I think he never did. He has a BSc in industrial engineering and then got an MBA, so he most likely can't code his way out of cardboard box. Jonathan Ive probably can't code either.
We don't need kids programming at an early age: we need an educational system that teaches them the basics while allowing them to develop their talent when they are ready.
They're just pandering to their users: lazy, middle-aged women with died hair. And they are doing their best to keep them sitting on the sofa in a onesie, clicking their bloody ads.
If you really don't know, you should use another way to phrase your questions. The way you phrased it indicates defending YouTube, in a manner close to trolling. Why you got modded +5 is beyond me.
> I am more concerned with tonight's realization that there's a cultural tendency in the US for fools
Can you FUCK OFF on the high horse you came in on, please? Are you calling a Supreme Court judge a fool? They probably have more intelligence in their index finger than you in your entire body.
I remember the panic at the institute where I worked when there was a power failure and the emergency power didn't function. It came not really close to the moment where the Helium would be vented, but it was rather tense.
Last time I had a course, they still cost quite a lot to operate because of Helium leakage, and the special requirements for their environment (magnetic shielding and all), and they cost a couple of M$ to begin with. That's 8 years ago now, but I haven't heard of anything except measures to limit Helium leakage.
Depends. For generic, English searches, it works. For specialized technical searches or other languages, I still have to go back to Google from time to time.
> > > > For some definition of "developers" that is probably true. > > > Pray tell, what needs to real programmers have, that an OSX machine cannot possibly provide? > > That really depends on what they're programming or programming for, now doesn't it? > Actually not...
In that context, writing "I'm thinking things that need to be programmed like embedded stuff" to me means that only embedded stuff counts, and that the rest is just "developers". If you didn't mean that, fine.
Pray tell, what needs to real programmers have, that an OSX machine cannot possibly provide?
And we all know that real programmers don't need any OS at all. Seymour Cray could toggle a program from the front panel. He didn't need no tabbed Gnome file browser, or any other piece of Linux software that did a half-assed attempt at imitating Windows or OSX.
> TFA also explains why the author believes the dataset is relevant for ATM PINs and similar.
Believing is most certainly not good enough. It's just an excuse to make his finding look more interesting than it is, which is: hacked password lists contain many simple passwords, nobody really knows what for.
> The only thing that is partly stuck to the program is the workflow.
And the built-in plugins in Logic and Cubase, of course. And the (primitive) notation. And several other features, not to mention that workflow is rather important while working on a piece. Having to jump through other hoops than the ones you're used to can be quite off-putting.
Well, this explanation isn't an explanation either. If you read the article, the only thing they found is a difference in EEG signal, which "looks like" a difference you get when physically restraining people's movements. From that you cannot possibly infer that you've got an explanation.
Did he insult your favorite toy? Did he make you go all cry-cry? Bad person!
Now, you can accept that as a valid criticism of your attitude and think: I should lighten up a bit and not expect serious involvement of end users in my pet project (although I doubt you significantly contributed to LibreOffice). In that case, why the passive-aggressive tone? Why not accept that end users expect that a released product has at least seen a moderate amount of testing and that kamapuaa's expectations were quite reasonable?
Or you can think: how dare that f***ing bastard suggest that I was wrong! In that case, you're the problem.
First statistical conclusion in the article is faulty: the significance is based on a chi square with df = 3,064,667. Every difference is significant with a df that high. The second statistical conclusion has the same error: significant, but the difference here is marginal. These people should really think if the underlying data truly only represents a difference in gender and all other possible variables are identical.
But a large part of the article focuses on arguments like "they feel dejected" while in reality the numbers hardly differ. Not only that, they are even in the women's favor, even on the first request. How can you then complain about feelings of dejection or abandoning because of "an unreasonably aggressive argument style" (as if women are by definition incapable of that)? No, it's just clutching at straws because they have to write an article.
But it's the final graph that is the nail in the coffin of this article: even with their self-chosen statistics, there is no difference in acceptance rate for men and women when gender is known (although "known" is too strong a word), even in the outsider category. They then phrase it like this: "There is a similar drop for men, but the effect is not as strong" while not having even the cheapest statistical argument to support it. That's the best they can come up.
So the conclusion of this article should be: women have a slight advantage in pull requests on github. The rest is FUD.
I use that one too. Works well, and still seems to work. Before that, I used FF's built in mechanism, and I think it's an utter disgrace that they removed it without offering an alternative. I still trust Mozilla a bit better than Google, but at this rate, FF runs the risk of being abandoned by its last users.
Exactly. The people commenting ITT that "it's easy to fix" or "the compiler should give a warning" or whatever miss the point entirely. This is sneaky use of a language feature.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he never did. He has a BSc in industrial engineering and then got an MBA, so he most likely can't code his way out of cardboard box. Jonathan Ive probably can't code either.
We don't need kids programming at an early age: we need an educational system that teaches them the basics while allowing them to develop their talent when they are ready.
They're just pandering to their users: lazy, middle-aged women with died hair. And they are doing their best to keep them sitting on the sofa in a onesie, clicking their bloody ads.
Android Studio ... now there's a joke.
