I think the arduino brand will die out and I am kinda happy. Those chips are way underpowered for their price and with the rest of the embedded space really moving towards tiny arm cores and general purpose computers I think the market for the AVR's is going to dry up. Even now I can use a raspberry pi for most of the hacks I was using arduino for.
I think it's two different tools. "Underpowered" chips have their use and their place. Why deal with embedded Linux when I only need to twiddle some IO on a simple protocol?
For me the issue isn't the brand dying out, its decentralized uniformity. If the main organization spins into oblivion (when talented people give up because of this turmoil) who will make sure the unified IDE keeps with the times?
By the way a form of that is used at Microsoft and Google, probably others as well, but the idea that Silicon Valley and Computer Programming are the only place where people are on the look out for "Secretly Terrible Engineers" is absurd, its just as absurd as the comments I am reading where no one has ever worked with one of them. As a hiring manager I turn away over 95% of candidates and even with a very selective hiring process you get people we need to let go because they can't perform at the level I expect them to even after passing a rigorous interview process, so to say they don't exist is stupid, its like claiming that no one ever gets fired for not performing their job well enough.
I would be more impressed by this if I thought academic success was any indicator of aptitude. As a hiring manager I have completely stopped looking at things like GPA and in some cases even if you have a degree, they are such poor indicators of aptitude. So who cares if girls are doing better in school I still won't hire 90% of them.
We really need to stop caring about how boys are girls are doing in school and start caring why so many people are being given degrees and can't get a job in their chosen field.
This may come as a surprise to some, but there are lots of people who don't think Indian food is delicious. I would be really interested if scientists have distilled something as subjective as your pallet and refined it to a formula.
That comment is more about how companies create and hook us on mass market food using those three properties in the book title. There also is specifically a lot of talk about food chemistry and their use of the "bliss point".
The headline is a bit clickbait-y, but the referenced paper is interesting. Main idea is that people have been saying that pleasing combinations have overlapping flavor profiles, but Indian food is characterized by strong negative food pairings.
Yes this article and the recipes sound mostly north Indian centric. For instance there is no such thing as Indian curry. It is a western word for some mixture of spices and ingredients. If you say "I like Indian food, I love curry" they will understand you nothing about Indian food. Curry is what a restaurant will call something when someone asks what the dish is.
Another example is that in western India they hardly use garam masala. It is much more north Indian centric. The main ingredient in garam masala, cloves, can be very overwhelming.
The word "chutney" is not even in the article. It just talks about putting onions with coconuts and curry leaves. And in fact you will find that the vast majority of coconut chutney does NOT have onions.
Curry leaves are interesting, they are not used in Bengal. In spite of Bengal being tropical like parts of South India.
Actually, the startup I work for has found a way to quantify subjective flavor space. We use data science, machine learning, and advanced algorithms to analyze human sensory. We're focused on the craft beverage market as of right now, mainly in quality control and flavor profiling.
Curry in India means, colloquially, just any dish with some gravy. Not gravy as in Western cuisine, which is made separately and poured onto some food (or kept on the side), but gravy as in, a dish that is somewhat liquid-y.
Whereas (I think) in British slang, curry means any (quite) spicy (as in pungent) Indian or South Asian dish.
In both Japan and China curry means a kind of dish made with a blend of Indian spices. They are usually liquidy. In Thailand they mix coconut milk into a spice blend. Japanese curry tends to be less spicy. My point is curry is an international dish with lots of regional variation and each has its own authenticity.
You may not have been to restaurants that serve authentic Indian food. A lot of Indian dishes are spicy, but there is a wide range, and many are only a little spicy or even not at all. On many ingredients, definitely tends to be a lot more than in Western cuisine. As for your last point, there is a vast range of items even in a single regional Indian cuisine (and there are many regions), and many of them don't taste remotely like "curry" :) - which is too vague a term anyway, see sibling/nearby comments.
Understand that "curry" is a style of dish, about as specific as "stew". It doesn't automatically imply a specific flavor or set of flavors, just as "stew" doesn't automatically imply meat and potatoes, even if they do feature frequently in many stews. Are you perhaps thinking of turmeric or cumin? They feature heavily in a lot of different curries and are particularly strong and distinct in flavor.
There are definitely companies missing (I have personal knowledge of a few). In particular, it will underreport for profitable B2B companies that haven't raised in a while or at anywhere near their present valuation.
I am going to be happy when I can program in rust and not spend the first hour making all my code work with the latest compiler changes. I really do like what rust is offering, but tracking head has been difficult
I think it turned out fairly well for them. MySQL is pretty much the go to DBMS for many successful companies, and it and its little sister Maria command something like 75% of the OpenSource Database market.
When Google, Facebook, Twitter, and almost every other big player picks you to underpin their platforms I think you might have made some good choices.
( Yes I know all those companies also have their own DB's, but remember that they almost all started on MySQL and only switched when they out grew it )
I understand the desire to regulate the internet as a utility, but are they going to actually regulate it like a utility or are they going to call it a common carrier and then just make up a few BS rules that need to be followed.
