Kind of the same effect if you are used to watching Netflix and then at a relative's house and you see cable TV with commercials every 15 minutes. They probably don't even notice it, but to me it feels strange and annoying to have to put up with it.
From guerilla stickers on the bus and posters on construction site fences to entire buildings wrapped, complete with props (like a car hanging from the side) it makes cities look alive. LED signs, especially the larger ones capable of showing graphics, and (my personal favourite) proper, old-school neons make cities look like cities. Billboards cover unfinished structures or designs from architects who should have never been licensed.
Maybe it's all the crappy communist architecture here but even places that evolved more naturally generally gain. Sure, there are some old towns, picturesque villages and so on but that is nowhere near the majority of the space inhabited by people.
I've started blocking ads on my devices again just so I can have a break from advertising in my life.
As others have said, I neither miss them nor dislike them. The one thing I will say is that some do cover over otherwise useful windows --which since covered by advertising become useless and wonder how the inhabitants deal with diminished sunlight --but on the other hand you have places like France where you are (were?) taxed on window count on your flat and so people would board them up, so as not to count as "windows".
Yes, I realize how unpopular this is. "Advertising has been around since the dawn of time!" and "Who will know what to buy? Economy would crash." To them I say the following: If you could choose to live your life and never see another advertisement, would you?
If the answer is yes, do you believe it is technologically feasible to live as a human being without ever seeing an advertisement?
If the answer is yes, then we agree.
By the way, if you want or need something, google it or watch a dedicated "ads about X" channel. When was the last time you saw an ad for anything and it changed your life more than marginally?
But of course, who gets to pick what the billboards say? And I'm sure nobody would go for it if it were slogans from the State Dept. of Nudges...
 Real data of course. Citations needed.
I Williamsburg where I live as far as I understand it's not legal to put up posters or billboard posters. Instead people paint the billboards.
Which is pretty cool.
But I do care about (actual) environmental pollution, poor economic opportunities in the inner city, overly militaristic and authoritarian policing, mass government surveillance, and the deteriorating public transit infrastructure.
so they replaced commercial crap by street art shite that never changes, and that is supposed to be an improvement for the eyes ? Seriously ?
The reason people are asking for a ban of billboards is that they impose heavy externalities: they're distracting, ugly, et cetera. Capture those externalities rather than ban them.
Does u-block allow for extensions?
In fact, I'm bet a few people are wondering when they can all be replaced with giant QR codes, so they can automatically be replaced by something a little more "targeted".
Advertisements have long been used as a form of micropayment, to fund first TV shows and now websites, where a monetary payment would be infeasible.
There is no such reason to allow advertising in public property (private property is more complicated, but generally the outward appearance of buildings is considered a public good, and highly regulated). The person viewing the building or billboard is not a party to a transaction, so there is no reason to charge that person a hidden fee for viewing that space. In a way it is the ultimate hidden tax.
The pilot was actually arrested.
I'd replace billboards with graffiti in Portland any day. I can't stand that billboards are plastered all over the place, but one streak of paint on a building left unscrubbed will result in the person owning that building getting fines from the city. I miss the feel of an real urban environment and having real graffiti on walls and over passes.
Then there are those active ones. Blinking lights, bright to the point of light pollution. I hate those things and they are everywhere now too with more sprouting up all the time.
Count me in for the latter. I'll gladly continue to tolerate the former to get some relief from the active ugly everywhere...
First U.S. decides to let nearly 6,000 drug offenders out of federal prison early. 
Then I hear CNN (!) was apparently talking about the rise of city-states. 
And now this about cities considering or already actively banning billboard ads??
So much sanity and good news in a short time period makes me almost suspicious.
That said, the article is an ad in itself - "began to suffocate under a smog of signage", gimme a break. I find it funny how anti-ad folk often advertise massively against ads.
I fully agree with this, and I think the problem is schools too easily trap people into fixed mindsets. There are so many exams in school that if you constantly get medium to low scores it's easy to think you just aren't smart.
I learnt programming as a hobby outside of school and fast forward to today and I am a software developer with a 1st degree in compsci. When I look back and wonder why I found programming so much easier than school subjects like math/geography I realise I hated the system more than the subject. The constant dull drills, working through equation after equation. All to pass the next exam and then forget. As I wasn't good at them I just decided that I never would be.
Now that I am older I realise that mindset is ridiculous. So as a test, about a year ago, I started practicing memorising all the countries in the world (using Anki flash cards, which I flick through at work whenever I am waiting for a build to finish!), and these days I can literally zoom over the world in my mind and name 90% of the countries. I also started using an abacus to see if I could get my brain to instantly solve math equations just by looking at them  and am having some success. I sometimes wish I could go and tell my younger self to skip school but there you go hindsight is 20/20.
Whether you can learn isn't the issue, whether you do learn -- and how much time and annoyance you have to put in -- is what matters.
Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they dont have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel theyre morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute thats too long. Or maybe they outbid someone else, and someone else is displaced.
Its easy to see the problem when youre tearing down someones home. But when youre not building, its hard to see whose home it is.
It's time for change. I'd welcome a housing glut, it'll benefit most, but those who see real estate as investment for retirement.
In the end, I think people will discover that mid density isn't so bad after all. You get convenience, but you lose some of your feeling of living in an enclave.
From communist china to capitalist Korea, when housing is in short supply, buildings go up.
Looks like East bay is falling behind schedule.
Here's housing prices since crash peek:http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-ch...
