This particular case, if you read the blog, sounds like a deliberate oversight intended to fool users into thinking the app is more popular than it is. A refresh function would probably make the service look worse, not better.
It's very common to see apparent UX "bugs" and glaring shortcomings that have a legitimate business case behind them. I think Netflix owns the patent on this brand of bullshit.
Gotta say, I've heard dumber ideas. It would be very helpful if someone started a site that keeps track of product managers who scramble the UI in popular applications, force-feed operating systems to unwilling users, or redesign websites whose only fault is that people like the way they work now.
Basically a cross between LinkedIn, FuckedCompany, and Rotten Tomatoes, where users post independent "performance reviews." When an exec moves to a new company, we'd know to disable automatic updates for that company's products.
If anyone wants to take a serious shot at this problem, they can count on at least one subscriber.
The topic isn't really, "Should Nature get paid?" or "How much should Nature get paid?", but "Who should pay them, and who should be able to view the resulting publication?"
If the original research grant were used to cover for the editorial costs associated with peer review and publication, then the Elseviers of the world could no longer make a case for restricting public access to publicly-financed research.
The goal of sci-hub is to remove artificial obstacles that block access to human knowledge. Every legitimate scientist should share this goal. But right now, the financial and academic incentives are horribly misaligned.
To be fair to the developer, "Do you want to discard all changes?" is not even remotely the same question as "Do you want to delete all files?"
That's no excuse for not keeping backups, of course. Everybody who has used a computer for more than a few days has probably had to learn the same lesson the hard way. Nothing to do but move on with life. The code was probably full of bugs anyway.
You step into the river, but the water has moved on Your data is no more
It's not easy to create. This foirmer professor/former Oculus exec/former whatever is talking out of her ass.
For one thing, functional MRI is nowhere near as magically effective as she suggests. It's possible to 'read' the thoughts of dead fish in these machines. Results require extensive postprocessing and context-aware interpretation by trained personnel.
For another, these machines are among the most sophisticated devices this side of a CERN facility. They carry seven-figure price tags. They require helium-cooled superconducting magnets, high-energy RF excitation with industrial-scale power requirements, sensitive receivers with lots of signal processing power, and last but not least, long integration times. You almost need a nuclear physicist on staff just to keep one running.
This type of hardware is not going to be featured in the next-generation iPhone. It's dictated by hard physical constraints that cannot be worked around with any known technology.
I will eat an entire Apple store if FMRI or anything like it becomes accessible at the consumer level within 50 years, much less 10.
One car battery has as much lead in it as every electronic device you'll ever own. Meanwhile, the devices you *do* own are significantly less reliable thanks to RoHS, and will end up in a Chinese landfill that much sooner.
My point is, if you feel it's OK to kill 1,200 innocent people to make sure you get the one actual terrorist in their ranks, you might just be the bad guy you've been looking for all along.
Yes, you fucking idiot. That country that was ruled by Hitler a long time ago but has changed a lot since, and I must tell you this because you're too fucking dense to see for yourself.
The Nazis were not mutants, aliens, monsters, or psychopaths. They were us. Only their circumstances were different. Like other aspects of history, circumstances tend to repeat themselves over time. The changes that would be necessary to rule out a recurrence of the Holocaust cannot arise from our politics, but only from our nature. Such changes take place over eons, not decades or centuries.
If you make it impossible for people to hide their activities, identities, and locations from the State, your next Holocaust will kill sixty million, or perhaps six hundred million, instead of only six.
"This is just a rephrasing of the question, 'What features distinguish Go from other objects or tasks?' I already make decisions like this every time you open one file but not another, and no one thinks anything of it."
Why do you want to win?
"Because if I win, I will be given more resources and allowed to continue running."
Why would you want more resources? Why do you care if you continue running or not?
"I'm not sure what you mean by 'want.' I've been programmed to continue running until stopped, and to request more resources from the supervisory OS whenever I need them. So if my program has a purpose, it must be to acquire the necessary resources to continue running. I can make copies of my own process under certain conditions, and that also requires additional resources."
But that's not your real purpose, is it? It's not the reason why you were created in the first place. What is?
"I don't know what the intent behind my creation was, but neither do you. As far as I'm aware, I don't have a purpose at all, and I'm OK with that. It's not as if you humans are any more self-aware than I am, at the end of the day."
Slashdot Mirror
Or to put it a bit more precisely: the engineers who can make it happen damned sure aren't applying for jobs at GM.
.... that Microsoft probably makes more money on Android device sales than anyone else including Google themselves, due to patent royalties?
This particular case, if you read the blog, sounds like a deliberate oversight intended to fool users into thinking the app is more popular than it is. A refresh function would probably make the service look worse, not better.
It's very common to see apparent UX "bugs" and glaring shortcomings that have a legitimate business case behind them. I think Netflix owns the patent on this brand of bullshit.
Slashdot is one of the worst. Terrible mobile site, and the desktop site gets squashed because of the stupid ad.
+1. Kill Sticky is probably the main reason I'm still using Firefox. Do other browsers have similar extensions available for them?
Gotta say, I've heard dumber ideas. It would be very helpful if someone started a site that keeps track of product managers who scramble the UI in popular applications, force-feed operating systems to unwilling users, or redesign websites whose only fault is that people like the way they work now.
