After using Goreman for a few days, I miss a way to restart a single process. Maybe just typing that process number should restart it... do you know if any of the solution do this?
I like the idea, however I'd disagree with the heuristic used. DS9 was really the first Star Trek series to introduce story arcs, and as such, skipping the wrong episodes leads to a confusing experience. I'd argue that in order to avoid missing out on important chunks of the arc, hand curation is really the only viable option (maybe text-clustering of plot narratives might work?).
Personally, as a huge DS9 fan, I think that you should watch every episode. Each episode adds colour and depth to the series' characters, and in my opinion makes it the most rewarding Star Trek series.
I tend to be of the "watch it all" camp, since even mediocre episodes make the excellent episodes much more rewarding. And you don't know which is which going in.
That said, "Profit And Lace" has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
You say that so casually. As someone with no experience in NLP, do you just have topic model algo's or a toolkit lying around? Going on your website this isn't your field of expertise, have you worked on this stuff in the past or just a hobby?
Enough to get by! I worked on this throughout university, and now at my startup. I was slightly blasé however! The corpus is tiny (173 episodes: http://www.chakoteya.net/ds9/episodes.htm), so a topic model is unlikely to yield anything valuable. There are probably around 10-15 arcs, and simple clustering could be better -- but this is purely hypothetical. In this case, it's simply curiosity.
Streak (http://www.streak.com/) has been a good start for us.
Upsides are that it's flexible enough to match most pipeline progressions, exports to CSV, supports mail merge, and allows you to easily track emails.
Our main issue has been that in person meetings and calls are difficult to log and keep track of, and as we've progressed towards those its become less and less useful.
If most of your interactions happen via email however, Streak is a great flexible (and currently free) tool.
"Our main issue has been that in person meetings and calls are difficult to log and keep track of, and as we've progressed towards those its become less and less useful."
We're working on handling this better - the main idea will be to let you log meetings or phone calls really easily, but under the hood, its still an email (and all the benefits that come with it).
Hey, founder of callinize (http://www.callinize.com) here. We developed an integration for streak.com which will allow you to log calls to boxes automatically!
+1 for streak, we use it here internally and love it.
Feel free to reach out to me at blake [at] callinize.com
This is what I found when I tried to install it, do you think a non-consumer would change to a google chrome? I like how they didn't even bother with creating an IE toolbar, god knows how awful that is.
"Streak currently supports Google Chrome and Safari.
When you signup we spend some time trying to understand you by exploring your Twitter profile (followers, links, retweets etc.). Once done, we either recommend you an article from a curate pool of articles which we've come across before, or by browsing sources we think will have interesting content which you might not be looking at already.
We then send you an email with a link to the content and an explanation behind our reason. If the user replies or reads the link, we keep going. If they don't we stop! Ultimately to do this well, we want to have a conversation with the subscriber (almost like bibliotherapy).
For example, were someones Twitter data points indicative of an interest in Programming Languages and Education, we might send them http://worrydream.com/#!/LearnableProgramming, with a brief explanation on why. If they reply saying they don't like long form, old content, then we'd make sure to adjust the next article accordingly. Hope that helps!
Hey spindritf, good point. That was terrible copy. We've updated it to hopefully make more sense. We'd like your Twitter handle. This seeds us with our first few data points!
Hi sarreph. We hope to delight by understanding what each individual likes. From out initial testing, we've found that our first article is a pretty good starting point for tech "people" when we use their Twitter markers to inform us. From there we get a lot better if the user offers us valuable data points - either by reading the article or even better replying to our suggestions with feedback.
We'd all become tried of algorithms claiming to know who you are. We wanted to take this back to first principles and try to understand what captivates people.
No. We go through a user's followers by hand; identify common influencers and interests; cross reference these against interesting content from a range of sources. We will eventually look for scalable aspects, however right now we're trying to figure out what works best on an individual level.
We're using Twitter as a starting point. We hope to work out what makes you tick, but ultimately that will only come from a conversation with you - thus why we've chosen to individually curate and pick content for all our users by hand.
If you pass us on any more info by clicking on "Tell us more", we'll use that too.
Right now it's completely unscalable, we just want to see if people find value in the personal touch vs an algorithm, as well if people prefer a small amount of high interest content rather than lots of mediocre stuff.
it sounds like this first phase is more market testing than the final product - I suspect if interest is high then they will have enough data and potential buyers to formulate a business plan.
My thoughts exactly. And we see articles on this kind of strategy on HN all the time. Typically they get a bunch of positive, "I like this in the abstract realm/will try this in the future"-type feedback. So I am a little surprised by the disbelief this particular instance is receiving.
This highlights how "good" programmers are simply those who are most able to think like a computer. The article's language further reinforces this (perhaps intentionally), e.g. the reference to "compiling" functions.
I find this contraint interesting - I don't know if computational thinking is a strength or a weakness. Increasingly, it seems that computational models occur naturally and therefore the ability to think in such a manner would have inter-disciplinary value.
If we deem it a weakness, then programming becomes a UX problem rather than language one. The lack of change both within and across programming paradigms would suggest that many don't believe this to be a fundamental issue.
I'd place my skill bars higher: "thinking like a computer" seems fundamental: I don't think one can even be a mediocre programmer without it, and it's not enough to make you a good programmer.
A good programmer also needs to be able to effectively communicate through code to both others and themselves, know how to design maintainable programs, how to preemptively avoid bugs by making their code harder to misuse, and too many other skills to list here -- and not all of those naturally flow from knowing how to think like a computer.
Computers don't think like computers. Computers reason formally. Thinking like a computer is just a matter of learning to reason formally and exactly instead of employing fuzzy mental abstractions.
This is primarily hard because we're wired for fuzzy mental abstractions, since they make loads of tasks (natural language, making breakfast, manual labor) far easier compared to taking genuine formal approaches, and we have a lower layer of the brain that can be trained to follow exact procedures quite well anyway.
This actually touches on Alan Kay's statements about programming with "what" instead of "how". It has made me seriously consider logic programming for the applications I write.