I live several doors down from the old KFC. I miss the old Sugoi Sushi that was there - but am fine with the new construction. Am lucky to have rent control. Right now, if I move away, I wouldn't be able to afford moving back.
So yes we need more housing, but that is merely the first step.
Their DSP proposal is so clouded by the political language that it is difficult to determine their true intentions.
Also, I'm quite troubled by their suggestion that tearing down homes is morally equivalent to not building them in the first place. Tearing down homes immediately destroys value; hundreds of thousands of dollars are put into a home with the expectation that at least part of it can be recovered after a sale. A government that destroys homes without taking into account this investment destroys the value that the developers put into it. On the other hand, having the homes not be built in the first place does no such thing.
I'd like to live on a private island in the Whitsundays, but there aren't enough to go around. It has never occurred to me to whine about this fact.
But I think that the major argument it is making is "systemd is a mediocre service manager; similar tools existed before systemd, and were better." That is a very different argument from "we would be better off with sysvinit," which seems to be the primary argument I see in practice: if you're arguing things like "do one thing and do it well," "shell scripts are great and debuggable," "init should reap children and nothing else," "there's too much code in pid1," "I don't want to learn something new," etc., you're making that form of argument.
If there is general consensus from studied opponents of systemd that something systemd-like is an obviously good idea, great. Let's move on, acknowledge the network effects of systemd, and build something that can feasibly be the shinier, newer, better, securer systemd. Which might even be based on an existing system like s6. But then the path forward has to be either improving systemd or replacing it, not continuing with sysvinit.
I am in practice a pro-systemd person, but that's only because my realistic alternatives, for my use case, are sysvinit and Upstart. I have no idea how I'd start to build a system that used something like s6. I would happily admit there is extensive room for improvement in systemd, but we UNIX folks have been working with worse-is-better and rough-consensus-and-running-code for decades.
If the general consensus is that a systemd-style service manager is great, but it should not be pid 1, that's an argument worth making, but I don't see much focus in this article on that.
If the general consensus is that everything can be done with sysvinit, this article doesn't make that case at all. (But I suspect that's not the general consensus.)
I hope this article can start some actually useful conversations about init systems that do not fall into the pitfalls of FUD and negativity that seem to have surrounded this topic in the past.
I like dmd, implemented in Scheme, which is part of the GuixSD distribution.
* systemd is more similar to a traditional job scheduler than a traditional init system.
* systemd should not parse text files in pid1 because it might be a security risk.
* Because systemd handles order dependencies, it is sometimes susceptible to "ordering cycles" where a clear ordering cannot be established, "dependency loops" where jobs are continuously dropped and requeued, and race conditions if dependencies are accidentally underspecified.
* "Imbalance between promoting laziness or eagerness": launchd, a predecessor of systemd, operated purely "lazily," launching services only when other services needed them. systemd also supports launching services eagerly, which the author argues is more complex.
* Checkpointing a process image could have been used instead of systemd's readiness notification mechanism (?)
* Systemd does not have a plugin system
* Journald is criticized because it does too much
I would counter that:
* I agree that systemd is similar to a job scheduler, but I don't necessarily believe that that is a bad thing. Manual scheduling of jobs for startup and shutdown like we did in the rc.sh days is complex and error-prone.
* The text files systemd is parsing are owned by root, so even if the parser is exploitable, only root can take advantage? Seems like a weak criticism.
* I agree that dependency ordering makes things more complex. But upstart and launchd have the same issues. It seems to be a tradeoff worth making.
* I don't understand the argument against supporting both laziness and eagerness in dependencies. It seems like some things are naturally modelled eagerly, like needing to perform a bunch of somewhat unrelated actions to suspend the system. And some things are better handled lazily, like setting up a FUSE filesystem when a USB stick is inserted that needs it. Shouldn't we use the model that makes the most sense?
* I don't think checkpointing a process image can ever really replace having a notification system. Even if the checkpointing code could be make bulletproof somehow, some processes deal with state in the external world, or with hardware, that makes checkpointing infeasible.
* Regarding a plugin system: Systemd has the ability to run shell scripts, which can be useful in filling in gaps in functionality. I don't think a more complicated plugin system would be a good idea since it would add a lot of complexity (and potentially instability.)
* I didn't understand the criticism of journald, maybe someone can elaborate. The author presented some alternate approaches but I missed why these were better (other than the handwavey argument that journald was "a bottleneck")
I enjoyed reading this, and it's nice to see some more reasoned criticism of systemd. I feel like the prose got a little bit purple at times. We had to spend 10 paragraphs "descend[ing] into an inferno with the same dead horse talking points", "culminating into some rather heterodox conclusions", and "progressively introducing and elucidating on concepts, applying some a priori reasoning at times, and backtracking to derive conclusions or reiterate on prior stated knowledge" before we even saw a word of argument! This needed an editor...
Much of these deficiencies boil down to the design criteria for systemd, which is basically to avoid forcing the system administrator to perform dependency graph resolution. This was a direct response to Upstart, which pushed this work to the administrator (or distro packager) by design.
Thus the declarative syntax for unit files, which do not explicitly control dependency resolution, parallelization, or startup order, which is simply not necessary or cared about for 99% of use cases. The 1% case there is for situations where you should not use a prebaked init system in the first place, such as when you absolutely need deterministic boots, i.e. in an embedded or realtime context.
> In systemd, however, the execution state is not based on explicit chain loading, but on serializing unit file options to a private ExecContext structure overlayed into Unit objects and set for service unit types.
