nmalaguti

> Kill Firefox before they could kill HTML Imports

I’m not sure I understand the hostility here. Isn’t the point of the web to be open standards that reach consensus?

Box can do it with

https://github.com/cdgriffith/Box/wiki/Types-of-Boxes#defaul...

This seems similar to the functionality exposed by Box.

https://github.com/cdgriffith/Box/wiki/Types-of-Boxes#defaul...

The author gives some fd comparisons in their benchmarks.

I tried bowling like this when I was a teen, trying to get massive spin on the ball. I never got to a point where I could be consistent with spin and went back to using my thumb. Seeing a pro do it (and be successful) might have encouraged me to keep trying it.

Why not let the market sort it out? Maybe these startups need to take a down round, or be acquired for a fraction of their value?

Maybe the VCs should step in and make bridge loans available if they want to keep their investments? If you believe in your portfolio, why not help them weather the storm? Or are you afraid to be exposed to additional risk? Should the taxpayers take on that risk instead?

I believe the worst thing you can be is a hypocrite. We can disagree about value systems, but if you don’t practice what you preach then I have no reason to respect you.

I don’t care if Twitter decides to allow this kind of information or not, but don’t claim safety and then disregard the safety of others. Don’t claim free speech and then silence speech you don’t like.

Elon is clearly doing what’s best for Elon, and that’s fine too. But I won’t tolerate him pretending he’s doing anything other than putting himself first. And I’ll make my own choices based on that. If I think my interests align with his, I should stick with him. But practically none of our interests align. We don’t share any common problems.

Elon doesn’t think he needs me or anyone else (and he has so much wealth he really doesn’t). I wouldn’t count myself lucky to be in the same lifeboat as him on the off chance he decides I’m dead weight and tosses me overboard.

The lack of empathy in the comments here is worrisome. The manager was clearly failing to manage effectively. Blaming the engineer for not managing up with a manager who didn’t want to listen doesn’t make sense.

This scenario is my biggest fear as a people leader - that ICs are being mismanaged and I won’t be able to see it or intervene before it is too late.

My theory is that there’s already a lot of existing content using $ and $$ that GitHub wants to start rendering without requiring any changes.

I agree the code block approach would be less ambiguous, but there is an advantage in going where people already are.

No. This is a very simple and reasonably efficient image format. It is notable for its simplicity and straightforward implementation, as well as its speed compared with png.

While this is nice in a lot of ways, it also can make it harder for your callers to use more dynamic patterns. You can no longer call it with

    process_data(**kwargs)

and have the data field pulled out of kwargs. Of course you can still do

    data = kwargs.pop(“data”)
    process_data(data, **kwargs)

but if you are the only library doing it, it can cause things to break when it breaks programmers expectations.

Some alternatives I’ve found:

- https://github.com/Code52/carnac

- https://github.com/Jagailo/YetAnotherKeyDisplayer

- https://github.com/KaustubhPatange/Kling

I was expecting to see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Heselden on here, but he didn’t invent the Segway, just owned the company.

A performance of this: https://youtu.be/7tScAyNaRdQ

The reason my team uses Fibonacci is that it cuts down on the “is this a 3, 4, 5, or 6 point ticket?” discussion. Each larger value should have more uncertainty, so there isn’t any point in getting more precise. Not being able to argue over 1 point differences but having to choose between 5, 8, and 13 has a clarifying effect on the process.

The src directory is becoming a popular option. See https://blog.ionelmc.ro/2014/05/25/python-packaging/#the-str... for an enumeration of the reasons.

Another resource might be https://hynek.me/articles/testing-packaging/

One of the problems with that is it makes account recovery after a compromise that much harder. If an attacker manages to prevent you from seeing those notifications (compromised email/sms) and you aren’t actively signing in, it’s possible for the month to lapse.

Once the attacker has control and you try to reassert ownership, the attacker gets a loud warning every time you try to login/change the TFA and a month to respond.

I’d love to learn more about what you were looking for and how Knewton might better meet those needs, even if Knewton ultimately wouldn’t be a product you’d use.

Take a look at Knewton Alta[1] as an alternative to MyMathLab. It uses OER content and is aimed at being very affordable - $44 for 2 year access or $9.95 a month (cancel anytime, which is great for those 6 week summer classes).

We have courses available in Math, Econ, Chemistry, and more on the way.

