hodwik

This opens a lot of possibilities for genetic manipulation, especially in connection with CRISPR. I imagine the X and Y bases are being kept secret for proprietary reason

This is an interesting article, and its position is a bit surprising, coming from The Weekly Standard. I want to go out and get that Bio now, for sure.

I did not expect myself to be in accord with the list, but really... it's perfect. I read around one third of those and they were all 10/10 for me.

I was confused by that as well. I was under the impression HP made working memristors years ago.

Any idea where HP TRIM, HP Records Manager, Autonomy, Autonomy IDOL & Autonomy Records Manager/CA are landing?

I work for a software company very much like Valve in structure, who has been operating this way since the 70s.

Support still gets done, because when you hire you specifically hire people who love doing support. Those people exist, and they get tremendously emotionally involved in the quality of their work, just like anyone else.

In every department there are people who struggle with the flat hierarchy and free range to work on what you like, who have a strong emotional need to know who is in charge, and to be told what needs doing. Those people struggle, but they are by no means relegated to any one department -- plenty of them are engineers.

I've noticed a number of security-related companies opting against HTTPS for their website.

Does anyone have any idea why that might be the case?

Python has all of the constituent parts of an OO language, save explicit types, but it is never written in an OO style.

Using classes != OO.

Generally, Python programmers treat objects as structs with associated methods, basically the Go model. Python programmers rarely encapsulate at all. At best, they use a bunch of accessors (which is not itself OO). Implementation details are rarely hidden.

That's because dynamically-typed languages, the interpreter, and the Python culture, lend themselves more to exploratory programming, rather than a UML-design, with objects that relate to real-world entities, that are implemented after careful planning.

If you can show me a Python program where objects are really encapsulated, and aren't chock-full of accessors, I'll stand happily corrected.

It acknowledges that some people think it is a problem, but it does not itself make any statement about whether or not it's a problem.

For those of us who believe economic inequality is both good and natural, this is a great rhetorical device for undermining the left -- "in this time of great economic inequality, life is better than it has ever been for the general populace."

A person on the left may use the opposite rhetorical device, "in this time of great economic freedom, people are increasingly poor."

As this is written, there is no way to know which rhetorical device they were using.

Uh oh, this doesn't fit the class-war narrative so no one is going to touch it.

How does it compare to *BSD?

You'll have to take that up with the public at large. We use "internet" to refer to the world wide web. Try to sell someone a computer that has "the internet", but won't do tcp/IP, you'll get punched.

As for the infrastructure, that's a rather more esoteric concern. It needs a distinguishing term.

Maybe they shouldn't be watching six hours of TV a day then.

I ran into this recently on a video chat with my brother, he was trying to pin a mustache on his face but the algorithm couldn't see him. Fortunately, he didn't know why. I don't know how I would've reacted had he understood.