This is not a problem with systemd's design. This is a problem with software written without the assumption of reliable process supervision, which is a reasonable assumption given the history of UNIX daemonization. systemd takes the (apparently controversial) stance that processes should not manage their own execution environment, or that of their dependencies. It provides numerous prebuilt hacks to make things work for broken software, but nobody should expect systemd to design for 100% of situations where processes do Weird Shit.
And yes, I'm including "delegated service restarters" under this umbrella. The need for something like this absolutely smells of poor design. It also flies in the face of the author's preference for deterministic execution behavior, because by definition your process will execute differently depending on if it was started or restarted.
The link to "systemd house of horrors"  only proves this point.
> A supervisor insisting on programmatic accommodations from service writers is not the most desirable state of affairs. A rarely discussed alternative to the two common approaches is, again as with startup speed optimization minus parallelism, checkpoint/restore: checkpoint a process image from a point where initialization is known to be complete and overlay it on startup, using a tool such as DMTCP or CRIU.
I don't know about anyone else, but this sounds like an absolute nightmare. For one, it relies on the service exposing enough information to be checkpointed at the right time; at which point, you might as well call sd_notify or hook in a script to do it for you, so this is not a reduction in requiring programmatic accommodations from service writers. Two, process-snapshotting is not a panacea, and is a nightmare to debug when it breaks your expectations; you'll need to test all sorts of process state, including open pipes/fds/sockets, signals, system calls (!), shmem buffers, etc. At which point it's best to just let the service notify you directly when the process is done. Which is a facility that systemd provides.
> Of course we also have the issue of circular dependencies in the systemd architecture itself. We have the init, process manager, process supervisor, cgroup writer, local service tools, the Unit object structure (which might benefit from being made a protocol), timers, mounts, automounts and swaps all in the same module with ill-defined boundaries.
A worthy criticism. I would also like to see a bit more modularization from systemd, but I can also see the point of systemd developers not expending effort to do so. For one, it would drastically increase the number of contexts for testing (i.e. can we verify the service manager works without the cgroups module loaded, etc). I think systemd is at the point where it's rock-solid for all of its use cases, and a pluggable/composable architecture would have delayed this situation for not very much benefit.
In short, systemd imposes its opinions about process init and supervision. Whether or not this is reasonable is up for debate. However, it is very useful to have both a strong opinion and a solid implementation of this opinion.
IMO, the idealized world that systemd supports (i.e. non-forking services, initialization notification, strict execution environment and dependency declaration, centralized and opaque init/dependency-resolution/parallelization) is a vast improvement over the status quo and actually improves the lives of service writers (by removing an entire class of responsibilities), so I think it's a reasonable opinion and thus I think systemd has a reasonable design and architecture.
There are many known technical deficiencies with the implementation that are mostly being worked on, but I'm not seeing anything damning of the whole idea.
My observation: The "discussion" never seems to focus on systemd. Instead it usually turns to comments on the former sysvinit system or other init systems.
That avoidance is perhaps something to ponder. And maybe it's why this author felt the urge to put some focus on systemd itself.
Love the quote from djb. In sum, the best interface is no interface. Parsing amounts to high margin for error and often an incredible nuisance.
In another thread today I wrote about the command line interface and "expecting a reponse". Truthfully, djb's utilities that simply return an exit value and no output are the best ones I have ever used.
(It seems djb himself is a systemd user. Not sure what if anything that means.)
Imagine if the information dissiminated via www was as easy to "parse" as text0. Writing a simple "web browser" might be easy enough that programmers would not need to be paid to do it.
This is a huge point of efficiency that's been missed for a very long time, mostly because it's right along the border between the datacenter provider and the server customer. The datacenter traditionally agrees to provide filtered 120/240v AC.
Converting the power loses efficiency. And we convert the power 4 times. They may be regaining about a 6.25% loss from each conversion, my math is probably incorrect.
Of course, all parties could agree to change the standard, and provide clean, filtered 12V DC to servers, and redesign PSUs to accept this input instead. But then they wouldn't be wall-pluggable anymore.
EDIT: I didn't see the comments before (they take a while to load) - the first comment on the article sums things up pretty well I think.
Even if it's just in namesake, the world does have a funny way of coming full-circle.
Also, they arbitrarily told Instagram to fuck off by only banning their image embeds, which pissed off even more users.
Now I'm just praying that their new "while you have been away" crap doesn't get default (or if it does, make it opt out). I'm fairly capable of reading an entire day worth of backlog (though, again, provided it is not more than 800 tweets, once again a pointless API limit).
Getting new users all right, do whatever the fuck you want, but do not drive away even more of the most hardcore users unless you want to have a Twitter filled with brainless 12y kids and #cut4bieber/#cut4dagibee and similar junk.
So for me, it's another swing and miss. I'm in the Android beta so I get early access to new stuff and the past 2-3 new features haven't interested me at all: the "While you were away" just gets in my way as I try to scroll, the weird lockscreen "Highlights" tweets are poorly done and unwanted.
The only new thing I've liked is that one twitter account that you follow and it DMs you when a bunch of people you follow all share a tweet or follow a new account; that is actually okay and feels like I'm being summoned to check something out that I'll actually care about.
Still, it does give me faith that Twitter is focusing more on the "What matters?" side of their product, rather than the "What's happening?" side -- a dichotomy brought up by Thompson two years ago in a post worth reading as a companion piece to this one:
That sounds not entirely ethical / honest..
There are two reasons I can see for this fear. First, investors who are afraid to lose a lot of money that they put into the company. Second, leaders who are afraid to have to lay off a whole bunch of people because that's very painful. Are there other reasons that I'm missing?
