At risk of exposing my own misinterpretation of it, it does make sense if you read the section where Tom Knight is listed as a primary developer of LISP machines. I believe the implication is that he understands it, whereas the novice does not, and the machine responds to his touch.
I played around with it for a while. It seems invalid attempts add another required item to the captcha queue. So if you are trying to solve the first one, and fail, it adds another one that the bot must attempt. I am not sure if this helps much, but it was noteworthy.
OP's comment may have been harsh, but it's accurate, and you should take it as constructive - you may have a really cool and useful product here, but no one knows about it at first glance. Make your landing page a bit more transparent as to the app's purpose and functionality, and you'll get more positive interest. Don't be sad!
1. The original post mentions that the musicians' union, the American Federation of Musicians, lobbied for this for years.
2. These items take up more than the usually allowed amount of cabin baggage space. With high flight loads these days and a high proportion of people carrying on their bags instead of checking, passengers often have to gate-check baggage. It's inconvenient at best, and at worst it results in people losing their possessions.
This measure also decreases the revenue of airlines which they will either make up by increasing prices for everyone, reducing expenditure elsewhere, or lowering profits. The latter two don't affect me that much but you might feel differently if you were an employee or shareholder of the business.
Perhaps if airlines didn't routinely destroy instruments, this crap wouldn't be necessary.
Many musicians are travelling as part of their job, which is not usually high-paid. I don't mind giving up a bit of locker space so their livelihood is preserved. Lord knows it's hard enough for artists these days as it is.
Is it really impossible to pack the instrument in a case that can withstand airline cargo handling? If I'm a musician who has to travel as part of my job, I'd think that such a case would be a "cost of doing business" and certainly tax-deductible.
That's a pretty strong assumption. I've travelled with instruments, and complied with the rules of the airlines involved as well as the government agencies involved, and still managed to get shit badly broken. I don't know of the specific case in question, but I would wager that the "moron" who packed the double bass was not, in fact, a moron.
I wasn't told. It does sound like the hole in the case (and the bass) is evidence for the absence of a security lock. On the other hand, the guy was probably a professional musician, and therefore should have known… Who knows, maybe he doesn't travel much, and made a mistake?
This is not a valid response to the comment you are replying to. It's just an appeal to emotion. It doesn't negate the fact that this is the result of a special interests group nor does it negate the fact that the cost is not provided by the musicians that now take up more cabin space.
2. It's negligible I think but if the plane is packed other passengers may have to check their bags at the gate because there isn't enough room left in the overhead after the musician stows his overly large and awkward shaped carry-on. Thus they pay in time lost after the plane lands and inconvenience of not being able to get into their carry-on during flight.
Mainly though I think the OP is just lashing out because it's sounds unfair that one person can stow an up to 165 lb, overly large piece of luggage simply because it's a musical instrument.
First of all, a desktop computer will take far, far more abuse than an instrument like a violin or a guitar. Second, a properly backed up desktop computer is easy to replace if it gets damaged, while an instrument can be pretty much impossible to replace (like a Stradivarius).
>First of all, a desktop computer will take far, far more abuse than an instrument like a violin or a guitar.
Depends on the components.
>Second, a properly backed up desktop computer is easy to replace if it gets damaged,
Doesn't change the lost time having to restore. There is a reason someone travels with electronic equipment in the first place. Second, it's not if the computer has specialized hardware (again, there is a reason someone would travel with a desktop). Third, a desktop could easily be loaded with $3000 in components. Not exactly simple to replace either.
Oh please. I've been using computers (sysadmin/devops/gamer) for decades, and I've also been a musician for decades. While the value of my instruments and computers has always been roughly the same (because I don't play classical music, where $3000 is a beginner's cello), the replace-ability isn't even close. Musicians form a close emotional and physical attachment to their instruments. I've had a laptop stolen, and I've had a bass stolen. I could care less about the laptop, and ten years later, I still dearly miss the bass. It's apples and oranges.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding. But it outlines that if it's a comparable item to other carryon baggage, there's no additional penalty on the scarce resource of carryon storage. It's no more forcefully allocated to instruments than it is a standard other item of carryon luggage. It's just equally allocated, now.
It says that a cello requires purchase of another ticket, but cannot include additional fees merely because it's a cello. If anything that subsidizes other passengers because cellos don't also have carry on baggage, they don't breathe air, they weigh less than the average person, and they tend not to consume many snacks and drinks mid-flight.
A typical cello weights about 8 pounds. A hard case (not a 'flight case' that would be suitable for the cargo hold, but a hard carrying case) weighs no more than 15 lbs or so, and good ones weigh under 8 lbs. An electric cello might even fit in the overhead compartment, depending exactly how it's built! (Though you will likely have to check your amplifiers.)
1. According to the article, the American Federation of Musicians
2. Agreed, what tab? If the airlines can charge a fee comparable to equivalent carry on luggage, what difference does this actually make? I guess it must be against an extra surcharge for instruments, which honestly I wouldn't have thought would exist in the first place.
A comment like this reeks of ignorance and adds nothing to the dialogue.
