kartickv

60 ms·

631.
by kartickv 10y ago
First, few people will put in effort into understanding their friends' psychology and habits to use Netflix effectively. We shouldn't optimise for such users. Second, I don't know whether individual ratings should be normalis
632.
by kartickv 10y ago
Your suggestion has its own problems. Imagine two videos with a majority rating of three stars. Say 60% of raters have rated it that. But one video has the remaining 40% one-star, and the other has the remaining 40% five-star. Your algorith
633.
by kartickv 10y ago
Doesn't normalisation assume that a person who rates everything five-star has low standards? It may just be that that person rates something only if they're really (un)happy. Imagine two people watched 100 movies, and assessed the
634.
by kartickv 10y ago
That may be true from your point of view as a rater, but from mine as someone deciding whether to watch a movie, I want you to condense your thoughts down to a yes or no by assigning an appropriate weight to each factor. Was the acting so b
635.
by kartickv 10y ago
I don't think there's a need for weight since there are many reviewers. The weight is the percentage of people who thumbed it up.
636.
by kartickv 10y ago
Everything you've said makes sense, but I don't see it being contradictory to what I said. If you decide you want a more nuanced understanding of what a given reviewer likes, I think it's better to evaluate different dimensio
637.
by kartickv 10y ago
Interesting point. Would polarised reviews make you less or more likely to watch a film (or download an app or whatever)? In other words, two items with the same average, but different distributions.
638.
by kartickv 10y ago
If you have many reviewers, you don't need to get more information than thumbs up or down from each person. How much people thumbed it up is a good indicator. Star-rating can be too much detail, anyway: if you're comparing two sho
639.
by kartickv 10y ago
Both sides should make an effort to understand the other person's language and point of view. The speaker doesn't always know the other person and their biases and what pisses them off. If I'm talking to someone 1:1 and they
640.
by kartickv 10y ago
They go together: if I know that you and I can have a discussion and agree to disagree, rather than having it escalate it to an emotionally charged argument that affects our relationship, then I'm more likely to express my thoughts thr
641.
by kartickv 10y ago
One the quotes that matters most to me and that I apply in my daily life is: Judge a man by his questions rather than this answers. Even if you've asked the right question, and lost, you're better off than not having asked the que
642.
by kartickv 10y ago
Agreed. My proposal isn't intended to make open-source sustainable. I don't have any magic solutions. Rather, my proposal is pragmatic. Can we derive some of the benefits of open-source in a sustainably-funded way?
643.
by kartickv 10y ago
One solution that I feel hasn't been explored enough is a commercial reuse license: https://kartick-log.blogspot.in/2016/11/a-commercial-reuse-l... Like open-source, this helps people reuse your effort to bui
644.
by kartickv 10y ago
Broadly, my proposal is the iOS model + a catch all permission. Apps that try to bypass permissions are treated the same as apps that request unrestricted permission. You're right that the permission prompts need to be expressed in an
645.
by kartickv 10y ago
I haven't used UAC, so I can't comment about it, but permissions on iOS work fine. I'm asked only once, usually the first time I use an app, or access certain functionality in an app, not constantly.
646.
by kartickv 10y ago
That's too granular, as others have pointed out. It will lead to too many prompts. Access /foo? Access /bar? Access /baz? But you have the seed of a great idea, which is that the app developer should explicitly request p
647.
by kartickv 10y ago
As implemented, yes, sandbox is a hindrance. But it could be implemented better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13844014
648.
by kartickv 10y ago
It doesn't make sense for Apple to enforce sandboxing at the store level, since it merely incents developers to distribute outside the store. And some apps that remain in the store have a worse UX, like not having certain capabilities,
649.
by kartickv 10y ago
What a negative attitude. You seem more interested in preventing others from benefiting than anything else. I wouldn't have used the phrase "extracted value" because, unlike coal, using it doesn't deplete it. The world i
650.
by kartickv 10y ago
Here's a solution to that problem: https://kartick-log.blogspot.in/2016/11/a-commercial-reuse-l...
651.
by kartickv 10y ago
Just curious — would you be okay if cycles used for marathon cycling had a battery that was discharged to begin with, but could be charged by pedal power during easy stretches and used during difficult stretches?
652.
by kartickv 10y ago
Why did CHRP fail?
653.
by kartickv 10y ago
So if my code is parallel enough to take advantage of all the cores, like a web server serving 96 requests simultaneously, one per core, would I get better performance than Intel? Better performance per watt?
654.
by kartickv 10y ago
There's no need for MagSafe if you have USB charging. It's redundant. It also entrenches the old standard rather than making way for the new one. If you have a laptop with both USB-C and MagSafe, and you need a second charger, you
655.
by kartickv 10y ago
The question isn't whether they deserve the complaints, or about the minutae of charging, but whether people think that going from X -> Y is bad and going from Y -> X is also bad. If so, they're just being change-averse: ign
656.
by kartickv 10y ago
No, in this thought experiment, when they have MagSafe, they charge only via MagSafe. The thought experiment is intended to be the same as reality, just in the opposite direction.
657.
by kartickv 10y ago
Which doesn't mean that they should chase those customers. If they're not generating significant profit, it doesn't matter much whether they stay or leave.
658.
by kartickv 10y ago
Good point, and it's because of the status quo bias. When an alternative is proposed, people look at what they lose, and since we don't like loss, we say, "No, I don't want that". Thought experiment: say Macs had US
659.
by kartickv 10y ago
The question was whether the concern of JS being frustrating is already solved by TypeScript, in which case WebAssembly is less important than it would be otherwise. (Which isn't to say that there aren't other questions like effic
660.
by kartickv 10y ago
That doesn't answer my question of whether TypeScript solves the concern of JS being frustrating to work in.

More ›