Seems if you're bootstrapped and hire slowly, it's easier to keep balance in this situation.
Edit. It is interesting that market saturation is not raised as a possible cause.
Or you could just save yourself the mental angst and build a profitable, sustainable business that doesn't require perpetual growth to keep the wheels from falling off.
They claim that Type-2 diabetes and AD are "exacerbated by high fat diets", but the link with regards to the diabetes study specifies diet-induced obesity, not "high fat" diet. Dietary fat has much less effect on blood glucose levels than carbohydrates, so insulin's role is markedly decreased.
Even though I don't think it will ever happen I enjoyed reading the hard science fiction novel "Hegemony" by Mark Kalina. It presents an interesting vision of what life would be like in the far future with mind uploading.
While his time frame estimates might be sound given that context, I'd argue they're wildly inaccurate given a more likely scenario: such things will be brought into existence first via a super-intelligent agent, if at all.
If that proves to be the case, the time frame for brain uploading becomes roughly bound to the advent of AGI. When that happens, the same entity capable of creating our brain upload mechanism would likely be capable of endowing humans with effectively immortal bodies just the same.
In other words, technology like this is almost certainly going to be part of a post-singularity world (assuming there is a singularity in the first place), and who knows what that will look like.
No! No body does this. People make up excuses. People spin death to be a positive, often under some guise of Deep Wisdom. People come up with all sorts of ways to cope with death, but calling any of them a solution is just false. Death is a vile, atrocious thing, the biggest enemy humanity has.
We don't say that slaves all found solutions to slavery. Or that everyone finds solutions to domestic abuse. Or solutions to dementia or Alzheimer's. Death is a far greater evil. So how disgusting is it to say everyone finds a solution.
I admit the author probably didn't intend to imply this, but it's exactly that kind of thinking that we should be aware of and fight. Just because it seems inevitable, we should not make it socially acceptable to give up and view death as anything but the wickedness it is.
1: Yes there are atrocities worse than death, but many of those involve death, or are worse because of the limited timespans caused by death. Apart from having your mind destroyed, I'm guessing most things would be healed by rather long periods of time, than sufferers would prefer a period of suffering+long OK life, vs suffering+death.
Then there is the network of vasculature, the flow of cerebrospinal fluid, interactions with hormones, and just generally all the interfacing with other bodily systems. All this would have to measured and modelled somehow too, in addition to all the billions of neurons.
I agree with the author, there's no way all this is going to solved any time soon.
>While progress is swift, no one has any realistic estimate of how long it will take to arrive at brain-size connectomes. (My wild guess: centuries.)
It's not so hard to estimate. Just extrapolate progress on scanning, computing etc. About 2050 plus or minus a couple of decades. We had a 20um scan in 2013 and you'd probably want to get that down to 20nm for a connectome so if you assume resolution doubling every couple of years that would be about 2035.
(2013 scan: http://io9.com/see-the-first-ultra-high-resolution-3d-scan-o...
Images showing neural connections: http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-is-a-synapse/)
Of course as the article points out a connectome misses a lot of chemical detail.
>It will almost certainly be a very long time before we can hope to preserve a brain in sufficient detail and for sufficient time that some civilization much farther in the future, perhaps thousands or even millions of years from now, might have the technological capacity to upload and recreate that individuals mind.
Or quite possibly we can do it just now for $30k or so by sticking the body in liquid nitrogen. (http://www.cryonics.org/membership/ ). Maybe that won't work but maybe it will.
Facebook AI research is probably playing with such models right now.
> We define a successful replication as when the authors or journal provide data and code files that allow us to qualitatively reproduce the key results of the paper.
Well this is underwhelming. I mean, sure, they're talking about papers in journals for which sharing data and code is required when asked for, and so they have definitely exposed widespread ignorance of the rules, maybe even a refusal to adhere to them... but the replication that is being talked about is "can we download the data, press a button and get the same results the original authors did?" and not "can we run the experiment again or run the analysis independently and get similar or the same results?"
Personally I like the the distinction between replication (a new experiment but with the same setup), reproduction (corroborate using different methods) and re-analysis (download the data, run the code, maybe do some additional analysis). This paper is entirely about re-analysis, not about replication or reproduction. (Cf. http://sequoia.cs.byu.edu/lab/files/reser2010/proceedings/Go...)
In one sense, failed re-analysis means research cannot even clear the lowest possible bar: you can't even check if the analysis produces the numbers that are mentioned in the research. But in another sense, whether or not researchers manage to release their code or not is only very weakly associated with how good that research is. Research might "fail" re-analysis because no code was provided, but survive both replication and reproduction.
The authors compare their work with the Open Science Collaboration which recently pointed out so many unreplicable studies in psychology, but this is not a fair comparison at all. The Open Science Collaboration was a huge endeavor and redid a bunch of experiments from scratch. This is just asking authors "give me your data" and checking a mark "did not replicate" if they didn't.
Of course, this technique can only be performed if you have not only large studies, but a large number of studies -- so large that you can resolve an empirical distribution of outcomes at several different N bands. It's therefore limited to a small number of topics. Still, it's neat to get quantitative insight into an effect that is usually unobservable.
 pdf page # 33 of http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.398...
Most Egyptians I know have given up on Egyptian society and politics following the Sisi led coup and now see their future either outside of Egypt or within the 'internet culture'.
In many ways, Sisi indicates to the youth that the democratic system doesn't work in Egypt and that the only way to survive is to leave.
Disrupting society online carries it's own risks under the military government (i.e. disappearing.)