The biggest change Knewton champions is mastery based learning by using adaptivity and just-in-time remediation. By encouraging students to reach mastery throughout the course, they learn more and do better on tests and assessments. We offer comprehensive analytics for instructors and administrators to identify struggling students for offline intervention.

Many students love it for homework because they can get questions wrong, get remediation in the assignment, learn the material and still get a 100% on their homework.

Disclaimer: I work for Knewton.

1. https://www.knewtonalta.com/why-alta/

Don’t forget that the 12.4% is capped at about $130k of income. Social security would be able to offer much more than just poverty line benefits by removing the cap.

As far as I know, net neutrality only applies to wired ISPs, not mobile ISPs. So those sorts of deals are still possible in the US, just not from your cable company. And why would you need that when you have access to virtually unlimited data through them?

Be careful when thinking about performance. It’s true Python isn’t as “fast” in CPU heavy microbenchmarks, but there are lots of real world trade offs to be made here.

If you truly need to handle the kind of CPU bound and high connection count workload today (not some hypothetical future state) where Python struggles, then of course look at alternatives.

How would this compare with something like vert.x? http://vertx.io

Each time I read a post like this I say to myself “they’re not wrong, but something is also missing.”

If there was a way to evaluate a candidate based on how well they would do at their actual job, in an hour or less, that couldn’t be games or cheated, we’d all be using it.

That isn’t to say we shouldn’t work on improving the hiring process, but how much time, both from the perspective of the candidate and the company, is too much time to invest in a potential hire?

Would we get better signal if you came to work for us for a week and paired with everyone on the team? Sure! But how many candidates can take a week off from their current job? The author talked to 11 companies. Could they invest 11+ weeks in their job search full time in order to find their next role? What about the loss in productivity? Can you have more than one candidate in the office in a given week? What if your ramp up time for full time employees is actually longer than a week? Are you biasing for people who ramp up fast instead of people who will be ultimately more productive and impactful?

I often feel that engineers write these posts because they know that they themselves are good at their job, but feel it is silly to have to develop an alternative set of skills in order to signal that they are a good hire. Or they get rejected and blame the process or those alternative skills. I’ve felt the same way and wanted the system to be better tailored for my skill set, but balanced against the time investment for some alternatives, I see why we have the process we do.

I assume the author meant that there is a paper trail (similar to commit history or bug tracking) that can be reviewed at performance time to evaluate if an IC was paying attention to and contributing to the design process.

Someone once said to me that RFC stands for Request For Comments, not Request For Consensus.

It is an opportunity for you to get important feedback about aspects of the plan you might be under-informed about and make sure the relevant parties are aware of what is happening.

After feedback, you may decide your plan was flawed and needs adjustment, but just because there is disagreement doesn't mean you need to change your design to fit everyone's needs.

At what point should I start thinking about rewriting computationally expensive parts of my Python application in C++ and making bindings?

Does anyone have experience taking one expensive method and replacing it with C/C++? Were the trade offs worth it?

What I took away from the article is that just as one may support an argument with 'truthiness' i.e. I feel it in my gut but have no facts or the facts oppose my argument, there may be a thing called 'factiness' where all the facts support your argument, but it misses the truth that others see and feel and that can't be quantified with traditional facts.

It is a good reminder that just as one should be wary of arguments supported only by truthiness, one should also be wary of arguments supported only by factiness.

One of the major benefits of macOS has been that everyone who uses it has a consistent experience. Some people will use more specialized applications or tools, but the base has been very consistent.

Homebrew has made things even easier and has been adopted as the one right way to install things in a lot of projects and companies. And the fact that it is a rolling release package manager means you can always get the latest and greatest or use homebrew/versions to stick with an LTS version.

I have always found installs of the same Linux distro by different people to be almost incompatible, let alone installs of different distros. Different hardware, different desktop environments, different applications and configurations. On the one hand everyone can have a tailor made experience, but it makes it hard to debug or come up with common configurations and instructions.

Elementary is making some simple and familiar choices that make it easier for everyone to start at the same place. It looks and feels good, but is different enough that I can't just switch without feeling all the rough edges.

If developers are serious about migrating to a linux distro and PC hardware, I think a hybrid rolling release for devtools and versioned releases of the base system might be needed to capture a lot of the success of macOS. I'm not even sure if that's really possible.