While I suppose this does allow for all of those things, as much as any programming language with access to an audio API does, this would be better described as a web-based DSP livecoding environment.
Apart from the naming quibbles, it looks excellent! I wonder what's generating the sound? I'm aware of the oscillator/filter primitives in the HTML5 audio API from the minimoog google doodle, but this seems more elaborate than that.
EDIT: for fun times, load "need more 303," scroll down to the bottom, and change some of the numbers around. Setting the slide() call to 1/1024 yields a nice FM-ish sound. You can even overdrive the filter. Reach for the lasers!
I look forward to showing this to students in the fall.
Extended the melody & progression a bit. I'm so proud, this is awesome!
At Bandhub ( http://bandhub.us ) we are looking for ways to integrate programmed music into our web DAW.
If you guys are up for a collaboration or want to discuss ideas, ping me osi (at) getbandhub (dot) com
Vice did an article on the subject a few months back which gives an overview of the scene (from a layman's view) http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/algorave-is-the-future-of-dan...
You've really got a great product here.
yntaxError: Unexpected token * at Function (native) at t (blob:http%3A//wavepot.com/576aa761-8f7c-4918-b4e7-8bdd7c77ff39:2:16401) at Function.<anonymous> (blob:http%3A//wavepot.com/576aa761-8f7c-4918-b4e7-8bdd7c77ff39:2:16779) at Function.i.emit (blob:http%3A//wavepot.com/576aa761-8f7c-4918-b4e7-8bdd7c77ff39:1:2656) at DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope.i.isMaster.self.onmessage (blob:http%3A//wavepot.com/576aa761-8f7c-4918-b4e7-8bdd7c77ff39:2:12723)
Check out http://algorave.com for more info on the live coding music scene, which has really taken off in the last year.
I can't wait for someone to combine live coding with Swift Playground/Bret Victor 'revealing the system' style interfaces.
If so, where can I find the repo?
The F-35 is a terrible aircraft, and the procurement is deeply suspect. The South Korean acquisition process leaked some surprising information about the acquisition process and the F-35 failed the relatively modest criteria the Koreans had set and an older aircraft (F-15) to be purchased. At the time there was loads of news about the F-35 failing the acquisition and it even made it into Aviation week. Doing a google search now, it looks like it was a smooth process from RFP to acquisition and I can't find many of the older articles 
The rumor is that Lockheed bribed the hell out of the Korean National Assembly and "won" the initial round of acquisition, but the agency in Korea responsible for the acquisition (DAPA) saw right through it and awarded the final contract to Boeing.
The National Assembly got upset, Lockheed got upset and probably some U.S. congressmen got upset and the entire acquisition was tossed out "recompeted" and of course the F-35 won the second time. It's a sad joke and I can't even begin to guess at the acquisition shenanigans that happened in the U.S.
1 - http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130928/DEFREG/309280008...
edit a great movie about this is the movie "Pentagon Wars" which includes this great scene.
And if this tech isn't dated already, the Pentagon plans to still be using these jets in 2065. (http://online.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-looks-to-lower-costs...)
I don't see a strong reason the Air Force should be investing so much in fighter jets and not focusing on drone technology.
He mentions dogfights, do those even happen anymore? Why participate in a manned dogfight when you can simply send drones -- and if they are shot down, send one more, or one hundred more.
The U.S. military is always fighting the last war. In this case, they aren't even fighting the last several wars, but are still locked into Cold War, pre-drone thinking.
Almost no air-to-air combat starts out within visual range and this has been the case since the 1980s when the F-16 became available.
Part of the reason the F-16 became popular is that its cheaper to buy and operate compared to the F-4 and F-15, and even the F-15 Block 5 had an avionics package that made it quite capable in combat and achieved its first Air-to-Air kill in 1980. Smaller jets like the F-5E and the SAAB Gripen don't have nearly the same combat radius on internal fuel.
The F-35 is one of the most agile jets available when loaded for combat. Most of the claims about the F-16 are in airshow configuration and not combat loaded with drop tanks.
A: The real mission is for the US government to send money to Lockheed.
By that standard, the F-35 has been a trememdous success!
- LETS THE INTERVIEWEE SPEAK
- listens so that she's able to accurately summarize what the guy said!
Great moment -- thanks for sharing.
"The goal of generalization had become so fashionable that a generation of mathematicians had become unable to relish beauty in the particular, to enjoy the challenge of solvingquantitative problems, or to appreciate the value of technique" - From the preface to Concrete Mathematics; Graham, Knuth and Patashnik
> The F-35, by contrast, is being designed by some 6,000 engineers led by a rotating contingent of short-tenure managers, with no fewer than 2,000 government workers providing oversight. The sprawling JSF staff, partially a product of the designs complexity, has also added to that complexity like a bureaucratic feedback loop, as every engineer or manager scrambles to add his or her specialty widget, subsystem or specification to the planes already complicated blueprints and inexperienced leaders allow it.
For those interested in a deeper look at why the F-35 is so, well, F'd, this is a great read:
It basically comes down to stupid design considerations forced upon the program by the various branches(mainly the Marine Corps) and how easily blinded Congress was by the notion of a (supposedly cheaper) one-size-fits-all solution.
Your post explained it in general terms. I will probably apply the same in plain JS now. It sounds like an interesting challenge to implement the Cursors idea using React's Update addon  instead of depending on Mori. (I don't like Mori because I don't get the feeling that it's intended to be used without ClojureScript - its API is rather cumbersome from plain JS)
I guess the way React handles input is by attaching event handlers to child components, so that changes to the child properties bubble up to the root component state. Is this the optimal pattern for handling events in a React app? Or is there an advantage to be gained by using core.async channels to process event input for Om/react?
I haven't seen any examples which use both core.async and Om/react, but I'm very curious about the possibility.
* single mutable ref to normalized app state * cursors for encapsulation and modularity * O(1) deep equality checks * fastest possible react performance
If your application state is large but you only care about a few parts of it at a time (a few "cursors") how does Om deal with that?
e.g. are you using something like:
app component <-> page components <-> (widget) components
where the app creates the page and the page creates the widgets and communication is flowing through channels?
and how do you deal with url transitions?
do you capture and flow up the click from a widget back to the app so it knows it's time to render a different page? and have some (case ...) at the app level?
or using some kind of mix with secretary and changing the location.href/a hrefs?
cljsbuild app.cljs > app.js
It takes away a lot of the data-binding cruft that you find in Backbone.View and works well with React without making you switch languages, design paradigms, or add new libraries. The Backbone component makes it easier to build data hierarchies than with plain JS, but I assume other MVC frameworks could be retrofitted to work with React.