I have a sinking feeling that all this will result in is a situation where monopolies are given out to the existing players and no one is forced to do anything to upgrade the existing service.
This isn't like a water utility where the product has little variance. Even now in the marketplace there is huge variance in the quality of the product I can buy ( I am one of the lucky few with choices of providers ). I have a feeling my area is just going to get given a blanket monopoly to Comcast and I will have to deal with a crappy connection forever with no hope of another company ever gaining traction to replace them.
Except we don't like the Internet we have today, where net neutrality is always teetering on an edge into an abyss of sponsored channels and provider blocking on a whim.
That, and we don't like how the major telecoms exploit us all for huge profits off the backs of decade old taxpayer funded infrastructure they got through political manipulation and now sit on for free money.
The golden age of Internet access was in the late 90s, when over-twisted pair dialup was still a thing but the regulations meant the wire runners had to license it out at fair rates, so you would get a hundred ISPs offering you service for dollars a month. But that could never scale, and we ended up with DSL and Cable Internet without any of that open market aspect where we are all taken advantage of for corporate profit.
That is not to say that Title II is anything good. It does not solve the central problem that ISPs have no incentive to improve the networks, all it does is compel fixed rate competition, which is only good for keeping us exactly where we are, when the technologies already exist to give us so much better.
Thats a seriously loaded question. The problem is the US is a really big place so in city's and their metro areas you get world class speeds ( 150Mbs is pretty common ) however in rural areas your stuck with maybe DSL and if not that then you can get satellite internet.
Thats the problem I see with classifying ISP's as a common carrier. Your not going to get 150Mbs everywhere your going to get 10 which means in the urban area's where you do have good access and some competition you will see stagnation ( forget 1Gbps in cities that are well above the average )
We like the way it is (or rather, the way it was 15 years ago), but the cat appears to be out of the bag. Comcast, Verizon, et. al. all have giant dying industries to support on the backs of our Internet access fees, and they are going to extract every penny of value from their local and regional monopolies.
I don't especially want the government involved, but doing nothing is not going to maintain the status quo. Destroying local monopolies that have sway over a global network is a much better move in my opinion.
That's exactly right. A utility implies a commodity item. Take the electric business for example, you might compete on price, but quality is never part of the equation. There isn't a "better" electricity. It's all the same. A phone line is a phone line. You can't pay more for a better quality phone line -- it facilitates phone calls. There aren't "faster" phone lines -- a phone call is a phone call. Obviously I am talking land lines here. Same with water. There aren't any water companies competing based on the fact that they provide Evian on tap. Even if you wanted to pay the price to have Evian on tap, it will never happen; water is water in terms of a utility. Making the Internet a utility will destroy competition because it commoditizes it.
I know that some percentage of the HN community seems to love government regulation and feels that capitalism is somehow evil, but te government has a long track record of being highly inefficient and mostly immune to market forces. If you don't like the drivers license office service, too bad, it's the only game in town; there's no incentive to improve it. I find it ironic that despite the Libertarian leanings of many of us here, there's some desire to implement more regulation, more restrictions and less competition. How does less competition improve anything? Without incentives, the market-driven pressure to make it faster and cheaper disappears.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the consequences of regulating the Internet and presumably taxing it like a utility. There are significant unintended consequences.
It's not that capitalism is evil, it's that you have to make observations about some markets where capitalism is naturally working or failing.
The current state of broadband doesn't have any competition to destroy with regulation... last-mile internet should fall under a utility because it's already been tested in the market and there simply hasn't been any demonstration of competition because there is no direct financial incentive on the open market to overbuild on the last mile and compete.
Yes, and the power to drive a car is the power to commit vehicular manslaughter. The question is not whether a driver can use this power to kill. It's whether they are actually using this power to kill.
Needless to say, not evey tax is destructive, just as not every driver is a deadly menace who needs to be gotten of the road a.s.a.p.
That's nonsensical. It all depends on the utility of the smoker. Cigarette taxes are, in theory at least, Pigouvian taxes in the sense that the goal is to reduce the harm caused by smoking. They accomplish this in two ways, first, by providing funds to deal with the associated medical costs and two, by reducing the number of people who choose to smoke.
Whether you agree with the assessed level of negative externalities or not (I don't, actually), the tax hasn't "destroyed" anything. Smoking still exists. Fewer people get sufficient utility from smoking to go on doing so, but that's the point of the tax in this case. Too many people were smoking previously due to market inefficiencies. Now the "correct" (again, I believe the externalities were lower than many people believe they were) number of people are smoking.
It's not that he's incorrect. It's that his observation is generalized to the point of being a useless distraction from this particular conversation. Had he indicated how the potentially destructive power of taxation is actually being used destructively and deliberately in this particular case, he'd have said something knowledgeable and interesting. But of course, that's not what happened.