What are your thoughts?
There seems to always has been a problem of diversity in tech. Yet US has done just ok with males (white and asian) doing this stuff. Ie better than anybody else in the world.
Why is this a problem (something the writer - who is a literature professor, by the way) considers a given? Is there any proof that increased diversity has any effect (except employment opportunities for the otherwise underrepresented)?
I've seen a little bit of TV this year - every hacker I saw was female, and most were goths. Doing a google search of "top TV 2014" and looking up the ones that are likely to have a hacker as a character, I discover "Arrow" (female hacker), NCIS (female hacker), 24 (female hacker), Criminal Minds (female hacker), Person of Interest (male and female hacker), Agents of Shield (female hacker) and The Strain (female hacker).
Why do we believe that pop culture portrays scientists or computer people this way at all?
Stereotypes about STEM fields putting girls off
I can only talk about my own experience but I saw very few negative stereotypes about STEM fields growing up. Definitely not enough to put off girls.
However, while I did start coding at a young age, I didn't apply my skill to a work/business purpose until my twenties.
Why? I think this issue affects both genders actually. I was simply never exposed to people or situations that showed me you could built really cool projects/businesses with code. I never encountered anyone/anything until ~20 that inspired me to take it seriously.
Maybe it has something to do with my gender but I think a lot of people these days are being forced way too early to commit to an education/work track without being given to chance to explore what their options are.
It's hard to discover you like a topic by learning it a classroom. I think co-ed / internship programs at a much younger age will help a lot. It definitely would have helped me discovered my true passions younger.
About being feminine
I don't feel un-feminine in any environment where there are more guys than girls. Rather, I think the problem is, the professional/business world as a whole rewards and values masculine traits (competitiveness, talking highly of yourself and accomplishments, etc.) much more than feminine ones.
Even in dress, women are encouraged to dress like a man (power suits, solid colors, etc.) in professional settings to be taken seriously.
Thus as a girl, you're forced to act more masculine to achieve business goals. But it's hard to suppress your natural state of being. Additionally girls are still expected to (and want to) act feminine in their personal relationships so women "who want to have it all" have to toggle back and forth between being masculine and feminine. It can be exhausting.
Fixing this problem is really, really hard. Assuming I gave my daughters equal access to both barbies and chemistry kits, which would they choose? Kids want to fit in with their friends. Boy nerds get beaten up, girl nerds get ostracised. What does that lead to? The child choosing their gender stereotype (applies both ways) so that they can fit in. It's what the herd is doing and results in girls avoiding engineering and boys avoiding, say, nursing.
It's a systemic disease and is highly contagious. One possible solution is an elementary school where the entrance requirement is determined by the parents: girls get barbies AND chemistry kits. Boys get toy cars AND sewing kits. Their social group shouldn't be determined by gender, rather interest.
The reason is that there is a very fine line between saying that you don't have to be nerdy to be in tech, and failing to acknowledge that in general being nerdy is a disadvantage in society, and many people found a refuge in tech where they were mocked and often bullied outside. To fail to acknowledge this is to risk promoting the same negative attitudes towards nerds within tech, as exist outside it.
So I would say that we should all encourage tech to be as open an welcoming as possible, and to avoid any implication that you have to have a certain personality, appearance or interests to succeed in tech. But we shouldn't dismiss the traits of people who currently are overrepresented in tech as a "stereotype", much less a "negative stereotype". I also don't think this is what the author was suggesting. As the article says, "stereotypes are only partly true, and women who actually take classes in computer science dont hold the same prejudices as women who get their ideas from pop culture."
 E.g. see http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/08/programmin...
This would seem to be a bit of a bait-and-switch... If you aren't interested in "computer parts and tech magazines" then what exactly is it about computing that makes you want to do it?
"For the money" is a valid answer of course, a job's a job for most people, but let's call a spade a spade.
Girls are put off by how computer culture styles itself in nerdy ways.
Ok, i can kind of get that. On the other hand, i don't like it much because she seems to be saying "hiding positive expressions about things you like could be helpful".
I'm all for increasing diversity, but that should happen by bringing in more things and widening horizons. If that means "Sex and the City", then yes, please.
The article does also kind of lose its red thread when she compares offputting styling with outright attacks against her. Maybe she's trying to be less contentious by not outright calling them out as bullshit that should get people shitcanned by HR. But really, that's what should be said about that, not comparisons with star wars posters.
All that said, i like the bit she mentions at the end, about introducing computing earlier. If done emphatically it can have a real chance of leveling the playing field.
I should be careful not to state I'm not taking the position covered by the well-worn pre-rebuttal in the article. I'm not scoffing at this phenomenon. It's real and I'm wondering: why aren't we trying to make kids immune to it?
Instead all I see is people that want to exploit it and steer people into selecting careers such that the superficial representation found on a spreadsheet makes the commentariat happy.
e: It just comes across as working to makes your metrics look good, without reaching the underlying goals the metrics are less-than-perfect at measuring. If there really are societal issues keeping people that would have otherwise entered a "tech field" out, shouldn't fixing it be about helping everyone overcome the obstacles in achieving that step of self-actualization? Instead I just see social engineering designed to balance the gender ratio.
I wonder how long it will take for humanities departments to adopt a more inclusive culture? Why must our obsessive hand-wringing be be reserved exclusively for computer science and engineering, which are mostly hidden and do not set the wider cultural narrative (for the most part).