It cost 10 or so, and I never regretted a single penny of it. If you loved this game, I really recommend getting XCom on the iPad.
PS: This is not meant to take away from what these guys are doing... but watching that ancient creaky interface after being treated to the modern touch interface in the iPad game was somewhat painful. Here's a video:
There is an build-in mod to reduce the chance to hit a target based on range. Since this doesn't solve the issue, the melee aliens become even more dangerous. And from all games around, Xcom do have the nastiest melee alien ever.
That said, in the remake, the AI is inexplicably "boxed" up. That is, the AI doesn't move until you stumble upon them...and so if you're patient and methodical, it's not terribly hard to win most fights, scratch-free. That ruined the tension that the original game had...The About page for Open-XCOM says the AI is improved...I'd love to see a writeup on what was changed.
To be clear, I'm very willing to believe that the companies with the highest-paid CEOs have generally poor governance and will antiperform on some appropriate metric, like price-to-book. But that metric shouldn't be equity price changes because CEO pay is public info, people are already speculating about it as a negative sign, and the market should already be taking that into account and pricing such shares lower (meaning that the returns cost less, hence such stocks should return the market rate, albeit perhaps with greater volatility).
Again, I repeat that even before reading the study, I intuitively agreed with their conclusion, but I'm not so sure about their argument to prove it
"The level of incentive compensation is significantly negatively related to the forward ROA, while the level of cash compensation is positively related to the level of ROA.
Overall, we conclude that our results seem most consistent with the hypothesis that overconfident CEOs accept large amounts of incentive pay and consequently engage in value destroying activities that translate into future reductions in returns and firm performance. "
This would also explain why the negative correlation is strongest at the extreme high ends of the pay scale - these are the companies that are in the worst shape - and why these CEOs relied heavily on acquisitions, because they had no talent or useful products in the organization itself. It also fits with Warren Buffett's observation that "When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."
One way to confirm or deny this hypothesis would be to look at companies that previously were high-performing, and then see what the correlation between CEO pay and the change in market performance is within that group.
I don't think much will change until investors finally throw in the towel on the capital gains lottery and start demanding dividends at the point of pitchforks.
I wonder if this story could have something to do with that.
 Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
One of the biggest regrets of failed first-time CEOs is that they didn't pay themselves enough.
Yeah well this entire study is invalidated by using stock performance as the lazy way to measure CEO performance.
Expensive CEOs are typically expensive, because they're hired to fix a company that everyone knows is going down. The riskier the company, the more the stock is expected to go worthless, the more you get paid in cash for taking on the job.
So it's expected that if you look for expensive CEOs you'll be seeing stock/accounting performance going down in short to mid term, because recoveries, whether successful or not, take time. They take years.
Also are you honestly counting CEOs who get millions in stock and $1 pay as... just getting $1 in pay? How stupid are you.
One line of inspiration come from government - maybe a bicameral board - one for managing quarterlies, the other for longer horizons - might fix some issues.
Another might be to limit cronyism - boards seats given to CEO appointees, or limiting the number of board seats a person can hold.
I wouldnt say CEOs arent worth it, but the incentives are completely perverse.
One thing though - the tilting of the scene from the phone's perceived variance of the gravity vector is not due to centrifugal force, but due to inertia.
In other words, it's the same reason you're pushed back into your seat when you accelerate, and slam your head into the dashboard and spill hot coffee in your lap when you lock up the breaks.
Edit: I just think I should've googled that first.
IIRC the NYT CMS was announced a few years ago and a github repo was put up, but I don't remember any code materializing.
edit: Maybe longer, according to this Scoop is about 6 years old: http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/introducing-ice-wri...
> But even when we began developing our in-house Web content management system (CMS), Scoop, five years ago, (...)
I believe the CMS is bifurcating into two specialized directions.
Several online publishers are coming out and describing their new, home-grown custom CMS. The features are rich and provide robust, innovative tools across the long-form content lifecycle: writing, editing, and publication. There is special attention to collaboration.
On the other hand, more and more website developers align themselves with the goals and properties of static site generators. SSGs are best suited what I call "malleable" websites.
Thus, I think the way to think about this CMS renaissance is that traditional the CMS tried (and failed) to optimize for both long-form content and the malleable website. As a result, people are sick of trying to patch the traditional CMS with plugin after plugin and instead are simply crafting their own.
The back of my head is saying "but what about JRPGs using the term since forever" when he only discusses M:TG and Warcraft but I could be wrong.
Generalized cosmic power.
People scoff, but I think that modern people are just different. A shift in sensitivities happened. We're all about ideas now.
Consider the classic case of the geek who can't get laid. It's like he's blind to something.
I was very amused when this game was released and there was 'mana everywhere', but as an Australian I guess I kind of already knew what mana was by then .. what fascinates me about this article is that it seems that we're finally looking beyond the prejudice and realizing - contemporaneously - that we lost a lot of value in life because our forefathers were racist, intolerant assholes.
"A new way to share photos and videos"
And they don't even seem to have a monetization strategy for it.
...Up front, an executive pitched a new product that helped users find the right offline store to do their shopping.
The executive was well into his pitch when, suddenly, Page interrupted him.
No, Page said emphatically. We dont do this.
The room grew quiet.
We build products that leverage technology to solve huge problems for hundreds of millions of people.
He went on. Look at Android. Look at Gmail. Look at Google Maps. Look at Google Search. Thats what we do. We build products you cant live without.
This is not it.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-the-untold-story-2...
The interesting thing about this app is that it's an experiment: viral success of social applications appears to be a hit or miss sort of thing, so why not throw many things at the wall and see what sticks la Paper, Home, Messenger, or buy something already big la Instagram or Snapchat.
One benefit of this strategy is that it raises barriers to entry for your competitors: the more modes of social interaction you offer, the fewer opportunities for your competitors to chip away at your empire, and the more enticing your properties become to advertisers.
