nc17

Of course, but Clojure didn't exist in 2006. I wonder what Steve Yegge would say today.

"It goes without saying that all pages shown to logged-in users should be served over HTTPS"

You're not logged on to that page, it's a blog. There's nothing to gain by serving it over https.

These are good points. However, as a user of Dropbox I just don't care if they encrypt my data or not. If I back up anything sensitive, I encrypt it myself. For stuff that's not that private (e.g. pictures that I've shared) I assume that anyone at Dropbox could look at them.

If I were the rental car lobby, I would be putting pressure on regulators to make things as hard as possible for these companies. They are startups, so it's hard for them to put up much of a fight.

It would be very different if Google was behind ride sharing. It took someone the size of Apple to work with the music industry to sell mainstream music legally to the masses.

Moderators, could you please edit the title to reflect what the article is actually about? The original title is extremely misleading, to put it mildly.

The problem is that you're relying on interviews to hire someone who will hopefully work with you for years to come. Would you interview and pick your wife or husband in one day? Would a table like the above help?

A link is not enough, you'd have to show causation. If not, you might as well be banning the sale of umbrellas because they are linked to rain.

That's the main weakness in the study, btw. It could well be that kids who are prone to violence are more attracted to violent games.

It's not that complicated, especially if you have been following Diaspora here. Too much spotlight, not enough traction, a suicide, no more money.

I don't understand how this article talks about the future of Google+ in the enterprise, yet it makes no mention of LinkedIn.

Betteridge's Law of Headlines applies to this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines

Maybe you only think those projects were the best because you dumped them. Had you stuck with them, they may not look so good know. How do you know it's not hindsight bias?

This article can be summarized as follows:

Programmers tend to underestimate tasks.

Software estimation is an extremely complicated topic, this post barely scratches the surface.

I can see this idea used to keep out people who don't conform to groupthink. You could ask questions about abortion, god, taxes, etc.

The problem is that the questions need to be very clever to avoid giving away the site's bias (and thus the answers).

Normally you want to create an application that becomes more valuable as more people use it. This would be the opposite.

Your company is easy to find on Google. It's not stealth, and it's venture-funded. Curious why you can't or won't mention the name here.

You have been a "technology manager" at Bank of America in North Carolina since 1998. Do you try new technologies such as MongoDB professionally? What are your qualifications to make such a vague statement? More importantly, what is the lesson to be learned?

Suppose I want to run a survey, and I want the responses to be as unbiased as possible (not like in the video). How can I learn to do it "the right way" ?

You typically have 90 days to exercise. The question is whether it would make financial sense in this case, only insiders would know.

Have you ever worked at a company with xxxx employees? They would have to create a new product, perhaps a new business unit. The best developers may want to work on the API biz, even though it may make 1/50th of what ads make.

If you're a b2b customer paying $$ or $$$$, you would expect an SLA, customer support, etc. (think AWS). All that is expensive, and if the revenue would not be in the ballpark of ads then Twitter won't do it now. They need to find their cash cow before they can explore smaller markets.

Because they ran the numbers. It wouldn't justify the valuation their investors demand, and it would be a distraction. Ads are their only hope. Draw your own conclusions.

Judging from the post, I would assume they tried and failed.

This is nice, but the main reason I gave up on Cassandra was the difficulty of operating it. It's a far cry from, say, MySQL in terms of devops-friendliness. Curious how much work is being done in that respect.

I'd like to see a chart of how IPOs perform in their first year compared to the rest of the market. No luck with Google.

If he can sell the shares, it makes no difference. They are public and liquid, good as cash.

It's not just tech bloggers, here's an article by the Washington Post about Facebook and traders betting against it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/could-facebook-fall-a...