Sans the "general interest magazines" (so vanilla, it makes me want to barf), this sounds like a rather pleasant work environment. I'm so used to working in a dark cave with Boba Fett stand-ups everywhere, it'd be nice to work in a place with more greenery, natural tones and airiness. Nest's offices were a lot like this, and were one of the factors I liked about working there.
The article also goes into many stereotypes and many women arent going into computer science based on these perceived sterotypes. If we were talking about any other group, the words "racist", "sexist", Or "bigot" would be thrown around and used to describe the group not accepting the culture.
This is a tell-tale sign that it is a power-play move to gain control over another group of people.
I also thought that we were supposed to be accepting of everyones culture. Does this only apply to the privileged few???
It is because they don't want to be there. The opportunity is there for everyone to take thus men and women. I actually think women have an advantage in this space and it is up to them to see it and advantage of it.
As a woman, I am tired this. If you want it, go and get it. There shouldn't be any special treatment. Prove you deserve to be at the table, prove you deserve to be there based merits etc.. Not because of gender, race etc.
People are going to wonder why this conclusion? Because when people see you as a women trying to achieve something, a lot are willing to help and push you. Don't moan about it, go ahead and just get into Tech if you want it that bad.
I would liken it to working at an office where everyone is really into sports. I'll watch the occasional college football game, but I'd be pretty alienated working at an office with sports stuff hanging on the walls where people expected you to watch the game every weekend in order to fit in.
Art and nature posters, plants and general-interest magazines do not sound neutral to me.
After reading the article, I'd update that opinion. I still don't feel it should be mandatory for a basic High School degree, but perhaps forming a track for college bound students that includes programming (and calculus, AP english, etc.) and requiring that track to graduate with honors would be a good positive incentive.
Programming & algorithms is a pretty advanced academic topic. Requiring it for graduation would set up a lot of students to fail or become disillusioned with what education has to offer them. Much like if Calculus were required.
> If the actor wore a T-shirt that said I CODE THEREFORE I AM and claimed to enjoy video games, the students expressed less interest in studying computer science than if the actor wore a solid shirt and claimed to enjoy hanging out with friends
So all we need to do is overhaul computer science's anti-women culture is remove computer magazines, computer parts, computer games, futurism, and coding.
The "neutral decor" sounds awfully boring for a computer classroom. I love art, nature posters, coffee, and plants; but when I imagine a computer classroom in both of these styles the former is infinitely more appealing.
"Tech" isn't a single thing. If you want to make non-geeky spaces for tech, go ahead and do it. But lots of geeks do like tech, and they understandably make geeky environments. Why can't everyone, as the bumper sticker helpfully puts it, coexist?
I think they can. But I also think that the association of geekiness with tech isn't a random quirk of history, but rather indicates a common origin. The kind of personality and psychological profile that predisposes one to an interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics also predisposes one to geekiness. Moreover, geekiness isn't gender-blind: men are simply more likely than women to be geeks. Indeed, people on the autistic spectrum are especially likely to be geeks, and the overrepresentation of males among autistics is incontrovertible. 
There's nothing wrong with creating non-geeky tech spaces that cater to non-geeks (male and female alike)indeed, I think it's an excellent idea, and not only because it's generally more welcoming to womenbut let's also let geeks be geeks.
> The average programmer spends only about 30 percent of his/her time working alone.
That's nowhere close to my figure. In fact, I can pretty much _only_ program alone. Individual investigation and discovery is most of the fun in the field.
(Obviously I think being female is orthogonal to such concerns.)
Vogue and Cosmo!? As a 'feminine' counterpoint to the supposedly masculine 'computer parts' and 'tech magazines'!?
This is "Science. It's a Girl Thing" all over again: "To get women into STEM, you have to show makeup and fashion". Fuck this view of fashion being a fundamental part of the female psyche. The article has some good points in it, but I think it overplays "women like fashion" and underplays "my computer time was gatekept by sexist arseholes".
"Give me a job." "MAKE me feel comfortable." "I am at your mercy." ... This the subtext I read. Other people want to create their own world; when someone tells them no or gets in their way, the attitude is "fuck you" not "change to accommodate me."
This reaction may be biologically ingrained as a difference in the sexes; I am not sure- But I rarely, if ever, come across articles about women who have been fed up with some job and formed their own companies with other fed up women and strove to put their former coworkers/employers out of business, whereas for hackers "I'll show you!" seems a very common motivator.
We should be trying to give women (and men) more confidence, integrity and fortitude, and quit with the shaming and guilt tactics.
At this level it's a scam.
As anecdotal evidence, my father went to Berkeley when there was no student loan structure, and the community was considered a poor real estate investment, since it was commonly known as a 'Student Ghetto'. A term which has since disappeared as rents in Berkeley are among the highest in the East Bay. All on the back of the students financing their housing costs on student loans.
Again, it's a scam.
The students don't get a better education than my father, and while the housing might be nicer, it's debt that they have to pay well into their later years, as opposed to being able to graduate debt free.
My father thinks this is directly attributable to the death of the student free speech movement and other student political enterprises, since being forced to accommodate ones debt takes priority over trying to change the world, or fix the system. In short it becomes a type of indentured servitude, where lower and middle class people are unqualified for good paying jobs without the debt, and with the debt, they are forced into high level debt maintenance, and can't have any other discussions about where society is going, or how it is getting there.
Discover Bank paid $18.5 million without admitting or denying wrongdoing."
These fines are just a calculated cost of doing business for companies like Discover, Sallie Mae, etc. They take the likelihood of getting caught breaking the law, multiply it by how much they'll have to dish out when they get caught, and subtract that from what they'll make by extorting their "customers."
