iamdev

Because meat is the best source of creatine from diet.

They're showing how often coders accidentally write ":wq" in their code, which is a common command in vim (save and quit).

Unless your ideal customer is a tech-entrepreneur, this is all very misleading. It's going to amount to very little lasting growth.

As someone who has been curious about Haskell, I'm happy to hear someone else say this. The way this article was written feels exactly like the "ruby fever" of 5 years ago.

Thanks for pointing that out. The author didn't emphasize that point, and it makes sense now.

Is it me, or was it a bad example for where Haskell "really shines"? I don't like the "use Haskell cause it has these really cool functions" approach. Feels so superficial.

The example provided is too contrived. By that logic, here's a way to "match" haskell with php:

$a = range(2,100,2); $b = array_slice($a, 5);

One thing experiments like this often seem to forget is that our bodies have evolved to eat. Even something as simple as your stomach physically expanding to hold large quantities of less nutrient-dense whole foods has been shown to have an effect on the body and brain.

My company also experienced not getting as much traffic to my site as facebook claimed.

What I was told before I pulled my campaigns is that Facebook considers it a click when the visitor clicks your ad, but BEFORE the visitor is shown a "warning" screen that they're about to leave facebook. not sure if this has changed since. I haven't come back.

I'm sure all the genius's are excited about Apple giving permission to the WORLD to make them work off-the-clock ;)

I should have been more clear that I personally thought your article was spot on. I was only trying to summarize the debate brewing on HN.

Great blog post and really thought provoking.

TLDR: (Using Phil Libin's own logic against him) Startups are likely to fail, so it's just as absurd to say you're doing it to change the world as it is to believe you're doing it for the money. You're still better off joining an organization that has momentum and resources.

This invites inevitable argument though, since: 1. It's endlessly debatable which companies are actually changing the world. 2. The ones most people think of first are based on charity, which is again arguable and limited to very short term gain.

Econ 101? Sounds like we need to remember Business 101.

Yes, it's revenue not earnings (profit), but a) as a manufacturer, Apple earns more profit on a sale than Best Buy, which b) makes how much more money they're earning all the more impressive relative to a retailer like Best Buy.

Thanks so much!