nollidge

93 ms·

841.
by nollidge 15y ago
Gonna have to disgree with #1. I think it's a giant myth that adverbs and adjectives are somehow bad. By all means be judicious in your use of them, but it's absolutely ridiculous to say they're categorically taboo or something. Same with
842.
by nollidge 15y ago
Hi nodemaker! I think the problem lies in the fact that you're shooting for sort of casual, young American dialect, but haven't fully grokked all the quirks of it (yet). So it ends up seeming a little like a simulation thereof. Also, I thin
843.
by nollidge 15y ago
It's pretty, but it's too clever . Just show the slideshow carousel. Why hide it? Also the copy is awkward: "We're a few developers who think there is a better way to work." => "There's a better way to work." Of course you're a few dev
844.
by nollidge 15y ago
I'm hitting the up arrow and nothing is happening? Chrome on Win7. EDIT: reloaded and it worked. Didn't see the e-mail sign up before, it was just sliver of the top of the slideshow.
845.
by nollidge 15y ago
> I was being a good boy… I didn’t even make a joke about eating toe stuff or anything. Oh, but you managed to squeeze it into the blog post.
846.
by nollidge 15y ago
A conclusion reached through faulty reasoning is nothing to be relied on, even if it's coincidentally correct. It may not have been constructive, but it was deconstructive, and I think that's valuable too. (did not downvote you, btw)
847.
by nollidge 15y ago
> This is a run-on sentence. No, it's not. A run-on is when two or more independent clauses are joined without a conjunction or the like. So "I went the store I bought bread" is run-on. In your example, "however" functions as the conjun
848.
by nollidge 15y ago
That's true to some extent, but I think it's worth to throw in a couple personalizations to avoid looking totally cookie-cutter. I think most readers would be OK seeing something looking bootstrappy, but not with something that is pure unmo
849.
by nollidge 15y ago
Unless we come up with a way to completely simulate genetic chemistry and embryonic development in order to link phenotypes with genotypes, I don't see how it's a computable problem.
850.
by nollidge 15y ago
> However, seeing all websites using the same layout it's pretty boring and dull. This is a self-correcting problem though. Once there's enough backlash, people will start tweaking things to set things apart. Bootstrap is a good starti
851.
by nollidge 15y ago
You mean like engineering Roundup-resistant crops, inadvertently (but quite effectively) selecting for Roundup-resistant weeds in the process [0]? We're infants with building blocks right now. [0] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/0
852.
by nollidge 15y ago
I think you vastly overestimate our ability to understand genetics. The genome (any species' genome) evolved so haphazardly and with such deep and interconnected causal spiderwebs I think it's going to take centuries to understand it to the
853.
by nollidge 15y ago
He's talking about the United States, and RP is distinctly British, so probably not.
854.
by nollidge 15y ago
Yeah, what abraham said. Sorry, that could've been clearer.
855.
by nollidge 15y ago
Corrected, thanks.
856.
by nollidge 15y ago
Ah crap. Fixed.
857.
by nollidge 15y ago
I'll be honest, this is probably the primary fear I have that's kept me from even attempting something in startup-land. Even if I have an idea (EDIT: or discover an existing startup) that I feel passionate about now, I have no idea how I'm
858.
by nollidge 15y ago
I think that would require a tweak to the UI to make it more obvious that a tweet is a reply. There's already some subtle stuff there (small-font "in reply to" and I think a little curved arrow), but the most obvious part that the content s
859.
by nollidge 15y ago
It's not really a command, just convention. If my tweet begins with @Permit, then it's only visible to the intersection of your and my followers, so somebody that follows me but not you would not see it. But if I start it with anything else
860.
by nollidge 15y ago
I get that, but what if there's a discussion you would care about, but they used .@ so you can't follow the thread without scanning and trying to match up timestamps? I'd rather err on the side of allowing tweeters to do something potential
861.
by nollidge 15y ago
It'd be great if .@ would still count as a reply (i.e. that tweet would still contain a pointer to the tweet it's replying to) but be visible by everyone. It's the best of both worlds. Also I wonder what happens if you hit Reply, but then d
862.
by nollidge 15y ago
And the time you spent reading a book or watching TV or programming could also instead be spent preserving human life.
863.
by nollidge 15y ago
> For a scientific study it's really lacking facts How so? All you've read is one blog post about it. If you want numbers, there's some freely available in the supplemental information that goes along with the published study (at the bo
864.
by nollidge 15y ago
> no radio There's definitely quality non-profit radio stations (NPR affiliates, for example) depending on where you live. At worst you get the fund drives that are annoying (but understandable) for a week. EDIT: This assumes you're in
865.
by nollidge 15y ago
It was taken from the original article.
866.
by nollidge 15y ago
> meaning if a native English speaker says it, then it's okay I'm not sure what you mean here. Descriptivism is a paradigm of linguistics in which language is analyzed as it is used within a given population and point in time, rather th
867.
by nollidge 15y ago
Now that I think about it, if I said "Pixelapse" out loud, I bet most people would hear it as something like "pixel apps" or "pixie laps".
868.
by nollidge 15y ago
It's not enormously different, but A) you're encouraged to break things up by category ("Clothing", "Art", "Household Items"), B) you can follow all of a person's categories or just some of them, C) it's got a strongly consistent aesthetic
869.
by nollidge 15y ago
Sure, but jxcole wasn't asking about families necessarily, just how much time a startup absorbs.
870.
by nollidge 15y ago
I'm not sure you understand the question. It's not a matter of IP addresses. Protected tweets are not publicly accessible, so it's not a given that intelligence agencies have access to them unless Twitter is providing it to them, or they've

More ›