If you wanted to vouch for the reduction of sports on broadcast television with reasons related to health that are backed up with facts or citations, rather than speculative opining, you could have, and should have, done so.
I had to look up what "ethnocentric" meant, but I don't think I am "evaluating other peoples and cultures according to the standards of my own culture" here. Perhaps you could elaborate?
(Also, even if I was, don't we all unconsciously view things through the lens of our cultural upbringing? Fail to see how this could be either comical or depressing. Or perhaps you want opinions to be restricted to only people from your own culture?)
Yes, it means exactly that. As in, nerds who have lived in their own geek culture bubble all of their lives, aggressively and prejudicedly judging sports culture from the perspective of their own comfort bubble, without ever truly experiencing it with an open mind or truly trying to understand why people enjoy those things and behave that way. Jock-bullying. It's very common in nerd circles, if only as a reflexive against the injustices against nerds, both real and imagined.
It's comical/depressing because nerd crowds are generally very self-congratulatory on how open-minded, liberal and intelligent they are.
And then this kind of reflexive antagonist behavior against jocks bubbles up, and we're forced to realize that no, just because geeks paint themselves as these smart and open-minded people does not mean it is true.
Sometimes, they're no better than bullies, insulting ways of life that they've never tried, simply because it is different or because they are expected by their group to dislike those things.
This has nothing to do with jocks. If anything, it might be considered bullying people-who-watch-sports-yet-are-in-no-condition-to-play-sports-themselves. You'd think nerds constitute a greater proportion of that than jocks. I don't know much about jock culture, but I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that physical fitness plays a part?
Why stop at sports? Let's start bullying people-who-love-music-but-can't-play-an-instrument-themselves! Or how about people-who-watch-movies-yet-can't-act-their-way-out-of-a-bucket? Those people definitely deserve our scorn...
I'm not entirely sure which side is 'reeking of ignorance' here.
Go to any so-called sports bar. The majority of people are obese or overweight and look as if they'd be hard-pressed to run a hundred yards. Look at the majority of commercials during sports games broadcasts. They are typically Doritos, McDonalds, or something else related to fatty, unhealthy food. To go shopping in most places, you have to get your ass in a car since the bloody mall is like 20 miles away, and when you get there, the aisles are full of frozen pizza and cookies instead of fresh produce and meat.
Don't bother nitpicking my statement (it is obviously an exaggeration) -- just notice all these things about your "game Sunday" next time. But since you seem almost slavishly devoted to "omgsomeoneinanewspaperorscientificjournalsaiditsoitmustbetrue" sources, here are some.
I have a hard time believing that obesity is causally related to "college football" or televised sports in general. Except perhaps the fact that it's a sedentary activity, but a sizable chunk of HN probably spends far more time working in front of a computer.
> I have a hard time believing that obesity is causally related to "college football" or televised sports in general.
Correlation is not causation, but it is correlation...i.e. things which will affect college football viewing might affect obesity as well. Ergo, if college football becomes too expensive to watch, maybe obesity rates will reduce. This is my hypothesis; only an actual experiment can show if this is true or not.
I don't want to misunderstand your math but I might be doing so.
55 men, 45 women
80% of the men are in stable relationships
80% x 55 men = 44 men
44 men with 44 out of 45 women leaves 1 woman remaining, 11 men remaining, for an even worse ratio of 11 free men to 1 woman.
55 women & 45 men graduate. 15 of those women lasso 15 of those men within 5 years. That leaves 40 women to 30 men. 5 years later another 10 pair off. Now you have 30/20. The more pairs you make, the worse the ratio.
Coursera, no doubt. I took 2 courses with Tim Roughgarden; they were awesome. And I just finished 2 more with Sedgewick. If you can find the Sedgewick courses, I recommend picking up his book (actually, I recommend it anyway) - Algorithms, Sedgewick & Wayne, 3rd ed.
I get what you're saying, but there's a line interviewing crosses when it becomes less about trying to figure out if the person is right for the job and more about trying to outsmart them by painting them into some sort of technical corner.
I am not sure if you have since pivoted, but here are 2 thoughts from a non-technical perspective:
1) I think "fork the cookbook" is awesome for a tech target audience, maybe not so much for a non-technical target audience. Forking has instant grok-ability with tech people but outside of that vector it's not immediately apparent.
2) Because of #1 (but I do think your core idea is close), what about something wherein the concept isn't "forking" a recipe (i.e. taking an existing one and mutating it) but rather, a "this is my take on that same dish" type approach.
User 1 uploads a recipe for potato casserole.
User 2 discovers this recipe and has a slight twist on it, and rather than "forking" User 1's recipe, rather directly posts their own recipe. But a linkage between the two is created (where I guess the PK could be considered "potato casserole"), such that future users looking for potato casseroles would stumble across both. Or, when a user discovers User 1's version, the linkage could be represented as "Or, try THIS variant". Incorporate rating/votings (presumably you already have this).
It's probably extremely close to what you already have, but removes the tech connotation and even though it is extremely philosophically close to your original idea, make it removes the linkage in peoples' minds that anyone is "stealing" their recipe.