Why do I have to share something back with someone in order to see what they've shared back at me? I understand it's great for engagement but who would use this over Snapchat or Instagram.
Is this a revolutionary product idea? No. Is it a platform for Facebook to see what sticks and then apply to its core offering? You bet.
(edit: it works now. But it didn't 15 minutes ago)
I imagine they did. Surely they wouldn't release an app without adequate market research/qa.
Still, I'm not convinced. I'll have to try it.
This is minimalism gone too far.
Messenger, Paper, Slingshot.
Seems to me that they are trying to increase engagement with the "new" factor. I think it's pretty smart.
I have never felt pressure to "create". Has anyone outside of the SV/SF bubble felt pressure to create?
Who really wants to go out of their way to make a new video or photo to see something? We've all become accustomed to the instant gratification that the internet offers, why would we suddenly opt in for a slower experience?
Or it will turn into people sharing the same generic useless video / picture over and over just to see a video a friend sent, but then at that point why use this product at all?
But maybe I'm wrong and it will take the preteen / teen world by storm.
What a bad reason to create a product. People don't want to respond to your messages so your create a way to try to force them to respond. Realistically they probably won't care enough to reply and now won't see your messages at all.
It's not always obvious which post to treat as canonical, but the current thread has the most substantive discussion.
A solid showing by the Helsinki police
Is really the only thing protecting the safety of those devices the promise of a blackmailer to not abuse the private keys they were sitting on?
... makes me wonder what else we don't know about all the other vendors...
I wonder how exactly the criminals came to have them in the first place, but would be willing to bet it was ultimately incompetence by someone at Nokia.
BM: "We have the keys to your software repos give us money or we leak."RH: "Here's a tarball of the sources it make your life easier, knock yourselves out! Maybe we'll even get some new developers!"
Obviously there are reason's why companies choose to keep their software closed source, but sometimes I wonder.
`r.args` isn't very flashy but is a huge step forward for ReQL.
Removing protobuf makes deploying to certain platforms (e.g. heroku) so much easier.
And of course changefeeds and `r.http`!
If you've been hearing about RethinkDB and thinking about trying it out, now's a great time to spin the wheels.
I don't know how I feel about the http command but I am digging the other changes. Keep up the good work.
Seriously guys, thanks for the great product and awesome database experience (PyRethinkORM author here).
Thanks again for your awesome work, guys!
I am a huge fan, keep up the outstanding work!
I've seen many SPAs with totally unauthenticated API endpoints. They'll control what a user's allowed to do with the UI and hide unauthorized functionality, but direct requests to the backend still allow any request.
The thing to keep in mind is: don't trust the client. The final word on authentication and authorization should always be done server-side.
The Hare Krishna kid didn't know it before, but he now realizes that meditation helps with his social anxiety. Except now, he's in bed with the Krishna's, instead of finding a personal and secular path to meditation. The girl in the Christian cult discovered the power of community and forgiveness. Funny how white centric these articles are. If a kid becomes a Krishna its suddenly a bewildering thing, but if a kid joins a gang on the south side of Chicago, we just shrug. Both these things have a lot in common; society, family, etc not providing what they should and not projecting those values to kids.
I think religiosity and cults rise when secular society fails at something. We're not telling kids that meditation can help them. We've not telling them that maintaining personal relationships is actually hard work and forgiveness even harder. Perhaps nowadays we are. I see a lot of what religion offers distilled into non-faith based practices. You can meditate without knowing the first thing about the buddha. You can engage in a personal spirituality without feeling guilted to show up for social functions (that only seem to empower the leaders of congregations). You can explore consciousness with drugs, lucid dreaming, or just via one's informed imagination, etc.
Empowering individuals to discover information on a personal basis is what the information age is all about. There aren't anymore gatekeepers. I imagine this keeps cult activity low, not to mention a lot of cult stereotypes are from the 60s and built upon mindless baby boomer excess and dramatic parent attention baiting like 'dropping out of society.' Not only are we in the post-cult age, we are entering the post-religion age. I don't see too many gen-x'ers and gen-y's dying to get up early to go to church to be sermonized by the ravings of 1st century zealots. I don't see how that's remotely in their interests.
"Sullivan first worked with Singer in the early Nineties. One case involved a woman posing as a psychologist, who had persuaded several of her male clients to undergo sex-reassignment surgery. (The men later alleged that they had been brainwashed.)"
That is a level of brainwashing that I wouldn't have even believed was possible.
> Her expert testimony was no longer accepted after the report of the APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control, of which she was chair, was rejected by the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) of the American Psychological Association. Thereafter, courts shifted to accepting the position held by the great majority of scholars studying new religious movements, moving away from the perspective of Singer and others sympathetic to her brainwashing thesis. This had significant consequences later on, since it meant that brainwashing could no longer be used a defence for the practice of deprogramming.
(Singer, incidentally, made a lot of money from being an expert witness peddling her debunked theories.)
Some relevant excerpts of less credulous research: http://lesswrong.com/lw/imu/notes_on_brainwashing_cults/
- Dr. Robert Sapolsky
It's the story of a film maker of Indian origin who creates a cult persona and gains followers in the Phoenix area. It's really fascinating to see what kinds of people fall for it and how they are increasingly more drawn to him.
This baffles me and lets me question the sincerity of the article. Can this possibly be the case?
Are any other online publishers doing that? It's not even that I'm going to print it out or anything, but clearly it shows that their priority is readership, not ad conversions.
Multi level marketing, in particular a company called Nerium  is the closest thing I've seen to a cult lately.
What is the difference between a cult and an established religion ?
Is it the size of the following ?
Is it the time of origin, i.e. recent vs long ago ?
Is it the number of followers ?
Or is it some combination of the above, or something else altogether ?
