rbarooah

56 ms·

481.
by rbarooah 16y ago
What's wrong with this place that that gets downvoted to 0? Have people actually looked at books on scala or clojure, or the respective websites? Odersky's "Programming Scala" a whole chapter on actors entitled "Actors and Concurrency", whi
482.
by rbarooah 16y ago
A less totalitarian way would be to give each user a karma slider that would act as a threshold for just their view.
483.
by rbarooah 16y ago
That would probably make things worse. Populist snide remarks would still get lots of votes, but intelligent slightly longer comments that just don't attract attention would carry a risk.
484.
by rbarooah 16y ago
It it possible that the average quality of material on the net is dropping for the same reasons that we think post quality is dropping here? Emotionally charged rants get attention. Careful reasoning gets eviscerated by pedants. So people
485.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I think the larger problem is that comments that aren't emotive, but are reasonably insightful get ignored. HN quickly trains newcomers not to bother with them, and to go for pithy zingers.
486.
by rbarooah 16y ago
This is true, but to be fair, rightly or wrongly those are the technologies that are put forward by the designers as the primary solution for concurrency problems in the respective languages. ScalaSTM looks good though and the comparison wo
487.
by rbarooah 16y ago
He does come across as smug, but as far as I can see, the clojure version is indeed both smaller and correct compared to the longer and buggy scala version. What do you think he's missing?
488.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I find the idea of optimizing for only two applications - browser and IDE somewhat limiting. Right now I have two browser windows open side by side on the same 30" monitor - one with the stackexchange posting, and one with the HN page where
489.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Which is presumably what Microsoft means when they say "The next PC is the room".
490.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Fair enough. I don't think your complaint is particularly clear.
491.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Did you think all of the other carefully reasoned points by a seasoned industry player (not just a pundit) were also invalid, or was that one alone enough to invalidate the piece?
492.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I thought Microsoft came off rather well in that strip. It was also a very quick way to make the point. Would you rather have had a 1000 word article droning on about how all the tech companies are copying each other these days?
493.
by rbarooah 16y ago
One explanation is that Microsoft is just trying to distract people. I'm not sure why they bother since it just draws attention to the fact they are struggling to keep up. The other explanation is that not enough senior people have spent a
494.
by rbarooah 16y ago
http://www.mindfulbrowsing.com
495.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I thought a strawman was a rhetorical device where you make up a weak version of your opponents argument and knock that down as a way of winning an argument in the eyes an audience who doesn't spot the flaw you introduced.
496.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Will we even be still talking about 'smartphones' in 2016 - a term made up by analysts after all. These are all just a particular size of wireless tablet computers.
497.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Since iPhone market share is still growing, Google clearly hasn't reversed anything yet. Android tablets might still defeat the iPad, but for now that's just talk. What Google has done is provide an OS that let's the 'disintegrated' mark
498.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Is it still a strawman if you don't have an opponent?
499.
by rbarooah 16y ago
What effect do you predict?
500.
by rbarooah 16y ago
What do you mean 'there's no history behind it'? You've just explained it. The whole purpose is to cause people to examine the metaphor.
501.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Yes. People opt in to anonymous usage tracking when they turn on 'Genius for Apps'.
502.
by rbarooah 16y ago
You've indicated elsewhere in the thread that you know there's private metadata.
503.
by rbarooah 16y ago
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said. I'll leave it to you to read the thread.
504.
by rbarooah 16y ago
No, they can't make it better if Google prevents them from indexing significant parts of the web. The point has been made, several times by more than one person, and yet you ignore it.
505.
by rbarooah 16y ago
I'm not under that impression. I am under the impression that they have given the 3.x source to some people and not to others, thus choosing who gets to use it. Normally we refer to that as 'control'. They didn't say Android 2.3 is open
506.
by rbarooah 16y ago
Exactly - they own it, and they are free to give it to whoever they like and withhold it from whoever they like. What part of that isn't about controlling other players?
507.
by rbarooah 16y ago
What incentive would there be for everyone to remove their content from YouTube?
508.
by rbarooah 16y ago
If it's not theirs, how can they give it to some of their approved partners?
509.
by rbarooah 16y ago
You don't think YouTube contains a large percentage of web video, or you don't think Google bought YouTube?
510.
by rbarooah 16y ago
How is that relevant when they are giving the latest source to people they approve?

More ›