In this case, Discover made a good financial decision on their part. Hooray for creating value for the shareholders.
1 in 4 are delinquent or in default. Read that again.
This situation is a failure mode, and is only fail-safe for the lenders who forced it there. This means that on some level, the lenders knew their interest rates were impossible to keep up with, yet knowingly went forward anyway because they knew they could get away with it. The USA's system is utterly bought out against the common good. At this point, I think we'd be better off with a widespread boycott of student loan payments in order to bankrupt the lenders. They can't call collections on all of us, and there would be riots if they tried.
I know that a lot of people are jaded as a result of societal failure to address the student loan crisis. These intentional failures for the sake of profit have long term consequences, as nearly everyone can blatantly see.
"Some 41 million Americans owe $1.2 trillion in student loan debt. The median debt burden among borrowers was $20,000 in 2014, up from $13,000 in 2007."
This is an entire generation worth of people that have been cursed to start their adult lives with an anchor around their neck. As though the brutally competitive ultra-hostile economic depression they graduated into wasn't enough to weigh them down to begin with.
To top it off, the boomers find a way to hold us in contempt.
The first few lines of this article sums it up completely as to why.
"Between misdirected payments by one of the companies servicing his loan and the abusive collection tactics he encountered when he fell behind ..."
These companies that bought the loans on cheap from the secondary market, make more money from penalties they they do from loan servicing. And they have as many tricks up their sleeves as they can discover to help make that fact true.
They are the true sharks in the whole equation, with guaranteed support from the government and the tax payers.
I recommend that every last student default as things are now. If I were in charge of writing new laws for new student loans, which I am definitely not, I would allow them with three additional conditions. 1. They qualify for personal bankruptcy like any other consumer or investment loan, 2. they could NOT be sold off but would be held in a public trust fund, initially funded by public money, and topped up as needed, and 3. (Scandinavia does this) make repayment a modest surcharge in one's income tax. Make a lot, pay a lot and pay off fast. Make a little, pay a little and maybe never pay it off.
And to criticise Norway for paying out more in benifit to the lower end of society compared to other OECD, why is this bad? It simply means they are paying out less in other areas but what are these and why is it a negative?
Personally I found this a weak article. I expect better fact driven discussion from the economist rather than a piece that seems to want to find a reason to bash a country for popular reading.
The Norwegians are sitting pretty on top of world's largest sovereign wealth fund, which holds 1.3% of the world's listed stocks. Their oil&gas tech industry is taking a beating, yes, as are every nation and business who depend on the oil&gas industry, but I don't think the Norwegians will starve any time soon. If new revenue from their oil industry stoppe tomorrow they would still be alright.
I don't see how there is a "weakness" in their model or how this calls for privatisation of anything. If anything, their SWF's exposure to QE inflated stock markets is a bigger risk.
In general, it's a very weak article. Someone opened Wikipedia and saw some numbers that don't agree with how they think economies should be run, and then wrote about that. It's hard to fire employees who are slacking off, especially in government, but there's not a mention of it. But I guess that wasn't on Wikipedia, but the work-week was.
The turn to the left is mostly aa swinging pendulum thing, but I don't dread it, as the Labour party usually has a better grasp of economics than anyone else.
What's happening is a restructuring born of the decline in one sector with a time-delay until the others can absorb the sacked employees. It's not a crisis in government.
Unsurprising, of course. The Economist is owned wholly by a few billionaire families.
That said, the NOK, a petrocurrency, has been hit hard relative to other petrocurrencies. Over the LTM, USD's up 24%, 18% and 15% v. NOK, AUD, and CAD, respectively.
Only negative thing I have to say about it: once my city starts getting bigger, it gets a bit sluggish on my old crappy PC. It is one of the two games that is forcing my hand to buy a new gaming PC.
Where the latest Simcity was a low quality sham, Cities:Skylines was a wonderfully put together game that anyone interest in the genre needs to play.
It's in the small handful of papers in this genre that make you laugh because of how true the predictions turned out to be rather than how far off the mark.
From the abstract:
"This article was published in Man and Computer. Proc. int. Conf., Bordeaux 1970, pp. 48-57 (Karger, Basel 1972). It is interesting to compare its 1970 proposals with the current situation, 30 years later. I have decorated it with footnotes commenting on the 1970 situation and making comparisons. Some of the improvements advocated in the paper are still yet to come. I claim quite a few prophet points for it."
Some notable mentions in this paper:
+ Worries about ways that the Internet as we know it might not have happened. (eg. Getting stuck in the compuserve trap.)
+ Paid for publishing model that we still don't have because micropayments are broken.
+ Self publishing for authors in the vein that Amazon now allows
+ The possibility of the system allowing for Orwellian editing because of centralization.
+ 3D printing/computer controlled manufacturing as a service.
+ In-depth discussion of the realities of resource usage and costs of computer hardware at the time of writing. (Eye opening if nothing else as to how indebted we are to Moore's law.)
"...perhaps we may have to compromise with sin and provide a hard copy terminal after all."
"In the second place, you will see that the new information system will make the public more responsive to the careful reasoning of you good guys and more immune to the blatant propaganda of those bad guys."
Up with Good! Down with Bad!
(But seriously, futurism generally isn't this uncannily accurate. I know hindsight lets me select the best predictions a posteriori - anyone know any way of improving this? - but it's still interesting.)
The Seychelles consistently came up as the cheapest location to incorporate and their reporting requirements are basically non-existent.