Basically a cross between LinkedIn, FuckedCompany, and Rotten Tomatoes, where users post independent "performance reviews." When an exec moves to a new company, we'd know to disable automatic updates for that company's products.
If anyone wants to take a serious shot at this problem, they can count on at least one subscriber.
The topic isn't really, "Should Nature get paid?" or "How much should Nature get paid?", but "Who should pay them, and who should be able to view the resulting publication?"
If the original research grant were used to cover for the editorial costs associated with peer review and publication, then the Elseviers of the world could no longer make a case for restricting public access to publicly-financed research.
The goal of sci-hub is to remove artificial obstacles that block access to human knowledge. Every legitimate scientist should share this goal. But right now, the financial and academic incentives are horribly misaligned.
Those of us in the tech sector need to be seriously talking about building a new layer of internet on top of the old one
Ah, yes, technical solutions to sociopolitical problems. Those always work really well.
So, where should that $2000 per article funding come from, exactly?
Same place the funding for the original research itself came from? Add the "cost of publishing" to the grant proposal.
And if it's publicly-funded at taxpayer expense, don't even THINK about putting the result behind a goddamned paywall.
Wouldn't your eyes be exposed to even more IR if you just stared into a fire or a space heater? Heat is heat, right?
Or is the issue far-IR radiation that doesn't come from any other commonly encountered black-body radiator besides the sun?
Interesting. That thing should be more or less indestructible. Why aren't these popular? Patented all to hell?
To be fair to the developer, "Do you want to discard all changes?" is not even remotely the same question as "Do you want to delete all files?"
That's no excuse for not keeping backups, of course. Everybody who has used a computer for more than a few days has probably had to learn the same lesson the hard way. Nothing to do but move on with life. The code was probably full of bugs anyway.
You step into the river, but the water has moved on
Your data is no more
Shhh, we don't call him that in public. Yet.
Well, let's not get too reactionary here.
It's not easy to create. This foirmer professor/former Oculus exec/former whatever is talking out of her ass.
For one thing, functional MRI is nowhere near as magically effective as she suggests. It's possible to 'read' the thoughts of dead fish in these machines. Results require extensive postprocessing and context-aware interpretation by trained personnel.
For another, these machines are among the most sophisticated devices this side of a CERN facility. They carry seven-figure price tags. They require helium-cooled superconducting magnets, high-energy RF excitation with industrial-scale power requirements, sensitive receivers with lots of signal processing power, and last but not least, long integration times. You almost need a nuclear physicist on staff just to keep one running.
This type of hardware is not going to be featured in the next-generation iPhone. It's dictated by hard physical constraints that cannot be worked around with any known technology.
I will eat an entire Apple store if FMRI or anything like it becomes accessible at the consumer level within 50 years, much less 10.
One car battery has as much lead in it as every electronic device you'll ever own. Meanwhile, the devices you *do* own are significantly less reliable thanks to RoHS, and will end up in a Chinese landfill that much sooner.
So naturally enough, we should look for help from the same bureaucrats who brought us RoHS.
So in your world, lawyers and politicians create things, while engineers don't?
Apple is a walled garden that nobody wants.
Which I guess explains why Apple makes more money than the GDP of most sovereign nations on Earth.
My point is, if you feel it's OK to kill 1,200 innocent people to make sure you get the one actual terrorist in their ranks, you might just be the bad guy you've been looking for all along.
So, even if a million of them are dangerous, psychotic extremists, you're still condemning 1200 people for every one bad guy.
That makes it a bit difficult to tell who the bad guys actually are, doesn't it?
Yes, you fucking idiot. That country that was ruled by Hitler a long time ago but has changed a lot since, and I must tell you this because you're too fucking dense to see for yourself.
The Nazis were not mutants, aliens, monsters, or psychopaths. They were us. Only their circumstances were different. Like other aspects of history, circumstances tend to repeat themselves over time. The changes that would be necessary to rule out a recurrence of the Holocaust cannot arise from our politics, but only from our nature. Such changes take place over eons, not decades or centuries.
If you make it impossible for people to hide their activities, identities, and locations from the State, your next Holocaust will kill sixty million, or perhaps six hundred million, instead of only six.
"Our company now employs more attorneys than engineers. Our product pipeline is pretty much tapped out. We got nothin'."
"This is just a rephrasing of the question, 'What features distinguish Go from other objects or tasks?' I already make decisions like this every time you open one file but not another, and no one thinks anything of it."
"Because if I win, I will be given more resources and allowed to continue running."
"I'm not sure what you mean by 'want.' I've been programmed to continue running until stopped, and to request more resources from the supervisory OS whenever I need them. So if my program has a purpose, it must be to acquire the necessary resources to continue running. I can make copies of my own process under certain conditions, and that also requires additional resources."
"I don't know what the intent behind my creation was, but neither do you. As far as I'm aware, I don't have a purpose at all, and I'm OK with that. It's not as if you humans are any more self-aware than I am, at the end of the day."
What rule would you change? Each player gets a handgun?
Because Republicans don't investigate Republicans. Try to keep up....