datashovel

Not particularly directed at you, but it's certainly a dichotomy in that managers are the only ones responsible for "rethinking another's employment". I'm curious to know how often you would consider reflecting on / rethinking your own employment?

I say this because I was recently hired to work on a project where managers are obviously the only ones responsible for deciding how a developer should function within the organization. It is obvious the state of the project is anything but healthy at the moment. Attrition rates are astronomical and the code is beyond ugly in a lot of cases.

I wonder if it's that fewer females prefer STEM, or is it that more men are doing things they would prefer not to?

My guess is the doctors who don't spend extra time trying to solve the case probably shouldn't be paid for the time separately as is being suggested here.

It would appear to me that they have already lost the innate curiosity (if they ever had it) that made them want to become doctors in the first place.

Or they're not confident enough in their ability. Doctors are already paid substantially compared to most other professions, so for them to not put in extra time on the exceptional cases makes me feel they probably feel entitled. Too much so to have any impact on the rare cases.

The doctors who could realistically find the solution are the ones who will likely want to take the case on for free.

A great example of why I think the entire core ecosystem of the web is backwards.

I've had a number of comments here on HN related to this. Imagine this same scenario, except instead of the User being in charge of deciding which engine is used to render a website / webapp, the Developer is making that choice. What would a developer need to do if they were in control of which "engine" rendered their website on the user's computer?

Instead of being at the mercy of Google / Chrome, the developer of said site could simply change their HTTP Header "X-BrowserEngine" or something like this, and the client's computer would know how to (a) download the new engine if it's not on the computer already (b) sandbox the new engine (c) run the site / app in said engine.

I've called this idea the "Meta Browser" in the past. It's a concept for an app that sandboxes and runs sites on different browser engines seamlessly. The user experience is more or less as though they're continuing to use a single app to browse the web, but behind the scenes could be any number of custom engines rendering the content.

I don't get the impression you understood what I said.

Thank you for the post, and finding and reading my comment. It's extremely thought provoking, and inspiring to know that these conversations are happening.

The "new tab type" idea sounds like it fits. In a way I see the "browser renaissance", that I think (hope) is going to happen within the next decade, is also more than just about sandboxing browser engines. When you follow the line of thought further I think the browser core becomes supported by a set of decoupled libraries which will be reused by different browser engines.

I think the toughest hurdle to this kind of thing is probably abstracting away the details, but still making it possible for end users to make educated / granular decisions so that they can understand more or less what the security implications of certain actions / settings would be. I imagine those 2 things (user knowledge and need for abstraction / shielding users from themselves) will eventually converge to a happy middle ground. But for starters could (for the least knowledgeable users) probably be something like providing a handful of options like "extra safe", "safe", "maybe trouble", "danger zone".

Though to be fair "danger zone" would probably mean something different than it historically would, since the "shell app / meta-browser" hosting the browser engines in theory would prevent an application from escaping its sandbox, but instead could allow an app, within the confines of the user's settings, to do things the user didn't expect.

In a nutshell. It would only be a simple shell, with extremely minimal API (for user settings, etc), which could sandbox browser engines. This (a) makes "switching between browsers" a seamless experience to the end user, (b) makes the development experience much more friendly to the developer [since they're developing for their browser engine of choice].

What if anyone in the world who had an idea for a "new web", could build it tonight, and have it used tomorrow?

My solution to the "new web" problem is radically different (though to be fair, trying to reinvent the web is in itself a radical idea).

I've posted my idea to many similar threads, so I apologize for repeating myself, but I feel pretty passionately about it and I feel it's a good idea to try to spread. Until I start receiving convincing evidence / arguments that the idea isn't worth spreading I'll probably continue.

Imagine if we didn't have to decide what the "new web" was going to be, BUT we did allow that experimentation to take place? I say we shouldn't make it a requirement to "convince people it's the right thing to do before it gets built and people start using it".

