get knocked down by people who are afraid of losing their identity as a "programmer." Those people are so much more than that too! Even if they read all of Knuth's literature and have built compilers, humans aren't robots, why should we act like them? We must let go of the identities that cause to inflict harm on people.
Zed has come across as rather harsh in some of his writing, but this post is very beautiful. I'm not saying that Jeff is a bad guy, I'm just glad that Zed wrote this post.
Hopefully in time we can all let go of the identity of being a programmer. Most of us use libraries built by other people that are so abstracted anybody could do it! And what's cool about the people who are building the gnarly libraries is they put it out for opensource - they want people to use it 8^)
Don't be concerned with the bullies, go out there and have fun!
After their Safari tracking system fiasco they announce this: the ultimate form of tracking. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Google would make this considering the rest of their products.
I love Google and their products, but I feel this takes it over the line. At what point will Google be satisfied with the amount of information they're able to collect? Maybe the world will become some strange Utopia where products like these glasses are acceptable and Google made the right call, but Google should take a step back and realize they're making technology for humans, not robots.
If this trend continues I bet we'll see Google Children roaming our street. Ok, that's pretty hyperbolic but you get my point.
There is something sleazy about Facebook that extends beyond privacy failures. I don't like the idea of blending a new community I'm about to join with the filth on my Facebook friends list. I think this mostly applies to younger people who ended up adding everyone they knew through high school: my Facebook friends are mostly just an accumulation of people I don't really care about.
If I wanted to join a network separate from Facebook, why would I want that network to have access to my Facebook?
I use Spotify and Songkick reluctantly only because they are great services. Facebook is a great way to get your name out there, but I'd rather fill out a few text fields than have a service I want to use depend on Facebook.
People join new networks to get away from Facebook, not extend it into every sector of their lives.
Totally.
I just wouldn't make anything so centered around the idea of a startup. As long as people have reason to gravitate toward the design, people will want it. This goes beyond aesthetics, though. It's probably a difficult balance to achieve, but it's definitely doable.
It is my hope that humanity finds a healthy balance between technology and tasks that humans do. Yes, it would be great if Apple didn't have to exploit Chinese workers to make their products. But no, it would not be great if my Doctor was put out of work by a robot. I honestly feel that the government will have to issue some sort of standard that limits technology to some sense.
Yes, I would save money by going to the robot dentist, but my dentist would be out of work in no time. It partially rests on humans to keep the exploits of technology at bay. We can't turn personable human tasks into machine work.
Our world can be set up to be completely self-sufficient. Yes, a few people would make a lot of money, but I personally believe the impacts would be horrendous.
It's a paper that focuses on some strange patterns that came out of a statistical analysis of the 1988 Computer Science AP test. It turns out that there are a few questions that end up being a great indicator towards someone's natural programming ability.
Other than the Google logo in the bottom left hand corner, Google has done a great job of taking the back seat on development. You can pretty much make a map that looks like it's completely void of the Google family.
When creating a mapping application, it's extremely important to stay away from that. There's no point to creating an application that's just a styled Google map. There has to be a point to having your application centered around a map. I think a drawback of using Google maps (or any of the mapping services) is that it's so familiar to people. A lot of people might assume that the application your building is just a Google growth. Fortunately, Google has a good deal of features built into the API to keep that from happening. You can pretty much design what your map will look like down to the most seemingly superfluous of details.
Mapping applications are so awesome because of how interactive and driven by visual exploration they are. I think there will be a lot more of them doing things that we don't expect to see in the future.
One last note: Any TileMill developers out there? What would your advice be for someone who is making a mapping application/considering moving over from gmap?
"This knowledge isn’t superficial in a survey-course sense: It is about both deep structure and practical applications. Knowing about, in this sense, is crucial to understanding a new problem and what must be learned in more depth in order to solve it."
I am usually of the school that finds more value in deeply understanding a single thing than having good knowledge of a lot of things.
When it comes to start-ups and hackers, do you think it's more important to have a deep knowledge of a few topics or a fair understanding of a lot of topics? I think it's more beneficial to have the kind of knowledge that the article described, than a true bare bones understanding of programming.
You don't need to know compiler languages to code the next big thing. It just gives people an indication to how smart the founders are, which means a lot.
Making money in music today's music industry is absurd. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if major record labels vanished in the next 100 years.
You'd imagine a band that's put out a record on a successful label and toured the world multiple times would be covered in wealth. That's not the case at all. In fact, most touring bands don't even make enough money to be in the black. At the end of the day, past the flights, cost of gas, and cheap meals lies an elastic state of negative to mediocre profit.
Why then do small acts still tour? Well, it's fun and it's probably been a dream of theirs for some time now. I for one am extremely thankful that bands continue to put out amazing music with only enough money to barely support themselves.
Here's the thing: bands don't need major labels anymore. That's because it's basically level playing field now: you can make an amazing album on your laptop in a barn in rural Massachusetts and still have the ability to compete with the major labels. No longer are people sucked into the radio aggregate of the 90's when all you could discover were boy bands. Now we have these amazing things like Bandcamp and Spotify that allow you to stream virtually anything! That's pretty amazing, but what's the use if everyone is listening to the demands of a major label?
So with that being the case, couldn't this problem be solved? All it will take is a push for bands to stay away from huge labels and for listeners to find that music. That's where Spotify should come in.
What's interesting about this entire thing is that a long tail company like Spotify is potentially able to shift the power from the shit that most major labels produce to better and more meaningful music. If Spotify can find a way to direct people's tastes away from most major label garbage, they might be able to solve this issue.
Maybe Spotify will push for more independent artists and incorporate musicians on Bandcamp into their catalog.
Although I'm pretty sure that musicians who put their music directly on Spotify only receive a pretty small cut, Spotify should be able to overcome their major label woes by putting a focus on smaller more niche based music.
It is my hope that musicians stay away from large labels. And no, I am not some indie purist, I just think that major labels are diluting the quality and diversity of music and that we have the power to change that.
I find this quite interesting because it deviates from what I thought Hemingway's Trick would have been: be a ruthless bastard.
The real Hemingway Trick definitely has its benefits because it lets your algorithm/design/idea develop in your head over time. Brute force coding, even if it works, can lead to sloppy and less efficient code. This leads to an important question: at what point does one trade "beast mode" for rest?
I read an article on HN about how the difference between great and mediocre musicians is the amount of time spent on focused practicing. Total hours mean nothing, only the amount of time spent on meaningful practice matters.
With this being said, it's important to develop a plan of action, and then stay incredibly focused on that for a few short hours. Once that roadblock is hit hit, take a break, let your brain do some processing, and then go back to a focused hack a little later and walk away with substantial progress.