yabudemada

What about men's testicular/prostate health though? Bike seats are specially designed for cycling ergonomics; desk chairs are design for sitting upright in an ergonomic _stationary_ position.

I say this because I had some prostate bruising (I recovered from that quickly doing yoga), but I attribute it to sitting too long; I don't even want to think what a pedaling motion in my chair would do down there! Granted, I have never pedaled in my chair so I accept that maybe it is fine—I'm just not willing to take the risk.

Personally, I'd go more for a walking desk or something where the motion is natural, but the desired cardio effect is the same.

Clever idea and implementation! I think from a health standpoint, though, this is a false positive and it is probably better to go for an old fashioned _walk_; or to drop to the floor and do some yoga.

For instance, sitting down too much is in itself detrimental to ones health (whether pedaling or not). E.g. prostate health, posture, etc.

In contrast, a stationary bike or road bike, the rider can stand up and pedal fast, etc. There's a much broader range of motion which make the activity healthy!

I'm surprised there is a distinction between the two at this point. What we have are "user interfaces" and both are graphical, whether it's interacting with text or graphics.

I think the main issues of usability are paradigm-independent—how do you make the UX more discoverable for text interfaces? How do you make the GUI more powerful and accessible to scripts? GUI development was introduced to make computers more tactile, and feel more life-like and accessible; and it works.

The reason Text-UIs work better for automation is that programming languages these days are text-based. How might one shift to a more graphical-programming paradigm? Machine learning I think has a lot of potential in this area and I would love to see some new work in this space.

Software today is a complicated mess. On the consumer side, peoples minds are so fickle and they want the latest shiny object or app; on the software side, companies are constantly inventing new ways to do the same old thing; hardware is getting tossed in the dump, when it is actually still very viable.

It's fascinating to see what people are doing with old hardware like Commodore 64, because it's understandable and doesn't change at this point. If we can use hardware that is almost 50 years old, why are cycling through things so rapidly?

I think this is common across all technological phases: wild west implementations preceeds standardization.

This is a mis-understanding of the OP. The internet is inherently a very __useful__ tool. The problem is that social-media companies have turned the need for social interaction into a crack-like addiction (by design) where peoples attention-spans are being sold piecemeal.

Social media is often a junk-food version of social interactions designed to sell ads to people. This leads to short attention spans and social anxieties. How many dinner tables have you sat at where couples sit there on their phones, and scarcely talk? This seems commonplace now...

MS Office is a great example of this because they squeeze money out of folks when it seems the features added are minimal. The only interesting aspect is cloud-collaboration, but that could be P2P instead. I'm willing to wager most folks still use the same subset of office functionality: page layouts and fonts and such have been around for a while; financial formulas rarely change; etc. But yet, they are charged an arm-and-a-leg for the "cloud."

And then there's Amazon with their lambdas—trying to convince people that they should forget how to program and rely on a plethora of beautiful, shiny one-liners.

So for every thing we "gain" here, what do we lose? Seems like we could forego frivolous products to save the planet, no?

This is why I think the proper crypto currencies are backed by another functional use instead of "just coins." (e.g. Ethereum vs. Bitcoin)—one is a useful Turing-complete machine; the other only exists to send coins.

Bitcoin will probably always outshine the other "just coins" because it was the first. Why get another coin if this one works fine for monetary transactions?

Similarly with the functional ones: Ethereum will probably always outshine the other "Global Turing Machines" because it was the first. We don't really need another one—assuming it can adapt to changes in efficiency with hard-forks as needed.

The rest of them really ought to provide another service underneath to become valuable.

I second this: it's because C is a simple language. Modern languages are a cluster-f*k of features and there are still opportunities to code in security holes. Frankly, if you were to boil down the "unsafe" C vulnerabilities it is a small class of exploits, suitable for automated detection.

The interesting thing about C is that it is one of the few languages which has been able to survive without massive changes throughout the years. All these hyped-up modern languages are in flux ALL THE TIME.

Honestly, just let them have a buffer-overflow. That's what we call "junk food" software and if they are negligent, let them fail.

I think it's the convenience for both buyers and sellers. If readers want the book "now" they get the kindle version; if they want it later they get the physical copy. However, Kindle in general is a dark pattern: it forces users to be locked into their product ecosystem.

If you do, please be sure to donate (time or money) to the open source projects to help better them! This is how open source can exceed commercial software. At the very worst case, if the projects tumble there's always a possibility to "fork" as an insurance policy.