It started off innocently enough, but soon became (in my opinion) very obviously a cult. Not only did they make ridiculous claims and demand large amounts of money, it became all consuming, especially for his wife. My friend sometimes talked about "enlightened masters" and if that phrase doesn't ring the CULT bell I don't know what will. I became a bit concerned and suggested he stop going. He didn't listen. Soon enough, his wife was spending lots of private time with one of the instructors or officials at the local center. My friend was not concerned because according to him, that particular individual had transcended the desires of flesh and was pure in intent. At least... until his wife confessed to having sex with the guy (I'm sure this is against Dahn policy and this particular incident doesn't indite the entire "cult".... it's just the kind of danger cults bring). So, after a few "I told you sos" my friend and (reluctantly) his wife agreed to quit the Dahn center. A few months after that they joined some kind of fringe pentecostal church (what is wrong with people?). I shook my head in disgust and stopped hanging out with him. Later he and his wife divorced and he moved away and we lost contact.
I still see ads for Dahn from time to time portraying them as a harmless yoga center set up in the strip mall. In fact, some people here may respond angrily that they are NOT a cult. But based on their rhetoric they most certainly are. They may be slightly less pernicious than some cults but they are harmful, are after your money, and can cause you trouble. I have seen it first hand.
I'm unaware of Marshall Applewhite having a terminal illness when he convinced 38 of his followers to commit suicide.
He feared he might have cancer but an autopsy revealed he didn't have it, and I'm unaware of any evidence that says that was a motivating factor in the suicides.
Medical examiners determined that his fears of cancer had been unfounded, but that he suffered from coronary atherosclerosis.
Most people his age (65) suffer from coronary atherosclerosis and it's not considered a "terminal illness" like pancreatic cancer would be.
After age 40, about 50% of men and one-third of women can expect to eventually have coronary artery disease.
Each of these isms also demand suspension of thought and beliefs in either magic or the greater wisdom of authority figures.
Don't waste your time with this cliffhanger.
Maybe, as with the Gigafactory, he sees an opportunity here.
Here is Elon saying making solar panels is a bad idea:
Elon shining through here.
There is little doubt that SolarCity will be a huge deal.
I can't find easily the price/W, but assuming they can produce panels at similar cost that's going to be huge.
Nice coup for New York and its rebranding strategy. Doesn't Sanyo have a big facility upstate?
Unfortunately, in all of this, we never see a discussion about individual ownership and transfer of excess SREC's.
With 1GW of solar capacity production in NY by 2017, 50GWh of battery production in the southwest by 2020, Tesla's and SpaceX's manufacturing facilities in CA, Elon's distributed clean generation, storage and transportation empire is concentrated in the USA.
All of these companies are becoming increasingly in control of their supply and distribution channels.
What's next, is Musk going to use SpaceX to mine asteroids for their metals to build increasingly inexpensive clean transportation, batteries and solar hardware back here on earth?
It comforts me to see a big announcement with a caveat, because I feel they are trying to be accurate instead of bombastic.
Yes, I'm not a user to care about, but it's just annoying.
We decided to open-source it because we dont always have the time we would like to work on it after putting in hours at work/school, and we had a lot of our users interested in helping out. We also found that working out in the open is a lot more fun!
We have a fairly modern stack, the backend uses Rails, Postgres and Redis. Front-end is a client-side application written using Ember. (Mostly there are legacy pages still rendered using Rails and some performance-sensitive parts that use React.)
The current incumbent in this niche is a website called MyAnimeList (myanimelist.net) which has upwards of 2 million registered users. Considering it looks like it hasnt been updated since 2005 we strongly feel this niche deserves better.
Please let us know what you think!
The podcast also covered collecting billing info in episode 179 and briefly discussed handling credit card expirations in episode 184.
Other services started with items that were easiest to catalog and inventory. Safeway (for example) started with a full selection of Oscar Mayer luncheon meats and Kraft processed cheese food, but no microbrews or good cheeses (I remember searching for Brie and getting no results) even though they have such things in stores around Palo Alto.
Instacart took the better path: first please early adopters, then please everyone at scale.
I'd normally dismiss talk like this, but given who said it, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Can anyone shed some light on how Instacart has become just as "iconic" as companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft?
"Don't be a dreamer, be a creator", AKA "get shit done", "hack the world", etc. is pretty par for the course.
Mr. Garry Tan tell us more about how Instacart executed, how they got to those first steps of signing suppliers. Any such tidbit would be valuable and useful to us entrepreneurs!
Every entrepreneur should take one valuable lesson from this: execution is everything.
- GPS: the wifi and celltower db queries that optimize the service are transferred into a foreign country.
- use Siri: uploads your whole address book to US servers before use
- use iCloud tabs: every URL you visit it uploaded to Apple's US servers
- turn on the only cloud backup solution available on the device, and all your data, including every SMS, every call and all your most private notes and photos are also transferred into the foreign country of the US, with a chance of it being analyzed by certain agencies.
In other words, this might qualify as getting spied on as well.
Given the way smartphones everywhere are made - China and elsewhere - it's impossible for even technical users to know that their phones aren't spying on them. While most of the software running on your smartphone's application processor is now open-source (if you're in the Android majority), the software running on the baseband processor is 100% closed source and secret. We don't know anything about the horrible agreements that have been made between shady government agencies and the baseband manufacturers like Qualcom.
A Chinese manufacturer has even more incentive to steal information and sell it given the razor thin margins on making these phones.
I think the right place to start is that Google wants to offer a premium, ad-free YouTube service. Given that, what happens to videos that are ad-supported today:
1. They participate and are ad-supported for free users and subscription-supported for premium users. Cool. Everyone's happy.
2. They don't participate and...
(a) Premium users see ads anyway. They're pissed.
(b) Premium users don't see those videos at all, but free users see them with ads. Might dodge the issue for a while, but when they find out they'd be even more pissed.
(c) You can't offer ad-supported videos to free users unless you also offer ad-free videos to subscription users. Labels that like the ad-supported terms and don't like the subscription terms are pissed.
Alternative (c) seems to be what Google has picked. Which seems logical if they're launching a new service they want new users to like.
Corollary: Indie labels should still be allowed to post whatever non-monetized videos they want (subject to other YouTube policies like the terrible ContentId, of course). If that isn't true, then we can talk about being "kicked off YouTube". Otherwise, they're choosing to leave because they don't like how the monetization option is changing. That's clearly their privilege, but, in the exact same way, it's Google's privilege to change the monetization they're willing to offer (whether that's as small as tweaking the payout formula or something larger like adding a subscription tier).