What if users didn't use "browsers". Instead they used "meta browsers". An application which hosts browser engines. And not only could apps / documents / etc. be downloaded by this "meta browser", but the experience of switching between browsers was also seamless to the end user. If they didn't already have that browser engine they would be prompted to download it if a particular app / document developer decided they were supporting it.

In this "new web", the "document / app" developer decides which browser engine the "meta browser" should render their app with.

What if a browser engine developer decided he didn't want to support RFC https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986

It probably feels like they're on a suicide mission (for their browser), but why should it be a "requirement"? If the ideas are bigger and better and eventually catch on (ie. things we haven't even thought of yet) why should "the web" somehow dictate what core set of ideas are the right ones?

  "...unless you work at Google or Microsoft you can’t meaningfully impact the technical direction of the web"

I think this is a great argument for why we need a (for lack of a better name) "meta-browser". An application on the user's machine that contains and runs browsers. Then flip the control to the developer. If I'm only going to design for [name of obscure but super secure browser], my success doesn't have to be dictated by the fact that 99.99% of users didn't originally open my browser of choice. If they come across a page only supported by this little-known browser, they are prompted that they can install it, or they can decide to move on to the next website if the developers didn't write any fallback.

This doesn't just ensure the web can remain open, but makes the whole architecture (the web itself) an open question and allows all aspects of "the web" to evolve more smoothly.

I had an idea that I was going to turn into a side project related to this, but find myself too busy to work on it at the moment.

Imagine a simple ML engine that would allow an artist to pipe in a selection of "art", whether that is visual or aural. The engine would then build a network on top of that data. The next step would be for the ML engine to build pieces "inspired" by the artist's selections which would, in theory, inspire the artist.

I've seen a handful of projects posted that are similar to this, but have yet to take the step of allowing the user to select which pieces of music / art the engine should use for inspiration.

Of all the professions that exist today, I think artists have a special distinction in that they are probably some of the only people who will be immune to the possibility of ML "taking their jobs".

Was curious enough about the thesis paper, I went searching for it.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/11173/34541425...

Generally speaking. Given that DynamoDB is a NoSQL database service, I'm not certain that moving larger clients to their own dedicated AWS resources should cause too many negative side effects. Especially ones who are so large they're causing scalability issues.

Is the only rational manipulation that which makes me more wealthy?

Does this philosophy also assume the wealthiest won't try to manipulate scarcity in order to gain more wealth?

Because of all the negativity in Soylent threads I always feel obliged to add my opinion. Soylent has been an extremely positive addition to my life.

"Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator. It's like a monster truck you can pour into your face."

I've designed and built a few of these. I've heard both sides of the argument (digital/analog). I find analog better in every way, but in my experience those who prefer digital time pickers are definitely vocal.

I've typically created a user config option in any app I've designed so the user can choose whether time pickers are digital or analog.

EDIT: I see that clicking on the numbers at the top pull up a dropdown, which I think is a nice touch. Designs in the past I've opted for a double-click or double-tap to activate the keyboard so user can type in the number if they wish.

I think the world will eventually reach an equilibrium where humans, and commerce, will simply (because of technology) be so much more efficient / effective than they are today, it will make it possible for governments to be as effective at fulfilling the needs of its people (if not more so) with orders of magnitude less tax.

In the meantime I think the human race will be in a sort of gray area. Maybe it'd be a good idea to implement some sort of "robot tax" for that duration.

  under “no circumstances will any contractor call
  out or point fingers at any government manager
  whether you agree with their handling of an issue
  or not.”

Even if it's only anecdotal evidence, it is frightening to read how closed-minded the culture can be in US government.

It is my (probably controversial) belief that humans can teach other humans how to become geniuses. We just haven't figured out how to yet.

With one caveat: My guess is intervention probably has to start early.

I wonder how it looks to courts that Oracle, thus far, has strategically singled out Google?

If Oracle does not show a concerted effort to protect their copyright from all who are "infringing", does that help delegitimize their case against Google?

My limited experience building some components with Polymer was that it is surprisingly intuitive. When I thought something should naturally work a certain way, more often than not it did.

Next November/December let us know what you think. I plan to continue to post this annually.