Read: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Pertinent parts: "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."
Also, this is an article about the New York Times creating an app and website about cooking. Maybe it gratifies your curiosity, maybe not, but that's what is has to do with.
That's a much more subjective judgement than "spam". Meanwhile: I took a note to go cook a spatchcocked chicken under a weighted plate this week, so it didn't set my "fluff" detector off at all. And I cook 5 nights a week.
Here, though: if you though that piece was fluffy, I'll give you an antidote. The single best cooking video on the Internet:
I'm not sure about the 'best' qualification. That's way too complicated, not many people have the patience to learn and the time to do all of that. Just buy the chicken from the store cut up (and, I don't know about you guys, but where I shop, I can get the meat guy to cut anything up for me for free...). A lot of times machines are doing this stuff anyway, so cut up meat is pretty affordable. I particularly don't like cutting up my own meat because my hands up smelling weird, I have to clean up and wash the cutting boards, knives, etc. quickly (or else they start stinking up very soon), etc.
Oh my. Didn't watch the whole thing right now but from the title I know where it was going. One of Ruhlman's books describes a week-ish long cooking test at the Culinary Institute of America that gets into making all sorts of things like this. I cook a lot but this type of cooking is at least as far beyond me as I'm beyond someone who can barely boil an egg.
I don't ever make galantines, but I do bone out a couple chickens every week, and he's right: when you get the knack, you can bone out a chicken in a little under a minute without trying.
The commentary might be interesting. Look at the obvious analogy with learning code.
You can look at 16000 source code files, perhaps with a decent search engine, and with some heuristics and guts copy and paste into an app. This is the exact clone to the ml and mg of stir fry recipe #1415
Or you can learn some syntax and techniques and idioms and just kind whip something together out of thin air. No one has ever made a stir fry quite like this one, probably ever.
Cooking is just like coding. Oh and the two options, both for coding and cooking, are not binary exclusive BTW. And some things like pastry or food safety you can't just make up on the fly and expect success, there's always some mix and match.
To say this NYT app makes a strong statement on one side of the debate while ignoring the other is an understatement. I think it does a disservice to cooks and coders to not at least mention the alternative strategy.
You can make a mcdonalds burger with a formal detailed recipe. You cannot make a gourmet meal that way, in my opinion.
Part of the hacker mindset is constant learning, self-improvement, and cultivation. And that needn't be limited to coding. Many other skills should also be applicable.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein
Yahoo and Alibaba aren't a good fit. Yahoo is a bottom-feeder online entertainment company (nobody still uses their search, do they?) and Alibaba is a global marketplace for manufacturers. This union doesn't make sense from a brand identity standpoint.
But it makes sense from money standpoint :) A lot of companies like Yahoo need cash cows to support various initiatives that do not have a return for quite some time.
Precisely that... I view all calendars at once for the holistic view, but even zoomed out I can see from the density of each calendar's colour roughly what was occurring when.
Inspiration came from two things:
1) Hearing about Stephen Wolfram documenting/logging every conversation.
2) Learning to meditate, and my first attempt at this was to label every thought I had and collate things together in my head
I figured I could log the stream of events that occurred in life, and label everything and collate things.
There are lots of subtle advantages. And it does seem that the book you mentioned ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Experience-Curating-Increase-Influen... ) is a very similar concept to what I'm doing. No, I hadn't read it or heard of other people (beyond Stephen Wolfram) doing anything like this.
I don't use spreadsheets though... I consider time as being the primary key for all information. From that point of view, the storage should be a time based system.
That stems from how I personally recall things. I recall consuming music as a chronology of life... play a song and I know what I listened to in the months before, months after, where I was, who with, how I felt, what I was up to. But time is the thing there, the expansion of the pinpoint into a line stretching forward and backward provides all the extra context. I log way more than I need to because it's so effortless to do so.
I should've added another of the small processes as I added a few bookmarks today and remembered that I hadn't mentioned this one. I use pinboard and bookmarks are pulled from the RSS and put into yet another calendar.
Did you read the article? In almost every instance, most good jobs were unavailable to immigrants and members of a cultural or racial minority.
These criminals only wanted respect and the same things other Americans had a birthright to. They believed organized crime was the only way to achieve the same standard of living.
Hmm, I think there are two possible meanings of meritocracy:
a) those who can compete, succeed by merit
b) everyone can compete, and those who compete, succeed by merit
It's clear that Silicon Valley doesn't fit the latter definition, but it's possible that it fits the first definition.
Even if 100% of American citizens could compete in the Silicon Valley's start-up culture and it would be a 100% perfect meritocracy, it still wouldn't necessarily be a global meritocracy. Just being born in the United States increases one's probability to gain access to this market.
I'm from Europe, and let me say we had very little money in our family. Software devs in the US are apparently well paid and in high demand - are people that racist they they wouldn't hire black devs? Of all lines of work, I have the impression that IT is one of the most open and socially conscious fields there is.
> Software devs in the US are apparently well paid and in high demand - are people that racist they they wouldn't hire black devs? Of all lines of work, I have the impression that IT is one of the most open and socially conscious fields there is.
The problem would be two fold: there are numerically few black developers due to problems with the pipeline for education, which disproportionately affects black people, and in general hiring practices have a bias against black people.
The impression that IT is more open and socially conscious is just that, an impression. There is nothing that demonstrates IT as a profession or as individuals are more socially conscious than any other group of people. In fact, many of the current problems with regards to IT culture mirror the same problems in other aspects of business in society.
I also have the impression that "IT is one of the most open and socially conscious fields there is", but I think it's only a temporary situation that is happening only because the field can't afford to be less open.
IT sector is in a golden age, the times where there's more demand for programmers than people available for the job. The field so desperate for even mediocre workers that it gets its recruiters to keep cold-calling and spamming people in hope someone will change a job. It's extremely hard to find talent, even harder to retain it, so companies just can't afford stupidities like discrimination. Being socially conscious is actually a signalling method - "yes, we don't discriminate; yes, we're that awesome! yes; you should come to work at our place".
But wait a generation or two, when there will be more talent than jobs available - IT will start looking like every other sector. Recruiters will stop calling and we'll all be subject to the same amount of discrimination, politics and overall workplace-abuse as everyone else.
Based on my impression (as an outsider) of the tech scene in Silicon Valley you are probably more likely to be discriminated against for having socially conservative views than liberal ones.
Yeah, the startup culture "meritocracy" - that is, as long as you don't completely suck, your position is proportional to your activity on local meetups, particularly the ones frequented by investors.
I have, from start to finish. Everyone wants respect, that doesn't mean its ok be a gangster. What about the loan shark victims that could never repay their debt? What about the little store owners that had to pay protection money?
Now running a little store by yourself will not get you the same respect as having your daughter ride horses in some rich part of town, but seriously - does that make it suddenly ok to become a criminal?
This motherly relationship Google has with you is going to turn bad. At some point, you'll be betrayed. The more you rely on Google, the more it's going to hurt you.
As a Blackberry user, I was just thinking today how I could never go back to the iPhone. Multitasking is much faster on the BB10 OS. No button mashing and drilling down menus - not like I remember with the iPhone.
Of course, the iPhone has it's strengths too, but I just want to get work done.