P.S. I found some of the Ars Technica comments (not the article) particularly helpful in terms of explaining how this must fit together: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/06/artists-who-dont-sig...
1. Youtube wants to offer users a subscription service with no ads.
2. Youtube needs to update its licensing/terms with artists: If a video plays for a subscriber they see no ads, artist gets money from subscription pool. If a video plays for a non-subscriber they see ads, artist gets money from ads pool.
3. Artists need to explicitly agree to these terms because it changes how and how much they'll get paid.
4. It doesn't seem fair for a user to pay a subscription, expect to see no ads, and then see ads for some video's because that artist/distributor did not agree to new terms. This is why Google wants all or nothing.
I hope this isn't true but it wouldn't surprise me. Creators of services that allow music to be accessed for free/very cheap always talk about how it's great for independents while simultaneously offering the majors better deals and screwing over the little guy.
Google really is the new MS.
Twitter should buy soundcloud and add music video hosting to it. Premium users only obviously.
Make a note of the wording: "watch and listen", as opposed to "listen and watch".
So, Adblock Plus and Youtube to MP3?...
Maybe they see the other streaming services replacing them in the near future.
My [at a BigCo] HP workstation has 16 cores i7 @ 2.6GHz, 256G RAM, 1T SSD - about $10K. Of course it doesn't consume 320W power - its power unit is something like 1KW :)
I'd wonder what is advantages of Intel NUC in such a cluster setup over say using microATX boards with 4 core i5 and 32 GB per board.
What does 10 percent accuracy mean? Doesn't that mean it's usually completely wrong?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/ looks like a great site, I can't wait to build some of these things!
Retained recruiters, whether they're contract or full-time, are ones you pay to represent your company. They work off a salary or an hourly rate, like normal employees. They expect to be there in a year or two, so if the hire doesn't work out they'll hear about it. They represent you as a company and don't have any incentive to hide who they're working for or who they're talking to. You can still get clueless recruiters here, but at least the relationship is much better.
As others have mentioned, due to the high payouts to these recruiters they are willing to lie their pants off to get you to accept the job. The last recruiter I worked with tried to hide the name of the company which really irked me. I am not some piece of cattle to be herded between companies and I am perfectly capable of looking up information on a company to determine if I want to work there or not.
I don't need a recruiter throwing buzzwords at me that he/she thinks will convince me to take the job. Every call with the recruiter was more painful than the last and then at one point the recruiters supervisor contacted me and used even more BS/flowery language to try and convince me to apply for the job.
A few months after I got a new job (without a recruiter) I was contacted by another recruiter but noticed before I trashed the email that this wasn't from a company of recruiters. Instead it was a recruiter hired by the company looking for programmers. We talked back and forth on email a little and she was very nice and I felt like there was much less over-hyping (still a little but that's to be expected in that position). Within a few days and about 2-3 emails I had a phone call with the co-founder. I ended up not taking the job due to lack of experience in what they were really looking for but it was a very pleasant experience. Contrast that with 5+ calls (3 during work before I told him not to call 9-5) with the external recruiter, a meeting in person, him harassing my reference, and never once being able to talk to anyone at the company they were trying to hire me for.
I can remember being on contract and wrangling a bottle of Whiskey out of the agent. I had to go into the car park and collect it quietly there as he didn't want the other people he was managing on site to get wind he'd given me it. Funny in an odd way.
Remember that an agent is just following the money. A lot are on basic + bonuses. One reason I used to keep the company and address of my current role off my CV is that their focus is so much on locating new roles.
Of note if you hate an ex-boss, just casually mention that you worked for X :D
Regardless of what they tell you, their fee will factor into your salary negotiations and give you less leverage to the upside.
While the potential employer won't tell you the recruiters fee, behind closed doors the conversation goes "Well, he wants 125K and the recruiter has a 10% fee on top of that, so..."
You're automatically a more expensive employee if you go through a recruiter and that's a bad thing. If you're half-way good at what you do, reach out to the company you like directly.
Full-time internal recruiters are rarely financially incentivised per hire or to hit targets. If they are, I'd strongly argue that the company employing them is utilising the recruiter incorrectly.
External recruiters live and die by their targets and their commission. Money is a terrible incentive (possibly the worst) for encouraging recruiters to actually help their candidates or clients.
Just like the best engineers/designers/etc, the best recruiters are those that go above and beyond simply to help their company succeed. When you use an external recruiter, that company is an agency.
I would imagine that this would encourage recruiters to not do a shotgun approach (i.e. do any employee you can) as only the actually good employees will be profitable, and the others will probably end up costing the recruiter more than the first 5% he could get.
Of course I have no experience doing this and all figures are made up, but are there any obvious reasons of why this would not work? Maybe in the end the final percentage is higher than the typical market rate for recruiters (i.e. >10% maybe) but extended over a longer period so the recruiter would have to actually cherry-pick the candidates.
I am mostly contacted on LinkedIn, and I think, on balance, that it works well there. I've written about it here: http://henrikwarne.com/2013/08/21/linkedin-good-or-bad/
When you get a call from some shady recruiter asking you about a 6 month contract in Omaha, you're getting that call because a company or government agency decided to start doing strategic sourcing and procure people the same way they buy any other commodity.
So two things explain the poor quality -- they are literally squeezing every penny out of the process and are hiring idiots
The other thing is that they don't want to find candidates. They want to have low rates of success -- they're just engaging in a recruitment process to justify hiring workers on guest visas who can be more effectively exploited. If you look in an industry "trade rag", you'll usually find a page with some hard to read, small print job postings -- those are "compliance" advertisements purchased for the same purpose.
All I seem to get are the body shop type places contacting me (aka Robert Half, TEKSystems). I've told them that I would be interested if and only if it would mean a step up, go on to explain my current levels of pay,vacation, sick, bonus, etc, and say if the opportunity isn't better than that, then we have nothing to talk about.
Of course they start trying to hard sell me, and it turns out these places have zero benefits.
I'd entertain discussion with someone looking for my skills that would be willing to pay for them.
I started talking to the interviewer and found out that one of the main things on his list for a candidate was to be local. Within 5 minutes we both knew this wasn't going anywhere and wrapped it up.
