Personally, after reading a lot about the virus, I think there's a good chance that it has an artificial source. I'm very wary about this paper though, both because I can't fully understand all of the arguments, and because it comes from a political, rather than academic institution, and because it's being pushed by groups and people that obviously have no idea whether or not it's scientifically valid or not, but they like the conclusion.
It is hard to take the author seriously, or as an authority, when he rejects materialism and states something like "Physical death is merely a de-clenching of awareness", and he believes in the afterlife.
Well, when it comes to consciousness the alternative is dualism and dualism is the belief in magic.
Given how discredited dualism is it is amazing how far people will go to deny hey are dualists whilst spouting all the arguements and beliefs of dualists.
Dualism is the belief there is more than one fundamental substance in the world (mind & matter). There's nothing magical about that, it's just an ontological position. But it does have the problem of how mind & matter interact.
WARNING: HYPERBOLIC CLICKBAIT. No substance, no informed critique or examples. The headline leads one to believe that there would be a thoughtful analysis, maybe pointing to some sociological research, that illustrates why javascript has gained so much popularity in recent years. Instead, it is a weak protest.
Seems like the "Mods" flagged this as it dropped off of the home page. I used Sacha Greif's http://www.telescopeapp.org in an effort to demonstrate how we can take advantage of open source projects to promote the common good through civic participation.
The goal is to create a prioritized list so that citizens can work together toward those policies initiatives in a concerted, coordinated way regardless of party affiliation. It doesn't have to be an echo chamber if others have substantive ideas. And it is just an experiment.
I'll grant this is a subtle point, but why did you choose to use the word "archetype", borrowing a term to describe what most understand to be generated boilerplate code? Why not call it a framework, or an app generator? Why did you, collectively I will assume, choose to assign a new term to an existing concept?
The archetype terminology comes from the use of Builder; you can get a rundown of what an archetype really is here, independently of its usage in Electrode: https://formidable.com/open-source/builder/
Framework and app generator are really quite far off from what an archetype provides. An archetype is like an npm module template, but not one that is used to generate code files and then discarded, but more like a live "superclass" of a module; think inheritance but for npm modules.
The basic idea is that if you have dozens or hundreds of similar modules (for, say, React components), with similar build + testing needs, you can use the same archetype for all of them. A generator like yeoman could spit out boilerplate for you, but then what if your boilerplate changes? Your packages quickly get out of sync with your latest best practices. Having some components on Babel 5 and some upgraded to Babel 6, for example, was a real pain. You have to go through your dozens of packages and bring them up to date. Archetypes on the other hand are intended to be encapsulated boilerplate that packages basically "inherit" from at runtime.
That was really well crafted, thank you. Much easier to digest than some of the docs. Though, I'm still not convinced it warrants a new way of describing a collection of patterns for various concerns, e.g. a framework.
Completely valid. I should have been more direct, but that wasn't the intent. Since you took the bait, I take issue with the seemingly flipant manner in which words are assigned new meanings, and existing concepts are relabeled. While the concept of archetypes is intellectually really fun to consider, it makes more difficult the ultimate project of speaking a common tongue. This is not an orthodox point of view, this is primarily economical. Far too much cognitive effort is required to learn new paradigms that turn out to be fresh takes on old ones, so best to identify them early and move on. But we should be critical as a community to self-regulate, as the marginal utility of each moment of learning is weighed against a million other potentialities.
You might do just fine substituting archetype with template. The readme for https://github.com/electrode-io/electrode-archetype-react-ap... reads: "This "app archetype" provides for common patterns across all app projects so that each app project can standardize on common development behavior and patterns. Its essentially pre-made patterns for build scripts." "A pre-made pattern" sounds a lot like a template. The majority of the documentation focuses on applied concepts, with familiar terms. The only reference to archetypes is found in the first paragraph of What is Electrode, and I think it distracts and confuses more than it helps. If it is a core concept, then it might be good to link to https://github.com/FormidableLabs/builder, but I don't yet see where or if builder is included as part of electrode.
It basically works like Google Analytics, but writes dynamic content to the page.
I'm sorry you weren't able to find what you needed. We really appreciate feedback and would love to get suggestions on how best to articulate our product and update our content accordingly.
I think this is a great idea. I would recommend going out to a few universities or larger employers, nearly every law firm or Fortune 500 office in any city, and getting their feedback. You will want to talk to facilities managers, though most outsource this function. You could also contact facility management companies like IBM. They have a large group that does work in this area, worth investigating. You could also contact any of your local government officials to get them to put you in touch with the right people. Getting the feedback of potential customers is going to give you the best information to scope the project. Another suggestion is to peel back all the unnecessary layers and features. Just think of the core value proposition after you chat with potential users and make sure you are really working toward MVP. You should be constantly putting features on the backlog until you get to a beta product. Good luck!
