The headline is over the top, but the article was pretty levelheaded. From the penultimate paragraph:
"[...] Freitas points out that if someone is monitoring your internet traffic — or mass monitoring internet users — they’d still be able to find your IP address (Freitas suggests those looking for additional protection consider the Tor Project‘s anonmity software)."
For anyone wondering about the acronyms above, ECB is Electronic Codebook, CBC is Cipher-block Chaining, and IV is an Initialization Vector used in CBC. IND-CPA is Indistinguishability under chosen-plaintext, a method of attack.
XSLT is a purely functional language so inherits much of the general set of likes/dislikes that go with them.
is basically this in Lisp:
(if eval(x) (apply-template template) nil)
And <xsl:for-each> is equivalent to map in Lisp. It's a functional projection, not an imperative loop, even if the syntax looks like that of an imperative language.
Functional purity gives you the usual advantages: execution that can be testable and fast and parallelizable and predictable in space and time usage and secure in presenting little attack surface for injections and overflows and such. XSLT is exactly what it claims to be, a declarative way of transforming tree structures.
The problem with XSLT in enterprise land is that real world business requirements don't fit well into that. Real world applications involve things like iteratively computed subtotals or comparing separate records together or picking up user preferences for formatting or other sorts of conditional logic. All of which is a poor fit for XSLT and leads to really complicated XPath hacks.
And your average enterprisey programmer comes from imperative languages and thinks and codes in imperative terms, often not even realizing XSLT is a functional language. So it's no surprise that real-world XSLT ends up as muddy balls of crap.
First, Humble Bundle scales. They can pull together a handful of artists to offer some MP3s, and sell it to the whole world. Groupon has to negotiate with small businesses in every market that they want to have a presence.
Secondly, the nature of the goods on offer is different, in that a restaurant or cafe has considerable marginal costs associated with each sale, whereas a comedian selling MP3s has no marginal costs, and even the Humble Bundle team has almost no marginal costs. The Humble Bundle team spends a few cents on bandwidth for each sale, and the artist only loses hypothetical future sales at a higher price.
> better concentration, and better impulse control.
I have not done a 10 day sit as described in TFA, but I've had a passably regular Vipassana-style meditation practice for a few years now, and concentration and impulse control have been two major benefits in my life.
One thing that comes with impulse control, but I find valuable enough to merit mentioning on its own, is that I am now much better at letting go of thoughts. I used to have difficulty with intrusive thoughts--fantasies of violence or humiliation that would play on loop in my mind. Now, they appear, drift once through my mind, and are gone. This also applies to getting songs stuck in my head.
For context, I grew up in the Christian church, identify as atheist, and have only a mild intellectual interest in the spiritual trappings of the tradition from which meditation comes to me.
To me, getting rid of attachments means to reduce the impulses that controls my actions "behind my back". It does not mean not caring, but it means noticing that you care, and noticing how that feels, and noticing what the impulses tell you, and then making a decision based on that information rather than just blindly following the impulses.
Often that means acting differently than the impulses tells you because you recognize that other goals you have are better served by not giving in.
Personally I don't believe that means I am abandoning myself, but on the contrary that I am living up to my belief of who I am and who I should be much better by (slowly) ridding myself of compulsions that made (and makes) me unhappy by getting me to act in ways inconsistent with how I want to be.
A lot of human pain and frustration is down to the inconsistencies of self - how we want to do that coding, but end up procrastinating all day and then afterwards feels guilty about it, for example. Maybe that procrastination was nice, and good for us. But we (or I am at least) are happier when we actively make that choice.
I still don't believe I am good at it, but I hope I keep getting better at it.
To be certain, I'm asking happimess how he differentiates between consciously removing an attachment, and abandoning the problems before solving them.
You said, "etting rid of attachments means to reduce the impulses that controls my actions "behind my back". It does not mean not caring, but it means noticing that you care, and noticing how that feels, and noticing what the impulses tell you, and then making a decision based on that information"
What role does the fact that you care, feel, and have impulses play in your judgement about whether to perform a given action?
Those facts by themselves do not reveal the matter connected to the cases that you are judging.
That's why I'm trying to confirm your standard of judgement that you apply.
"But we (or I am at least) are happier when we actively make that choice."