Now that ain't true. I went from a Moto G to a Lumia 640, and I'm quite happy with it. I'm not a heavy user, and it fits my needs well.
If you really don't know, you should use another way to phrase your questions. The way you phrased it indicates defending YouTube, in a manner close to trolling. Why you got modded +5 is beyond me.
> I am more concerned with tonight's realization that there's a cultural tendency in the US for fools
Can you FUCK OFF on the high horse you came in on, please? Are you calling a Supreme Court judge a fool? They probably have more intelligence in their index finger than you in your entire body.
Thanks.
I remember the panic at the institute where I worked when there was a power failure and the emergency power didn't function. It came not really close to the moment where the Helium would be vented, but it was rather tense.
Last time I had a course, they still cost quite a lot to operate because of Helium leakage, and the special requirements for their environment (magnetic shielding and all), and they cost a couple of M$ to begin with. That's 8 years ago now, but I haven't heard of anything except measures to limit Helium leakage.
You can fool it in the same way as a polygraph.
Depends. For generic, English searches, it works. For specialized technical searches or other languages, I still have to go back to Google from time to time.
Sure, but I'm also sure people saw him as a good guy, one of us, reliable, a mover, a bit rough, but he gets things done, that sort of thing.
> If you're offended by Harriet Tubman than you're pretty much digging for things to get offended by.
I'm sure someone has said that about Jackson.
> > > > For some definition of "developers" that is probably true. ...
> > > Pray tell, what needs to real programmers have, that an OSX machine cannot possibly provide?
> > That really depends on what they're programming or programming for, now doesn't it?
> Actually not
In that context, writing "I'm thinking things that need to be programmed like embedded stuff" to me means that only embedded stuff counts, and that the rest is just "developers". If you didn't mean that, fine.
So the only real developer is someone who builds embedded stuff, and the rest is a "developer"? Get lost.
BTW, there are enough embedded platforms that do work with OSX.
Pray tell, what needs to real programmers have, that an OSX machine cannot possibly provide?
And we all know that real programmers don't need any OS at all. Seymour Cray could toggle a program from the front panel. He didn't need no tabbed Gnome file browser, or any other piece of Linux software that did a half-assed attempt at imitating Windows or OSX.
> TFA also explains why the author believes the dataset is relevant for ATM PINs and similar.
Believing is most certainly not good enough. It's just an excuse to make his finding look more interesting than it is, which is: hacked password lists contain many simple passwords, nobody really knows what for.
> The only thing that is partly stuck to the program is the workflow.
And the built-in plugins in Logic and Cubase, of course. And the (primitive) notation. And several other features, not to mention that workflow is rather important while working on a piece. Having to jump through other hoops than the ones you're used to can be quite off-putting.
I was actually missing the good old favorites synergy and leveraging.
Well, this explanation isn't an explanation either. If you read the article, the only thing they found is a difference in EEG signal, which "looks like" a difference you get when physically restraining people's movements. From that you cannot possibly infer that you've got an explanation.
"I don't think ... I think it's because ..."
So this is very much a discussion on the some random thought of some random blogger, isn't it? Richie was a good photographer, though.
Did he insult your favorite toy? Did he make you go all cry-cry? Bad person!
Now, you can accept that as a valid criticism of your attitude and think: I should lighten up a bit and not expect serious involvement of end users in my pet project (although I doubt you significantly contributed to LibreOffice). In that case, why the passive-aggressive tone? Why not accept that end users expect that a released product has at least seen a moderate amount of testing and that kamapuaa's expectations were quite reasonable?
Or you can think: how dare that f***ing bastard suggest that I was wrong! In that case, you're the problem.
First statistical conclusion in the article is faulty: the significance is based on a chi square with df = 3,064,667. Every difference is significant with a df that high. The second statistical conclusion has the same error: significant, but the difference here is marginal. These people should really think if the underlying data truly only represents a difference in gender and all other possible variables are identical.
But a large part of the article focuses on arguments like "they feel dejected" while in reality the numbers hardly differ. Not only that, they are even in the women's favor, even on the first request. How can you then complain about feelings of dejection or abandoning because of "an unreasonably aggressive argument style" (as if women are by definition incapable of that)? No, it's just clutching at straws because they have to write an article.
But it's the final graph that is the nail in the coffin of this article: even with their self-chosen statistics, there is no difference in acceptance rate for men and women when gender is known (although "known" is too strong a word), even in the outsider category. They then phrase it like this: "There is a similar drop for men, but the effect is not as strong" while not having even the cheapest statistical argument to support it. That's the best they can come up.
So the conclusion of this article should be: women have a slight advantage in pull requests on github. The rest is FUD.
I use that one too. Works well, and still seems to work. Before that, I used FF's built in mechanism, and I think it's an utter disgrace that they removed it without offering an alternative. I still trust Mozilla a bit better than Google, but at this rate, FF runs the risk of being abandoned by its last users.
Perhaps that's what they want anyway.
Exactly. The people commenting ITT that "it's easy to fix" or "the compiler should give a warning" or whatever miss the point entirely. This is sneaky use of a language feature.
Let me guess: you're a physicist?