The external recruiters we use are in markets we don't know a lot about (like Marketing - which we are hiring for big time right now). The internal coordinator helps keep onsites organized and managing the huge amount of interview flow through the organization so that key stakeholders still have some time to do their jobs.
The low-end contingency recruiting agencies have given the whole profession in San Francisco a bad name, when in reality there are great people (like Oliver, from the post) who do great work and are incredibly valuable to a fast growing organization.
I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't be better off without the charade of insider trading laws. We could just drop them and stop pretending the water isn't shark-infested. Ironically, Wall Street might oppose this as it might make it harder toattract suckers to the game (if I may mix metaphors).
Typically this information is told to a fund by the investment banker or company itself, and then the fund would become "restricted" on the company, meaning once they know a deal is in the works, they can't act on it until the deal has been reported.
Funds know that they are being very closely watched. Some funds do cheat, ala SAC http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-10/sac-judge-approves-..., but the vast majority don't intentionally trade on the news.
The article didn't mention it but I'd guess most insider trading happens form individual accounts and not funds. The risk reward just isn't really there for most funds, compared to individual investors.
Is there a clear definition for what constitutes actionable information?
Some will cry and whine about proximity to the transaction switches, but even that's a policy issue. There is no particular reason that transactions need to be completed in milliseconds rather than actual seconds or even minutes. There are no legitimate efficiencies to be had, only corruption of process and skimming.
The concept of physical co-location of core functions of society and economy are ripe for corruption and doe not provide any advantages that are not utterly overshadowed by the advantages of distribution. It is essentially the transparency and sunlight that disinfects society by spreading out the corruption making it more easily found and identifiable. Distributed government and financial sectors are essentially the transparency that inoculates against corruption.
31 * * * * curl http://dhcp.io/set/99351a76-f6...
...though youd be foolish to buy a 24-inch 4K display, we can only hope that Intel and Samsungs ambitions can push down prices on larger displays.
Reposting from my comment last year:
At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which sits right between Retina and non-Retina densities. This means that on a Mac, youll have to use it one of two ways: Either at 1x, where the higher PPI means everything will be much smaller than it is on a normal monitor, or at 2x, where the lower PPI means everything will be much bigger than normal.
The best 4K monitor for Macs will be a 24, which will have a PPI of 184, just about right for something sitting a bit further back from the viewer than a 220 PPI Retina Macbook Pro display.
4k makes it sound like it has 4 times the vertical resolution of 1080p, but for pure marketing reasons, suddenly instead of the 4k referring to vertical resolution as 1080 did, it refers to horizontal resolution, so is really only twice the horizontal resolution of the 1920 that 1080p had. Overall that's 4 times the pixels because of squaring, but still!
But the whole thing doesn't seem ready yet outside the Mac ecosystem. I see lots of issues with 4k:
- Going from 120 hz back to 60 hz, or even less. Seeing how they are struggling to get a 60hz monitor to the market, it's probably going to be a long time until we see 120 hz monitors.
- Software adaption for high PPI modes is going to take time.
- Games at 4k at 120 fps are going to be a problem for the GPU.
- Movies are going to be the biggest bandwidth hog ever, or ridden with compression artifacts.
So I'm not terribly exited yet. I probably still going to end up being an early adapter and eat through all these issues, but I think I'll wait at least one more year.
(The $330 deal was a $399 TigerDirect with a $70 MIR, free shipping, no CA tax. Ended Monday, but I'm sure it will return.)
I do not have a 4K. I use it with macbook pro 15" (retina display) and even though I do not get the same resolution, it does not look flaky at all and is decent enough for reading. Moreover, it connects with the pro using thunderbolt and thus does not require multiple connections for speakers, camera, mic and display.
I don't really see the problem with these new monitors that are good enough for most people. Good price, the TN panels are quite decent (confirmed by reviews both at The Tech Report (http://techreport.com/review/26510/4k-for-649-asus-pb287q-mo...) and KitGuru (http://www.kitguru.net/peripherals/monitors/zardon/aoc-u2868...).
Yes, you do need the best GPUs in order to take advantage of games in 4K. And yes, OS support is still incomplete. Anyway those trade offs are not that important if you are not a gamer and you can take advantage of that desktop area.
There's always good reasons for waiting. They could lead to never take advantage of improvements: you know, new improvements could be on the horizon when the ones you waited for finally arrive. And the story repeats itself...
The resolution jump is huge and so you need a lot more GPU memory and processing power to do the same things at a higher resolution. Games are now really taking good advantage of 1080p, so we are another 5-10 years away from 4k being a real thing in terms of mainstream gaming.
Also, the average computer is not going to fare well in a 4k world. Sure, you might have videos on Netflix or some Blu-ray successor look nice in 4k, but good luck getting that to be a decent experience on the sub $500 laptop your parents just bought 2 years from now with a 15.6" 4k display with terrible viewing angles, a Celeron processor, integrated gfx, and a 5400 RPM 2TB Hard Drive...
High resolution is great, but as an industry we don't seem to be willing to upgrade the related components - memory, GPU, SSD unless it's on a mobile phone.
And 30 fps on a CRT wouldn't be enough to produce stable image in the retina at all, which is why CRT TVs used to refresh at a minimum of 50Hz, and that still flickers (it stops "flickering" at around 75Hz).
With flat displays frame rate is about display responsiveness and animation detail.
So I wonder where are the claims about eye-strain coming from. Maybe because people just want better display responsiveness and they like to borrow from the problems low refresh CRTs used to cause, because it sounds scientific and legit as a problem.
This means that you do not make a web call for each keystroke. That is a huge speedup.
I don't know why you would need to leverage Angular to make a typeahead, but it's a nice writeup nonetheless.
- Use ng-keydown on the input field (less overhead than $scope.$watch)
- $http.get has a built in promise. No need to build another one on top of it.
- No need to splice the response, just pass the whole array and use the "limitTo" filter on the results.
Here is the autocomplete with AngularJS + RxJS https://github.com/Reactive-Extensions/rx.angular.js/blob/ma...
BaconJS home page showing an autocomplete in less than 15 LOC, http://baconjs.github.io
It should really be a directive though, so it adds all the required markup on its own.
I don't know if it is possible, but could this run as a Chrome Extension, in a background script, loading various pages, executing code on then and keep going, storing the data at the extension's localStorage?
