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

This post was very important for me. I've been struggling with anxiety lately without knowing it. I've been having a very hard time. "Pass Through Panic" really helped me a lot, and I'm starting "Hope And Help For Your Nerves". I can't thank you enough for sharing these resources.

-----


Good luck my friend!

-----


UI suggestion: 'street addresses' currently has a box around it, so I thought it was an <input type="text"> field, thought "how cute", tried to click on it to enter an address to geocode, and was disappointed to find out it was just some bolded text. Might be a fun little feature to have that actually be an entry point into trying out a demo of the API (I thought I was supposed to enter an address to have geocoded).

-----


Agreed. Did the same thing.

Would actually be neat though for that to be a quick demo of your software.

-----


Good point!

-----


I don't think it's fair to call him a Non-Coding Architect. Have you seen his other talks, or the articles he's published via his website http://worrydream.com ? Bret clearly codes.

-----


But does he ship?

-----


Sometimes not shipping gives us more freedom to explore.

-----


I really wish he did. I think one of the greatest disservices he does himself is not shipping working code for the examples in his presentation. We've seen what and we're intrigued, but ship something that shows how so we can take the idea and run with it.

-----


So, have you seen Media for Thinking the Unthinkable?

http://vimeo.com/67076984

The working code for the Nile viewer presented is on GitHub:

https://github.com/damelang/nile/tree/master/viz/NileViewer

-----


I think the whole point of his series of talks is to inspire others to invent new things that not even he has thought of.

-----


A delay in releasing code would be valuable then. Those too impatient to wait can start hacking on something new now and give lots of thought to this frontier and those that want to explore casually can do so a few months later when the source is released. Releasing nothing is a non-solution. Why make everyone else stumble where you have? That's just inconsiderate.

Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insidentes, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum subvenimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea.

-----


bingo, this remembers me of people not having time to get bored and then innovate by giving your mind some free space to go around. The typical scenario of the problem solution once you give it a break....

-----


> But does he ship?

Why does that matter?

-----


Fooling around with a paint brush in your study is fine, but real artist ship.

A bunch of ideas that sound great in theory are just that, it is only by surviving the crucible of the real world that ideas are validated and truly tested. When Guy Steele and James Gosling were the only software developers in the world who could program in Java, every Java program was a masterpiece. It is only once the tool was placed in the hands of mere mortals that its flaws were truly known.

-----


Sometimes the journey is the product.

Walk around a good gallery. There are a pretty good number of pieces entitled "Study #3", or something of that sort. An artist is playing around with a tool, or a technique, trying to figure out something new.

Piano music is probably where this concept gets the most attention. Many études, such as those by Chopin, are among the most significant musical works of the era.

-----


Yes, sometimes.

In another talk Bret claims that you basically cannot do visual art/design without immediate feedback. I was wondering how he thought people that create metal sculptures via welding, or carve marble, possibly work. It's just trivially wrong to assert you need that immediate feeback, and calls all of the reasoning into question.

-----


Good point. I think programmers would be better off dropping the artistic pretensions altogether and accepting that they are much closer to engineers and architects in their construction of digital sandcastles.

-----


and some artists create amazing art coding it in Processing; just take a look at Casey Reas's works.

also Beethoven wrote down his complex music quite often w/o using the instrument as he heard it in his mind...

-----


You're forgetting about the hundred even thousands of painting they did that are not in the gallery. These paintings are the same as "shipping" even though you never see them in the gallery.

You can't play around with a tool or technique without actually producing something. You can talk about how a 47.3% incline on the brush gives the optimal result all day long, but it's the artist that actually paints that matters.

-----


> Fooling around with a paint brush in your study is fine, but real artist ship.

Van Gogh didn't ship.

-----


> Why does that matter?

Because I want to play with his Drawing Dynamic Viz demo. http://worrydream.com/DrawingDynamicVisualizationsTalkAddend...

-----


He probably doesn't. He stays too much time not doing the machine work :)

The fact that you point "shipping" as a part of this discussion just shows how much he's right.

-----


he is not allowed to talk about his ipad / Apple stuff. did TBL ship the W3C? protocols are the perfect example of shipping by design.

-----


> It doesn't explain why PHP is bad with examples

The linked article specifically does explain why PHP is bad, and it does it by providing literally hundreds of specific examples. It's a really impressive essay.

-----


The very first example about @fopen is full of weird stuff about INI file changes and stuff that are not on by default and if someone turns them on they should understand what they are doing.

-----


None of my friends will shut up about http://www.yelp.com/biz/zushi-puzzle-san-francisco-2 - probably worth checking out.

-----


> And if you haven't tried out technomancy's work with Heroku, try spinning up an instance. It's incredibly well done.

Could you please elaborate on that? I'm not familiar with the work he's done with Heroku.

-----


From their website: "Heroku (pronounced her-OH-koo) is a cloud application platform – a new way of building and deploying web apps. Our service lets app developers spend 100% of their time on their application code, not managing servers, deployment, ongoing operations, or scaling." [1]

With the arrival of technomancy at heroku, they also provide a full-stack Clojure platform for your Clojure web applications, with a free version for those interested in experimenting.

[1] http://www.heroku.com/

-----


I've been playing around with this page constantly for the past 12 hours and gave you you my email address via the signup box this morning :) great stuff!

-----


If you set up automatic 401k deposits and direct deposit a percentage of your paycheck to Vanguard, you won't stress out about it at all. You'll just see a different number on your take-home paycheck, get used it it quickly, and go on enjoying yourself without stressing out.

Or at least that's my theory - I'm setting up that direct deposit situation today, and I'm planning on setting the percentage a lot higher than I would have before reading this article.

-----


This is exactly the right thing to do. It takes a leap of faith, but you really do get used to the lower level of take-home pay quickly.

An added bonus is getting the Vanguard statement each month and seeing it grow.

-----


I think you missed his point. But I will say the parent is not alone. :)

-----


In the blog author's. He makes a pretty compelling case for it - I recommend reading through more of the blog.

-----


If you save a high enough percentage of your take-home income, the article actually argues that you could be done in 7-10 years starting from scratch, which sounds a lot more doable to me than the 30 years you're expecting.

-----


The problem with the extremes of this logic is that if you scrimp and save and live poor to get to that 75% savings rate... you still have to live poor for the rest of your life on that 25% of your take home.

-----


You can raise your lifestyle over time.

Given the hedonic treadmill, you are more likely to feel happiness from any increase in your standard of living, but you reset to your prior level of happiness. So make your bumps in standard of living as small as possible.

-----


Nope. 10 years later you can go screw it all, and still have 35k in passive income a year and a huge nest egg.

You're also probably think 35k in an expensive place, where he lives in a random suburb of boulder I think.

-----


Or you could be dead in 10 years.

-----


Yes, sure you could. Highly unlikely though. You probably have decades left.

-----


And never have to work another day in your life, don't forget.

-----

More

Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

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

Search: