I find that none of the drawn emoticons I see ever really depict what I mean by :/ It's not a sad face as in that set. It's like "huh" or "what" or "ok", neither sad nor happy, it's puzzlement, filler, sometimes a "uhhh". Maybe that's just me though.
I think that conveys "bored" or "unimpressed" more than "puzzled". Funny how two dots and a line mean such subtly different things to different people.
I've been using "emoticons" for quite a long time (1980s) and to me :\ means basically what bellerocky described... you might be sad, or you might be happy, but basically you're just kind of confused.
In any case, there may be a generational component to this, or it might even be "regional", though the regions would be more about which forums, etc you hang out on rather than a geographical region.
Agreed. I have always read it as "meh" (closely related to "shrug" with asterisks), however I could agree with "what" as well. It's definitely not sad though.
I think HLS is pretty awesome and this hasn't anything to do with HTML5 as what Chrome supports doesn't allow for live streaming, which is why sites like Twitch still use flash for Chrome. Chrome should support HLS, but they aren't going to for anything but Android, so flash it is for the foreseeable future. If anyone knows why or where I am mistaken I would like to know.
The issue is not black and white. Why should Chrome implement Apple HLS, rather than Adobe HDS, Microsoft SmoothStreaming, or MPEG DASH, among other HTTP streaming formats? What about RTSP -- a protocol designed for streaming, which Android had good support for in the video tag?
In any case, live streaming in Chrome is possible with WebM, or even WebRTC. Flash is not ideal either, but at least it has consistent support on the desktop.
RTSP doesn't go through firewalls easily. That's pretty much why Apple invented HLS. It's a nice, minimalist solution to adaptive bitrates that uses standard HTTP to get the job done. Big players such as the BBC have adopted the standard (ugh, I'm writing a client for it right at the moment!), so it's not a particularly fair categorisation to label this as a purely Apple thing.
If it's possible why hasn't anyone implemented such a thing? I'd like to implement such a thing and I wouldn't know where to start, but I would with HLS. This is the 1990's all over again. Different browsers supporting different standards, different video encodings, different JavaScript features, sometimes, when I'm having a spell, I'm not so sure competition is actually all that great anymore.
And no you cannot stream with webrtc without building a complicated back end webrtc MCU implementation which requires significant engineering and is not at all supported by the creators of webrtc who are focused on peer to peer inside browsers.
In the 1990s, people used to write these things called plugins to add features, like support for specific video containers and codecs, to browsers. Now I guess browsers have to have everything built in or not at all. "Progress".
As someone who lives and works in the bay area, you cannot buy a house with a software engineer's salary, not unless it is a very poor neighborhood, in which case you're contributing to gentrification, or you want to drive 2 hours from Pleasanton. I say that as a software engineer home owner who bought a house before the prices sky rocketed again in 2011. I wouldn't be able to afford my own house right now.
If you are an entry level software engineer, living alone, you could buy and afford a condo. I agree house prices are out of reach now unless you're a sr. software engineer. All I can say is rent a room for as long as you can (~800 a month or less) for now, and save every penny you can. Once the next housing market crash takes place you will have a downpayment ready. It worked for me.
The median home value in Pleasanton is 850k. 100k more than San Jose. If you are trying to save money, that's probably not the place to do it. Really you are looking at Antioch/Concord up 680 or over the Altamont on 580 to Tracy if you want to get significantly more affordable. Both are heinous commutes though.
As a kid, I had a parent that worked at the Almaden IBM campus. The commute from the Livermore/Pleasanton area was about 40-50 minutes going over 84. Crazy how much worse traffic is now, I can't imagine making that drive daily now. They've been working on the the 237/Mission exits on 680 for nearly 20 years and it has only gotten worse.
Yeah, I also don't understand how buying a house within one's own means is gentrification. Is the definition of "afford" different between your "very poor" neighbors and you, the "software engineer"?
OK, I guess maybe the original point was that there are super-cheap and super-expensive houses, and software engineers could afford something in between. They have to choose a poor neighborhood where they are wealthier, or a reasonably-priced but distant suburb.
Individuals have a lot of sway in Hollywood. It's all star power. Money and talent flock to the stars, and by stars I include producers, writers and directors in addition to actors and actresses. They make money and are prestigious to work with, especially if the movie is successful. In addition to individual behavior there are also the various unions like the Writers Guild of America, the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild of America and organizations like the MPAA and AMPAS and in television ATAS which all wield considerable influence and money. Though it is TV and not movies, Netflix succeeded because it played by their rules.
You can't just disrupt this because it's more than wealth, it's a culture that has been around many generations now and created film making what it is today. There's an incredible gravitational well that sucks all the incredible skill and talent found in the world right into Hollywood. It's not going anywhere.
You could argue its all 'star power' in the valley too, money and talent do seem to follow people who have a couple of big exits on their resume. One of the differences though is the artistic element. Engineering startups is an 'art' but it isn't the kind that brings out the 'artist temperament' as some refer to it.
I don't have enough real knowledge about how that gets done so I can't really say if such a thing could happen, but I do see a lot of similarities between Bay Area culture and So Cal culture which are both warped a bit by their respective economic engines.
I think in the context, a person with an idea and no code, it does come of a bit silly to want to sign an NDA. I'm not sure why a consulting company works with such people. I'm guessing they cater to people with ideas who have too much money?
Its simple. Consulting companies have to talk to people to get jobs. Those people commonly ask them to sign an NDA. You do it or you don't get the first conversation.
There's an easy solution to this problem: just have your own confidentiality agreement (which you can have vetted, once, by your lawyer), and offer it. We'll sign other firm's paper, but we won't do it without legal review, and we'll avoid legal review if it looks like no work is going to come from the discussion.
Reverting a merge is totally OK if you kept your history clean and rebased the branch you're merging into to get updates instead of merging it into your branch.
Like if you created a new branch from master and you have been merging master into your branch to get updates in master, once you merge your branch into master you cannot revert this merge because the act of merging master into your branch changed which branch owned commits.
If you rebased master into your branch instead everything will be fine. If you merge your branch into master, reverting that merge will simply undo the merge as you expected.
Yeah wow, Skipper is holding on to a legacy business that going to get disrupted from top to bottom. How do they not see that incredibly expensive cable subscriptions that provide scheduled broadcasts with filled with patronizing advertisements is somehow better than something like Netflix, YouTube or LiveStream?
I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things? I hope I never do this. Being able to watch content at any time you want is better than having to schedule your time around broadcasts. No advertisements is better than having to endure advertisement breaks in the middle of a show.
Same with newspapers. You can't share newspaper content easily. You can't click on a word and Google it or look up information about Ukraine's president while reading the news paper. Newspapers take up space in your house and unread newspapers are a huge waste. I get some people like distraction free reading, without a glaring bright screen so the case here isn't as clear cut as with a TV, but the point is valid.
Older people, by virtue of having been around longer should be more capable of recognizing the pattern of new innovation leading to improvements, and not get stuck. I just don't get it, and I hope this doesn't happen to me, I'm already nearly in my 40's so we'll see.
Because the aggravation of obtaining, understanding, and maintaining a computer + internet connection is not worth the trouble.
I hear people claim that once everything's set up, it's easy. That's not my experience. Every time I go home I've got to deal with issues with my mom's computer and internet. They're never her fault, and sometimes they're difficult to solve, even for a tech person.
Watching video online is great when everything goes right. But it seems like a good portion of the country has fairly lousy internet, which makes videos sputter or stop. People who grew up with the ease and reliability of tv have a hard time stomaching these kinds of problems.
Also, when you get older, you don't necessarily want more choices. Your mind is tired and cluttered, you just want to relax in front of the tv and not have to sort through an infinite array of choices or deal with technical issues.
>I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things?
Because they are used to it and it works for them, so they couldn't be bothered? It's not all about "optimization" of options and full utilization of potential features, sometimes personal convenience is more important.
>Same with newspapers. You can't share newspaper content easily. You can't click on a word and Google it or look up information about Ukraine's president while reading the news paper. Newspapers take up space in your house and unread newspapers are a huge waste. I get some people like distraction free reading, without a glaring bright screen so the case here isn't as clear cut as with a TV, but the point is valid.
Not being able to "click on a word and Google it" is exactly why some people prefer newspapers. And it's exactly why some people who read the news on the web actually read 1-2 articles, skim 90% of them, and end up with cat videos somewhere on the corners of YouTube.
Also some people don't like sharing content. Why would I want to share a news item? As if I'm the purveyor of news to my un-englightened friends? Finally, "newspapers taking space in a house" is a first world problem if there ever was one. Let's be honest: nobody really considered "newspapers taking place" a real problem...
>> I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things?
They have less to do, and probably don't care as much about maximizing every minute of their day. They probably also like a routine. Dinner at 5:00p, Matlock at 6:00p...
>> Newspapers take up space in your house and unread newspapers are a huge waste. I
You can also read a newspaper if you don't have internet, or your internet connection is slow, or down, or you can read it out on the porch or the boat where your wifi doesn't reach, you don't need an iPad to read it...
You also can't line the bottom of a birdcage, pack dishes, wash windows, or get a fire going with an online newspaper. You also can't cut an article out to save or pin up on the fridge.
> Older people, by virtue of having been around longer should be more capable of recognizing the pattern of new innovation
Not necessarily. The current generations of "old people" have always had TV; they have always had books, newspapers and magazines; they have always had cassettes for music (vinyl was the reserve of a rich minority and CDs weren't mainstream until the '90s). They have always had cars, trains, electricity, airplanes. They were already 30+ by the time videogames and PCs came about, which is why they left them to their kids. In fact, they saw the digital revolution happening in the workplace and were taken aback, to the point where, 30 years later, they are still not particularly comfortable with it.
The generations that saw real technological revolutions, innovations changing their way of life in radical ways, were the ones that fought the first and second World War. A lot of them didn't have home telephones or electricity while growing up, often even running water was missing; they didn't have cars, trains were expensive, and the thought of flying was just ludicrous. They bought the first radios and TVs and marveled at silent movies. Those generations could recognise change; the current oldies mostly saw marginal improvements, all considered. They spent most of their time actually dealing with social changes, rather than technological; which is why they are responding to the current wave of changes with a barrage of social prescriptions (i.e. silly new laws) -- they can see the social change happening, although they don't really understand the technological underpinnings of it.
> I don't understand why older people hang on to less optimal way of doing things...
I'd imagine they simply don't understand how these things work. I don't think my parents have ever intentionally watched a YouTube video. I'm sure they've heard of Netflix, but I don't think they know how to setup it up... so they wont even consider the value proposition... even though their Blu-ray player has built-in Netflix support.
We've grown up with this technology so it's not a big deal to rip a DVD or download a torrent.
But if you're barely aware that these things even exist, it's difficult to actually learn how to use them... even if the procedure is ultimately trivial.
I think having a dedicated TV with cable is optimal:
1. Computers and Internet are for work (HN being an exception), TV is for
entertainment. It makes sense to keep things separate, even physically
separate.
2. If I watch TV, I do *not* want to be bothered about thinking what to watch.
I reserve these kinds of decisions for work or for things that actually
matter.
3. If another person makes the program for me, I'm likely to be exposed to
interesting things that I would not have picked by myself.
There are a lot of different modes of entertainment. One that you describe is pretty rare - "Show me something I would like to see, I don't care what, maybe something new".
Obviously this is a useful mode to have. TV channels about wildlife and history are good examples - you can turn them on even for 10 minutes while you do some chores, for example. But for "stateful" content like sports or TV series this is suboptimal. And that's the bulk of entertainment.
> It makes sense to keep things separate, even physically separate
Saying something doesn't make it true.
>2. If I watch TV, I do not want to be bothered about thinking what to watch. I reserve these kinds of decisions for work or for things that actually matter.
Fair point. It's the same reason I listen to pandora in that sometimes I'd rather not choose.
> 3. If another person makes the program for me, I'm likely to be exposed to interesting things that I would not have picked by myself.
Maybe but more often than not, this isn't true unless you find the massive amounts reality tv to be interesting.
But none of the reasons you describe make TV with cable optimal for anything except lying back and having random (not necessarily good or interesting) entertainment thrown at you and exposing yourself to hours of psychological marketing tricks.
Because in a lot of ways a decent smart TV at say 50 inches with iPlayer is lot less fuss than messing about with a pc and a much smaller display an suboptimal sound.
I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I should have explained myself better. Basically using a smart tv is analogous to young people using the internet in this situation because
A. You are picking and choosing your content.
B. You aren't exposed to advertisers (unless you are using hulu but even then you are picking what show you want to watch)
C. You aren't paying a massive monthly subscription.
D. It works using the internet, not cable.
The article isn't so much about using a TV (the actual device that displays the picture) or a computer monitor as it was about watching "traditional" tv (the content, shown in a scheduled manner)
I've checked out the packages, the ddp, the binary json stuff, etc it's all in there. Except for all the var self = this; stuff, I quite like it. They have really smart people over there.
What would a better alternative be for `var self = this` ? I use it all the time, never thought of it as an anti-pattern as long as it's only declared where you actually need it.