It could also store the code of the scrapers, for reusing.
It's annoying to have to run scripts multiple times, tweaking it after each run to get exactly what you need. It's a waste of time...
it also disable CSP. i'm not exactly sure how the extension works. maybe it is turned on/off on per tab basis and defaults to off which would be quite safe. but if it defaults to on then it can be kind of risky.
I basically built a bookmarklet that let's you define the actions locally on your browser, and then run the scrapes in your own box, essentially allowing unmetered scraping without charging per page.
That said, I'm really not even sure what the value add is here for bodyweight videos: they've been done so many times over, and with the recent popularity of the 7 minute workout I just don't see what you're trying to bring to the table that is specifically "for hackers" other than the marketing appeal.
My suggestion would be to offer something that appeals uniquely to your hacker audience that isn't found elsewhere. Off of the top of my head, hackers are "lazy" (in that we aim to optimize and remove redundancy) and are convinced by science, so if you can prove that your videos are shown to be efficient, effortless (meaning everything but the workout is taken care of for you), and that it delivers marketable results, then I think you might have something.
Also, this program will not help you get in shape.
How can you call it "HackerBody" when bodyweight exercises are so much less effective than Weight lifting?
She lived in Park Slope for the first two years, sharing a two bedroom, fifth floor walkup, attic apartment. The entire apartment was maybe 20 x 20 ft with a good part of it of limited use due to the slant of the roof. Rent was $1,500 a month including utilities. It was a great neighborhood though and she really enjoyed her time there.
The apartment building was sold to a luxury developer and the rent was raised to $2,300 a month. The new owners really just wanted the building empty so they could gut it and change it to luxury apartments. We walked by there this past weekend and the place was boarded up.
Her new apartment is a legitimate two bedroom in a clean but very old building on the edges of Boerum Hill. The neighborhood is okay but you need to be aware that two blocks away it starts get dodgy very quickly. The rent is $2,200 + utilities. Her and her apartment mate looked for two months to find the apartment. It was the only thing they could find that was affordable but wasnt a filthy dump. The leases on the old and new places overlapped by a month and a half but they had to look early because the inventory is so limited.
Real estate in NYC has gone crazy. Manhattan prices are driven by international buyers looking for a place thats safe. One bedroom apartments in Manhattan for less than a million are becoming scarce according to the NYT. Brooklyn is priced at what Manhattan was a couple of years ago. The downtown area of Brooklyn has been very popular because of the availability of mass transit to get people into their jobs in Manhattan. As you move out from downtown Brooklyn the commute time increases quickly as subway lines spread out and express trains make less frequent stops. Two to three hours a day on a subway commute becomes old very quickly.
NYC is a great place but unless you have some equity in the place you work youre very likely not going to be able to afford to have the life you think is waiting for you there.
Our first child was born in Brooklyn, second in New Jersey, but my wife and I are originally from the Pittsburgh area. Returned to Pittsburgh while our kids were still in pre-school.
The Carnegie Library system is outstanding. The Squirrel Hill and Oakland branches (most convenient locations to us) have large, comfortable children's sections. With their loan system, can request pretty much any book you can think of and pick up in a few days in the branch closest to you. My kids understand the system and use it to get books by authors they like.
Children's Museum, Phipp's Conservatory, and Carnegie museum are all great for kids. Generally, if you go more than once a yearly membership pays off, and a lot of these are connected (membership in one gives you admission to others).
A few years older now, we got season passes to Kennywood and Sandcastle. Kennywood has fantastic roller coasters, especially the older ones.
Schenley and Frick parks are immense. With the Pittsburgh topography, you can walk through trails and feel totally removed from the city.
In many neighborhoods, you can own suburb sized homes for cheaper than the suburbs, with access to all the city amenities.
My kids walk 3 blocks to school.
I could go on. Pittsburgh is a great place to raise a family.
I'm reminded of a quote by Patty Smyth: "New York has closed itself off to the young and the struggling. But there are other cities. Detroit. Poughkeepsie. New York City has been taken away from you. So my advice is: Find a new city."
I really do think that tech needs to embrace the need to branch out. I understand SF is a great place to fund tech companies, and that VCs (and often CEOs) appear to prefer it.
But it is frustrating to see tech elites (I'm talking about the sort of people who get to pick up the phone and vent a bit to the elected leader of the world's largest military about their company's hiring woes) insist that there is a severe shortage of tech workers when they continue to create 110k a year jobs in a city where the median 3br house costs 1.1mil. I agree that SF should build more, but this isn't going to be the solution.
If you're offering 110K a year for developers in Detroit, Poughkeepsie, Baltimore, St Louis, Minneapolis and you can't find anyone, ok, maybe we can start talking about why and how the government can help. But if you're creating 110K a year jobs in a place where two full time workers are looking at roughly 50k in child care costs and a 1.1 mil bill for the median 3br house, well of course you're having trouble finding workers!
Salaries here are substantially higher (I doubt devs make $150k+ in Pittsburgh, in NYC that's very achievable), and that makes a huge difference in accumulating savings. Yes, living expenses are proportionally higher here as well so I'm still only left with a small percentage of my paycheck. But that small percentage means a lot more because it can be spent on global goods like travel or savings.
Spending a couple grand on a vacation is basically a rounding error in a NYC budget, but it'd be a decent chunk of a Pittsburgh salary. Similarly, saving just a bit of my income in NYC for a few years makes it easy to build up a large nest egg for a down payment on a beautiful house somewhere like Pittsburgh.
If I'm way off base, someone please let me know. If it's actually possible to make $150k+ in a cheap area, or with remote work, I'd be interested to hear.
I can take a meeting with even international clients in NYC without ever leaving. They come here. If you're in art, yes you want to go where you can live cheap, but if you want to make a splash you need to be somewhere where there is sufficient disposable income and a big enough transient population to support viral awareness of your art. Pittsburgh doesn't have enough of those things. I think Pittsburgh is a wonderful city, filled with great parks, cheap beer and good folks. But I haven't visited there in years and there is a reason why
I have been trying to find decent Indian food, for example, but have been coming up short. Pittsburgh does have very good modern-American cuisine, but "ethnic" food is a bit lacking.
