wvl's comments

fwiw, I published the extension on the chrome web store:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mnlaodleonmmfkdhfo...

Huh, I never even realized that Chrome had removed the ability to install extensions from third party websites. I'll get that up on the chrome web store when I get some time.

Looking at this again 3 days later, it seems the license has been changed again. The license is now the "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 license.", and they're charging for commercial use.

I probably didn't explain that well. There are plenty of non wysiwig markdown editors out there. The appeal of this demo is that you're editing the markdown source through a wysiwyg editor. However, with this demo, there are two authoritative sources of content, the html in the contenteditable, and the markdown. I'm arguing that there should only be a single authoritative source of content; and I'd like that to be markdown. I think it's possible, though difficult.

I want something like this quite badly. However, I'm not sure this is suitable for the users who I want this for (ie, people who don't need to understand markdown formatting)

1. Doing an html to markdown conversion, as you seem to be doing, feels like a giant hack. And one with leaky abstractions to boot (Hit enter off the end of a list, and you get <div></div> inserted into the markdown source).

2. Link editing is super important, and, also a very difficult problem (selection/range management issues) without the html to markdown problem added on top.

I think something like this is doable by having the transformation only happen one way (from markdown to html), given a markdown parser with full access to the parse tree. However, there's many other issues that would arise from doing it that way.

Interesting idea. This could be useful for signup and contact forms from a static website.

It's amusing to me that the contact link is just a mailto. Why not use MailerJS?

That was my first thought, however, from the docs:

MailerJS will send mail to the address you enter on your account page. You can't specify the receiver dynamically, as client-side JavaScript is publicly accessible by definition, and we want to protect you from spammers.

Why steal someone's api key just so you can send them email?

From http://www.zendesk.com/product/compare it seems that SSL encryption is provided on the starter plan. Only hosting of an ssl certificate for custom domains isn't, which seems fair.

From the server:

    $ curl http://news.ycombinator.com
    curl: (52) Empty reply from server

You might have been seeing dns problems, per: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3438134

I've emailed pg, hopefully we can get back up and running properly.

pg, if you see this, I've updated my crawler to be fully compliant with robots.txt (my delay between requests was too low, even if the overall req/min was fewer than 2).

* Vegetarian Adventists consume fewer “doughnuts, coffee, and eggs” than omnivore Adventists

* Vegetarian Adventists tend to have similar health outcomes as Mormons, who are not vegetarian but do abstain from alcohol and drugs and have strong sense of community

* Recent re-analysis of the Adventist Health Studies show the fish eaters – not the vegans or vegetarians – have the lowest relative risk for all-cause mortality (0.78 versus 0.89 for lacto-ovo vegetarians)

* Study found that non-vegetarian Adventists eat more doughnuts, drink more coffee, and eat more eggs than the vegetarians

* Researchers’ conclusion: “Among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the absence of meat.” “Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists” by Gary E. Fraser, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70 No. 3

http://www.slideshare.net/ancestralhealth/ahs-slidesdenise-m... http://vimeo.com/32062337

Please, let's get rid of the saturated fat bogeyman:

This is the part conventional “wisdom” doesn’t get: saturated fat in the diet doesn’t directly translate to saturated fats in the blood. It’s all how it’s metabolized. Saturated fat levels in the blood are influenced by the prevalence of carbs in the diet and the subsequent carb-generated lipogenesis process. -- http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat/

1. If your metabolism and energy level is crashing throughout the day, change your diet, not the frequency. Look up intermittent fasting, and learn that this 6-8 meals per day is a myth: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debun...

3.

Why drop red meat? Eat more fish sure.

White bread -- get rid of the grains altogether. And, no, whole wheat bread isn't better for you:

So if we compare white bread to table sugar sucrose, white bread raised blood sugar more. If we compare a whole wheat bread to white bread, whole wheat bread raises blood sugar higher than white bread. And so much higher than table sugar, and by the way, much higher than many standard candy bars. So a Snickers bar is far better for you from a blood sugar standpoint than two slices of whole wheat bread. So the reason for that is the unique structure of carbohydrate in wheat. -- Dr. William Davis

Soda -- drink Tea, or water. Eat fruit. Fruit Juice isn't any better.

Peanut butter -- Replace it with actual nuts or nut butter if you must.

Sugar... Hey, we agree on something.

You saw the 100 foot radius bit, but ignore the sentence before. It's an opt-in solution -- If you don't want it, don't opt in.

First, you need to turn on auto-payments for each individual store where you’d like to use it—it’s impossible to tell Card Case to turn on auto-payments for every store in San Francisco.

I don't know why tristan_louis' comment is dead, but they bring up very good point, far more egregious than either the social sharing changes or the design and screen real estate issues:

The first thing that struck me is how much slower this reader is. There seems to be a refresh on every new move forward, which was less noticeable on the previous version, if at all. There also seems to be a substantially slower response time, on the order of a couple of seconds.

Reader is now painful to use, imo. I'm constantly waiting for it to catch up to my actions.

The problem with that mode is that the content area becomes way too wide. With a 1024-1280 px wide browser window, the sidebar makes the content area an acceptable width for comfortable reading.

That was my exact reaction -- barely usable on my 1280x800 screen. Until there's a better user style out there, this css makes the theme much better for me, by hiding the search bar and the feed toolbar:

    #top-bar { display: none; }
    #viewer-header { display: none; }

After breakfast? I would include breakfast as well. My energy levels after a breakfast of bacon and eggs is far steadier than after any breakfast cereals, toast, muffins, pastries, etc. Avoiding any large carb intake (post workout _possibly_ excepted) is key to steady energy levels.

For a more rational book, try Robb Wolf's "The Paleo Solution", which also has an extensive chapter on sleep and cortisol management.

I guess then, it depends on execution. If you're combining both of these numbers into one single metric of "goodness", then you'll just be accomplishing Pahalial's point of "legitimizing 'poor taste'". If, however, you can expose this information separately and well, then perhaps it will add value.

Personally, I'd like to break down the "rewatchability" metric into more components, to really get at the heart of the matter, like others here have commented. Pace, quality, fun, emotional impact, length, genre -- these are the things that really matter. But now we're getting into movie geek territory.

Speaking of movie geek -- I can't believe you left out the most interesting thing in that blog post. Where can we see a breakdown of what movies are where in that scatter plot? I want to know what those outliers on the high quality / low rewatchability scale are!

I really disagree with the premise of this post. Emotional impact (United 93), psychological impact (Black Swan), intellectual demands (Primer) all equate to a lower rewatchability score, since watching the movie takes a lot out of me. However, the more of an impact a movie makes, the higher my opinion of a movie. Because something is light and fluffy doesn't make that movie "better", it just means it's easier to watch.

Rating films this way may do a good job of the "so bad it's good" camp (Snakes on a Plane), but will do an incredible disservice to movies like Black Swan.