> "The identities and personal details of the beneficial owners, directors and shareholders are NOT part of public record for a Seychelles IBC. At registration of a new IBC, the Registrar of Companies does not require any data whatsoever on who is the actual beneficial owner of the new company. This information is only known to the licensed Registered Agent of the company and is kept on internal file by the company."
Combined with nominees makes you virtually anonymous to authorities around the world.
>The Republic of Seychelles is an independent country. As such, it is not sharing or reporting information to any overseas "principal", or organization. Seychelles is not subject to the EU Savings Tax Directive, unlike some other offshore financial centres, which are related to the EU member states (primarily, to the UK and its overseas territories). The offshore financial services sector contributes significantly to the country`s GDP. There is an inherent interest with the government and with the general public to maintain and develop the country`s status as a competitive offshore financial centre.
They also, at the time, allowed bearer shares which are very useful tool for money laundering. It looks like they don't allow this anymore.
As far as I can tell, the only meaningful thing this adds is the ability to require developer registration in order to use experimental APIs.
> The ultimate goal is to enable experimentation and iteration on pre-standardization APIs, in a way that gathers meaningful feedback, but without burn-in of the APIs.
I'm not sure what's broken about the "experimental" label except that it can't trace usage back to specific developers. If it's experimental, it will probably break or disappear. "Burn-in" doesn't have to be a problem if you actually iterate and yank or change stuff. API keys don't solve anything that code removal doesn't solve (aside from developer tracking).
Want to curb "developer abuse" of vendor prefixes? Remove the API. Train developers to understand that experimental features are experimental by actually following through. If you don't want users to think the browser is at fault, maybe alert the user to that fact. "Oops, looks like this website's developers were a bit careless with their code. Sorry about that; some people like to take big risks and it stinks that you the user had to suffer for it."
If you really want to ensure that only specific devs are allowed to use some features, presumably to limit impact on users and loss of browser market share, then just ship those devs a custom release. Protect usage of the whole browser with a key, if you want.
Personally, I'd rather we leave things open to experimentation (with an established and valid understanding they may break) over locking it down to devs willing to give you their phone number so you actively approach them for feedback and turn off the tap on a per-developer basis if you so desire.
Last time I heard something like this discussed, one of the suggestions was "browsers automatically disable support for experimental features on Tuesdays", which should allow people time to experiment but should prevent them from depending on it in production. Also, it's a simple rule that can be shared through the web development community by word-of-mouth, and many browser vendors can share it without having to coordinate infrastructure, etc.
: Obviously this wouldn't be the only way to share it, but when one developer can turn to another and say 'why doesn't this work' and get a one-sentence answer that contains an accurate model for predicting future occurrences, it's a lot more likely for that model to be reliably propagated via Stack Overflow, Twitter, the random mailing-lists-reformatted-as-web-forums content farms that crop up in search results, etc.
1. To register 2. To Use an API key 3. To detect support for (and presumably fallback) 4. To provide feedback for
This problem has been solved many times before.
These are MP3s of muzak played in Kresge stores (K-Mart) from the early 1960s.
The pre-recorded announcer said things to this effect. Listen here:
How much things have changed in such a short time.
Before every new dns entry was naively compared sequentially with current dataset, the fix was probably a hashtable.
You can also replace your routers firmware with OpenWRT. OpenWRT uses dnsmasq by default (and allows you to customize the configuration, of course), so you don't even have to use a separate server.
hosts: files mymachines gw_name myhostname mdns4_minimal resolve [NOTFOUND=return] dns mdns4
protocols: db files
services: db files
ethers: db files
rpc: db files
They are so many as I also have the packages libnss-myhostname libnss-mymachines libnss-gw-name libnss-mdns. Important to note is the NOTFOUND=return directive after resolve, because libnss-resolved is not available on Debian yet and thus it's going to query dnsmasq directly instead of first resolved (which is also using dnsmasq anyway).
But then I tried to search online and at least try to understand what it actually is, what it does or is supposed to do, or what it doesn't do and so on. Then I thought that running bind9 might be easier, at least I know what it's supposed to do.
I finally decided to leave it the way it came with my Ubuntu. Some articles say it's there to act as a dns cache and something else with VPNs while other articles claim the caching functionality is turned off by default. Really confusing for somebody who's not that experienced.
Explain they are a doctor/lawyer/trader/etc & they don't want to spend hours getting their site just right & keeping it updated & hacked-free. Put them on a monthly retainer for $X and now you're building up repeat business.
WP is over-used in our industry and I like to see people looking at other options & explaining these to non-tech clients.
Here's my genuine question: it seems like the term 'static site' means something different from my understanding of it in the 00's-a plain HTML page with no server side processing (PHP, ASP, Coldfusion, etc). Is this correct? What exactly are these static sites and why does one need to be "generated" versus crafting your own markup? Time and efficiency or is there more under the hood than I understand?
Modern PHP is one of the best places to be doing web development in 2015.
PHP has a huge external perception bias from how awful it was up to 2011, and it doesn't help that 80% of PHP programmers you will run into are woefully unaware of modern PHP tools and techniques so they keep writing mangled messes.
Sculpin wraps the really nice templating engine Twig and you basically get all the features it provides, and the extensibility is really powerful. Sculpin let's you leverage all the components and packages for templates, i18n and perhaps more complex use cases.
I'm not sure why you want speed for generation of static content but if that is a constraint... I doubt that you will find better performance in node or ruby over PHP5.6 or PHP7.
So... PHP has the features, speed, and packages. What's the reason not to pick it? The syntax?