groups

I think the poster's point was that he spends a lot of money on apple products, relative to his income. To understand apple's success, one should look at how much money ordinary people with ordinary jobs spend disproportionate money on products they wouldn't otherwise.

There's a graph somewhere of yearly sales figures of various cars vs the cost of those cars. There's a general exponential decline from say the toyota camry, which costs reasonably and sells a lot, to a Bentley, which is the opposite. But there's an irregular data point with the BMW 3-series, because many, many people stretch to afford it. It sells disproportionately well for that reason.

I'm not assigning judgment on how anyone spends their money, just pointing out that there are human reasons for business success and failure.

It's not a chiclet keyboard. Looks like the keyboard for the thinkpad X220. in my experience it's a very good keyboard. of course I would pay a lot of money for a mechanically-keyed laptop.

Aristotle said that the rhetorician is a rhetorician not because he absolutely can convince someone of something, but because he is aware of all the means of persuasion.

likewise, there's no guarantee that a doctor can heal /you/. but you go to the doctor because he is aware of the various means of achieving health. this is different from evolutionary biology, where firm predictions can be relied on.

same goes for lawyers; they can't guarantee a victory, but they are aware of all the methods in the courtroom. These are professions and fields of study whose variables are humans. i agree with the parent commentor that the distinction is worth investigating.

yeah something is wrong. I ran the test on my lenovo x200s with an intel core 2 duo and intel GMA 4500 graphics and got 3700 "objects" and with a "tickcount" of 1400. I'm assuming objects are sprites--the test itself doesn't use the term.

If his HD4000 is getting 1250 objects, I shouldn't get 3700.

It's fine to edit for length and clarity if you recognize that by removing context you're creating a new context. It's up to the editor to be careful.

The editor can't say "I am the editor and I have perfectly preserved pg's comments" knowing that valleywag will call him a sexist, when the editor knows him not to be one. If the editor thinks pg is, they should talk. I'm convinced by pg's rebuttal.

this is a list of facebook's engineers' favorite hacks to make facebook work better, not a list hosted on facebook.com of various hacks.

with that said, I'm assuming you don't care about what facebook does with its website and app.

It bothers me.

But (just a guess) I hypothesize 4K comes from the film industry, while 720p and 1080[ip] come from TV and computer industries. So the two systems of measuring resolution were created independently and both have historical precedents, and the marketing mishap stems from blithely conflating the two. So I guess my explanation is: coincidence

183 DPI is "too small" for native viewing, but it'll make prettier pictures and more readable text.

Look up the Pentagon Papers and Woodward and Bernstein (and Rathergate, though that criticism was erroneous) for examples of established media sharply and consequentially criticizing the US government.

The media /are/ capable of it, and they /used/ to do it.

>Did anyone...

Over months I read many articles describing cool things you can do with emacs you can't do with vim, and eventually I switched.

So: one article, no. Many, yes.

This article illuminates specific instances where NSA mislead the public. The comments here saying stuff like "I don't believe anything any nefarious organization says"--your point is taken, but it's still important to analyze and respond to NSA continually.

The page gives no examples of pictures or memes and immediately asks for various permissions. I want to see what I'm getting myself into.

As a side note I hate that applications ask permission for my email address. Of course I used a dummy email address, but mememyfriends.com doesn't need an email address from me.

I write free software for selfish reasons--I want powerful software as Paul Graham defines it.

That powerful software amplifies thought is a side benefit. The more I (or groups) get together to think important thoughts, the more we can creatively destroy the parts of the system we don't like, and create systems we do.

I think there are real consequences of powerful software (more broadly, powerful computation); and I try to keep systemic consequences in mind as I write software.

Yes I think Emacs' philosophy is at odds with UNIX philosophy; I also think it's /superior to/ UNIX philosophy. It sounds like you take UNIX philosophy to be gospel, and deviation from that to be incorrect. I'm not trying now to convert you to Emacs' philosophy. Rather I think there are a lot of people who only know UNIX philosophy, when in fact there are alternatives.