Going out drinking is insanely cheap by comparison. You can get a good craft beer draft for as low as $2, whereas in NYC the best I'd find would be around $4 (and that would be pretty lucky). There's plenty to do culturally, and the rent/housing prices are very good.
EDIT: Thanks for all the Indian food recommendations. I've got some eating to do!
- Food: Walk out of your house. Go a few blocks. You will find ethnic food of your choice in New York or San Francisco. Hell, I live in the UWS in New York. Even here, in the midst of high residential nirvana, you can find random restaurants open at all hours of the night. Austin was a great city when I lived there. Except that the closest restaurant ( a subway) was 5 miles away. Ever want to do something crazy, like celebrate a birthday of a friend during thanksgiving. Not a chance. Everything is shutdown. This is not just an American phenomenon. I have been in Stockholm for the past few weeks. It is sunday afternoon and you want food? Nope, it is sunny out there so every restaurant owner in a five block radius wants to close his place and go hang out.
- Transport: If you want to live in an American city and not drive a car, I haven't found better cities to live than the two. It is ridiculous how well a city like Austin is designed for the four wheeled population. To the extent that pavements are an afterthought, sandwiched between lawns and tarmac.
- Culture: This is not going to be an issue for most people making the move. However, as a person who is a perpetual immigrant, I prefer cities that are filled with people from varying different backgrounds. New York is the most non American, American city that I have ever lived in. I wish I could say the same for San Francisco, but it really is a city of three major clusters.
But a lot of us (though certainly not all of us) writers and programmers and other such types would rather live somewhere cheaper and less claustrophobic. I know it's certainly what I chose. It's not without its downsides but I like the upsides.
My hometown (grew up in Hazelwood/Greenfield) is still a city very much in transition. If you stay in your designated neighborhoods like Oakland, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, etc. you'll be blissful in your little bubble of it being a great town on the upswing. Get ten minutes out of town in almost any direction (sans the southern 376 corridor to the airport) and you'll feel like you are on a different planet.
Sometimes even taking the wrong street will have you wind up in areas that are dilapidated, poverty stricken, and villainous. The Consol Energy Center is a stone's throw from one of the historically worst neighborhoods in the country.
Knowing that, Pittsburgh has radically changed in a very short amount of time. Medical was always big there; but the dotcom boom incubated a wonderful technology center that surrounds Carnegie Mellon and the other fine schools in the area.
I wouldn't hesitate for a second moving back to Pittsburgh...just so long as I get to live in a place of my own choosing and not my old neighborhood :)
The city is so affordable that it's not terribly uncommon for upper middle class folks like doctors to have vacation homes, usually lakehouses.
And I imagine there's a lot of really awesome office space available for rent in downtown at affordable rates for would-be startups; not to mention there's undoubtedly a lot of fantastic local CS talent coming out of Wash U which is largely untapped by the city.
Missouri is fully seasonal as well. It's sometimes breathtaking to see everything in bloom in the spring and early summer, and there are plenty of opportunities to play in the snow in winter.
The only thing it's lacking, of course, is an abundance of well-paying stable jobs in technology.
It's not that the sandwiches are "worth" $10; it's that they're pegged to the square foot rent of the shop which sells them (and of the wages + salaries of the people who make them and provide them for sale; and hence, the rents of the spaces they live in, also).
That's just economics, and the same principles apply in NYC as anywhere else (with different rent figures plugged in).
I would absolutely love to experience NY, since I'm a passionate web developer.. There's so many companies in this field over there that I feel that my career would grow so much faster than if I stay here in Europe (at least in Portugal).
I would personally prefer NY over SF since it's way closer to "home".
Any thoughts on actually being able to financially live in NYC as a fresh grad?
Florida doesn't make any statement about what Pittsburgh is like today.
Over $1,000/month for a little apartment and $300/month for a parking space.
You could buy two houses in the Pittsburgh suburbs for that much money. A nice 3 bedroom house in a clean, low crime suburb can be had for under $100k. Smaller houses, fixer-uppers and houses in less than ideal neighborhoods can be purchased for under $50k.
Pittsburgh is wonderful. There's a lot wrong with it, but a lot of right too. It is certainly very cheap to live, and there's a lot going on. We even have a Techstars-affiliated incubator, which used to offer a really, really good deal. My first startup, CloudFab, went through it years ago. That said, SF is still the best place in the world to do a startup: every city says "We may not be SF, but we have X!" X is _never_ enough to make up for not being SF. I said it when I lived there too, and now that I've lived in SF, I know that's just deeply, deeply wrong. That doesn't mean you _can't_ do it, but it's a handicap.
However, living in a place is very rarely about 'economic sense.' I have a _need_ to live in NYC. I've gotten more work done in the two weeks I've lived here than I did in the entire six months I lived in SF, and maybe about a third of what I did in LA. The hustle, bustle, and opportunities are endless.
Last night I woke up at ten am, did my laundry, then went to a juice bar, worked for a few hours, walked around, ended up literally coding on a bar while watching the US. vs. Ghana game, then took the train over to Herald Square and coded in the park. It was a beautiful evening. Around midnight, walked up to Times Square to squeak in some power before all the stores closed, then worked in another park until 3am, and took the train home. You can't really do that anywhere else, at least in the states.
Oh, and I'm saving about 25% on my rent by moving to Brooklyn from San Francisco, and I'd be saving 60% if I had still lived in the Mission when I left.
I definitely miss the cost of living but I'm making much more money that I ever did in Pittsburgh. I love it there though I day dream of moving to back and living in a nice big house in the east end.
I expected that the rent would be cheaper but that I'd miss out in terms of culture, food, and the quality of people I met.
What I'm finding is 1) The culture that is available here is easier to appreciate and digest because there's less paradox of choice 2) The food is a little more limited but overall better 3) The people that I meet are just as smart and interesting. I often forget that I'm back in the South and not in Brooklyn.
As far as raising kids, I could definitely see that. Your real-estate dollar goes pretty far. The weather sucks ass, though -- even Paul Graham says so! I really wouldn't want to have to deal with that again.
(Also, the bit about "why should I pay a bunch in rent to live near some nice parks" is such a dumb way of thinking about NYC. But if you really do think that way you definitely should not go to New York.)