Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | artsrc's comments login

Some say other things:

> If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock



Surely "some" say other things. But they are outliers, not the average. The average is what impacts most people's lives.


Let's imagine you care about educational outcomes and child poverty, what kinds of things would help?

Certainly free and easy access to sex education, contraception and abortion is something that is a good policy.

People, even poor people, have always, and will always want children.

Once children are born to poor parents, you need to address that poverty, or you will get poor educational outcomes for those children.

Certainly stigmatizing poor people, rather than focusing on bad luck they have had, will provoke different policy outcomes.


I didn't stigmatize poor people. If you consider stating facts of reality to be stigmatization, you are fighting reality, and that is no way to deal with it.

> rather than focusing on bad luck they have had

One of the main point of the article is precisely that being poor is not bad luck: overall, it happens because a person didn't take education seriously because they were not taught to do so by their parents.

I mean, you can say it's bad luck to be born to such parents, and I would agree there.


> LaMattina counters that pricing should be based not on R&D costs but on the value a drug delivers to patients.

I love this line. We should do it for oxygen. Your bill is pretty high because oxygen delivers a lot of value.

Pricing should be based on cost of provision. Because if it is higher in a market economy someone else can enter the market and provide at a lower cost.


The economics of drugs are different. The probability of two different labs inventing the exact same drug are pretty small. But when they do invent a drug they have a limited monopoly to make their money back. Which is a good thing, since it encourages more investment in drug development then there otherwise would be.


Amazon will sell you audio files, they won't sell them to me. I live in the wrong country.

Amazon will sell me a CD at the same price you pay, plus shipping.

Apple will sell me audio files, at a 30% premium over what they charge you.


The thing you watch in the living room will increasingly be connected to the internet, and be able to function interactively.

In the kitchen appliances will increasingly be connected to the internet and be able to download recipes.

The ingredients list your blender displays for Pesto will be transmitted in HTML. But I will write it in markdown.

Your crispy skinned pork roasting application will execute as JavaScript. I wrote it in JavaScript, I will think about writing it in Clojure next time.


ReST shows that a person can invent a technical term, write a long dissertation on what it means, clarify any ongoing misconceptions on the web, and have people use the word to mean whatever they like.


> REST APIs must be hypertext-driven


> Using the REST Services with .NET > In order to make use of JSON serialization in .NET

This is not new. Codd spent ages talking about why every relational database was not a relational database.


REST came to mind for me as well.

Let's assume there is a platonic ideal for REST, or for OOP. Just talking about REST over HTTP (methods, response codes, URIs) clouds that ideal, making it hard to learn about and even harder to talk about with other programmers. The same could be said about OOP with classes, structs, prototypes, etc... or as some of this article's quotes do, about OOP in Smalltalk. Over time you could look at this in terms of SCOT theory[1] and I think it would be fascinating. You could look at all of the marketing, conflict, and the effects of collective perspective shifts where things are considered "solved" but they aren't really.

My own opinion about the platonic ideal of OOP is close to Chapter 18 of Pierce's Types and Programming Languages, which suggests these attributes: 1. Multiple representation 2. Encapsulation 3. Subtyping 4. Inheritance 5. Open recursion.

To me the kernel of OOP is mainly just #1 and #2. If you don't have #3, you should have a damn good alternative. I don't attach #4 and #5 to the core definition but certainly the former should imply the latter. Another favorite is "On Understanding Data Abstraction, Revisited"[2], which contrasts objects and ADTs in a different framework.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_technolo... [2] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~wcook/Drafts/2009/essay.pdf


It's sad that in the case of REST, this is not a minor deviation, but a major violation of core principles.


My ideological fairy tale is that hiring the most qualified person leads to better outcomes.

My reading of this analysis is that they compared 100% male boards, to ones with at least one female (but still many males). And found under performance in the all male boards.

And anyway do boards run companies, or do they just hire the people who do, and vet large decisions?

Maybe a diverse board is better than a homogenous one, even if the individuals are less capable?

I don't think the conclusion that women are better on average is well supported by the Credit Suisse study.

> I wish people who believe it would just invest in female led companies or start an index fund of such companies. Let the market sort it out.

I think a fund that invested in companies which made a reasonable attempt to hire the best people would out perform based on analysis I have seen.

In particular about 10% of hereditary company CEOs are significantly worse managers than the 10% worst hired CEOs. (I am sure that can be phrased better, sorry)


I would go a slightly lower temperature than sea level boiling point.


I think you put hot water in.

Creating really nice steamed milk is more difficult than creating an intense coffee liquid that will I enjoy.


Have you tried a manual stovetop frother? It's made of metal, and it has a plunger with a frothing head (looks like a coil-type whisk) on the end.

You fill it with milk, put it on a gas burner or electric hot plate, warm it until the milk is hot enough (around 60-65C). Then you take it off the heat and push the frother up and down until the milk is sufficiently aerated. Here's the one I have:


It produces microfoam that is at least good as those electric frothers from Nespresso etc. Not as good as a steamer wand, but close.


These also work with cold milk (3C), and heating the foam in a microwave afterwards.


The manual frothers usually say that they work best with non-fat milk. Yuck.


Mine works great with whole milk, actually. I don't use anything else; lower-fat milk just isn't capable of foaming, in my experience.

(The HIC one doesn't come with any instructions and I'm pretty sure they don't say anything about the type of milk to use.)


Cheap battery-operated spin-whisk frothers work fairly well.


> operation of these plants that are vital for steady, dependable electricity supply




There don't appear to be any engineers involved in those predictions.

Their predictions require many other changes: "The baseload issue can be solved by reducing baseload demand,having some renewable energy sources that can supply baseload power and increasing the proportion of flexible peakload plant in the generating mix." Who should pay for this? Price pollution properly, and you will see the push away from natural gas and coal to nuclear, not "renewables" at far higher prices ($7-10 billion AUD/year for Australia, according to this article).

In summary, if you change the goalposts (reduce baseload) and pay lots more, "renewables" are totally doable according to somebody with no engineering experience.


'reducing base load demand'

Who is putting their hand up for their street lights to be switched off? For their hospital to run expensive co-generation when there isn't enough supply or it becomes to expensive? A lot of these statements are made by groups which just pretend that you can cut down a lot of energy and that's how they make their sums work. The BZE group do this with their calculations and it's pretty unrealistic.

The problem I have with all of these plans is that they drastically inflate the cost of energy for no real reason apart from dislike of certain generation types.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact