smcq's comments

Eh, deciding ergonomics by a democracy of internet users is pointless (99% of them are probably just repeating things they read on the internet anyway).

Dvorak will reduce the amount of finger motion. Other claims require further proof, but it's fairly trivial to demonstrate that dvorak is better for your hands.

It's really quite easy to do with a bit of javascript magic and some backend work. Not sure why you'd think it's impossible.

I was quite curious what modern languages the author was referring to, wondering if I had missed some magical language boat that left without me.

Custom dock connector, since I'll need to cary a dock converter with me to plug in usb devices.

I'll probably by the first version with a standard port onboard and a camera.

As someone who hosts videos, I hope that you don't get control over the internets. Bandwidth is already expensive enough without having to pay licenses per-stream!

You wouldn't. Moving the goalpost is a fallacy, though given your complete inability to do original research I doubt you could ever find that out on your own. This thread started because you asked for unreasonable evidence in response to a post that said "They are proven to be unreliable over a signifcant period, and we don't know if or how often that's also true of the past." (emphasis mine).

This is a clear claim that climate science researchers have not done basic statistics when presenting new models. This claim has been substantiated by nothing except you requesting more and more detailed analysis from non-experts, which you discount every time we provide it because you assert that you would only listen to an expert.

Ironically, you are actually failing to respect the authority of experts, because the discussion is fundamentally an accusation that experts are failing to do basic statistics. You are accusing us of not being experts so you can't listen to us in the defense of the experts you're attacking by proxy.

I seriously fucking doubt you understood any of this. But it doesn't matter, I won't return. I have no tolerance for people who argue by asking questions and petulantly demanding unreasonable proof while providing absolutely nothing of their own.

Thanks for ruining hacker news.

Moving the goalpost. God damn, this place just became reddit. Cheers. Enjoy the cesspool you created.

Moving the goalpost.

No. You are wrong.

If you're really this interested in it and really suspect an entire scientific field has engaged in completely terrible statistics, it's basic statistics and I suggest you publish a paper yourself.

That or you go look for the papers or the reason the papers have not been written.

This game is old. The standard of proof to demonstrate the method is flawed based on poor correlations is on your side. The method to do the correlation is public knowledge. The data to correlate is public knowledge. R is open source. Go forth and correlate.

Fallacy of bringing absolutely nothing to the debate and asserting to the point of ad homonim that scientists would have skipped basic statistics on their data. Please see the post immediately above yours and go demonstrate that the method is flaw before continuing this debate.

The standard of evidence to show fault is yours. Assuming that papers published in freaking NATURE have sound statistics is a reasonable thing for a layman to do.

You seem completely confused by the scientific method. They do not have an obligation to release all data, but rather to release the method by which data can be acquired. They released data for the paper actually published to justify their statistical analysis.

Any data that you receive from another scientist with the intention of reproducing their experiment is fundamentally tainted and violates the scientific method.

Please don't argue against straw men, it's annoying.

I'm not an expert in climate change either, but I'm a journeyman in statistics and I support his claim that it can be correlated.

I strongly believe code that can't be understood by inspection is code that shouldn't be.

I think this metaphor is somewhat wrong.

Log files are like attaching medical imagers to the maze and keeping a trace of it's physical and mental state as it executes the maze. Debuggers are like attaching medical imagers to the rat and being able to only see the immediate state only.

Obviously, debuggers are much faster to bootstrap than good logging, and in that category I can see them being a clear win. However, I still see them as providing less information.

PS: That said, there are a few situations I bust out a debugger too. Mostly when I'm too lost to get started.

Common sense is the beliefs held by common people, by definition common people are much lower IQ than someone in the 170+ IQ range.

It would shock me if someone in the 170+ IQ range believed much of what "common" people believe. If they did, it would imply we have an extraordinarily well educated population and an extraordinarily boring genius class.

I have never really understood the fascination with debuggers. A good log file will allow you to triage any error, even if it's not the one you were looking for. It seems to me that debuggers are mostly for spotting failed assumptions and won't find unreproducable or subtle systemic problems.

I consider the desire to use a debugger a bug in my logging and take corrective action.

Also, you can't grep an execution history in a debugger. I really have no idea how you would spot systemic errors without doing so.

Can anyone who lives by debuggers make a case to convince me to fire up the debugger more often?

How often do people that need to write device drivers need to use a high level language? Is there really a lot of demand for this sort of thing?

Technology can fix this! It was never the users problem to begin with...

    MAX_ATTACH = 50 * 1024 #50 kb

    def minimize_size(msg):
        if size(msg['attachment']) > MAX_ATTACH:
            upload attachment to s3 like storage
            insert link into email body
        return msg

It obviously needs fleshed out (I bet it ends up around 20 lines of python after everything is said and done). But seriously, the fact that your users would ever even need to think about this is just wrong.

You forgot the third goal: the IT department wants to create a lot of work for itself that appears to be useful but doesn't directly increase productivity.