If it makes you feel better, you can pretend they said "We make the games our customers want to play rather than the games we think they should want to play." Because that is what they said.
In so many words. I trust their second sentence is relevant and makes more sense to investors, but I imagined it being their slogan. "Gamador: We launch faster, iterate faster, and use metrics better" just sounds humorous (hence the giggling). To me, as a Joe-average user, it sounds more like That Guy from Futurama than "we make a lot of really addicting games".
I find martial arts discussions funny. More often than not it's a bunch of people arguing over which one is the "best" in a "real-world fight", which usually degrades into arguments over what "real-world fights" are like, because none of them has ever actually been in one. But it's pretty silly: I know I'd have fun in any martial art right now. If I wanted to know how to fight someone for real, I'd study some form of military combat.
I think the syntax cards were pretty bogus anyways. If you really wanted to compare syntax, you'd do better to compare grammars (e.g., Scheme's: http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z...) than to decide what's important enough to include in some gif. It's hand-wavy at best (cf. the explanations of why things like eql were on the card) and straw-man at worst.
Is this true? I was under the impression that the Haskell standard didn't formally specify its type semantics. Do works like http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mpj/thih/ "count" (i.e., is it the canonical reason we presume Haskell's type system is provably sound)? Honest question.
I'm surprised there seems to be so much LaTeX hatred floating around the comments. I don't really know anything about typography, but typesetting my documents using markup is a pleasure. While I often fall into the trap of designing as I type, as soon as I get the styling right, it's consistent. Once I get BibTeX references to compile correctly, I can just \cite (even \possessivecite or \citeasnoun) and not have to worry about dangling bibliography sources that aren't used anywhere in the paper, citation style inconsistencies (where does the volume number go again?), making typos in separate references to the identical source, and so on. Did I change the order of some figures? \ref will still refer to the correct number. I could highlight some word and chord a shortcut to italicize something, then have the processor try to be smarter than me about what should and should not be italicized after that, etc. But I'd rather \emph a word and be done with it (and be able to do things like \usepackage{ulem} to change emphasis to underlines instead). Rather than tabbing back and forth to try to get the proper list structure when the processor gets confused about line breaks, I can textually mark where I want the list to begin/end, where it should nest, etc. Instead of wading through menus and searching for a picture of an A with an umlaut, I can just type H\"{a}agen-Dazs directly. I can do all of this in Vim, where I have productive text-editing commands and even spell-checking. Not to mention typesetting math!
The post's tone is objectionable, I suppose. I'm sure LaTeX is not for everyone. The learning curve's too high for your standard high-school kid writing an English paper, and the payoff is minimal in such cases since word processors have many of the same features for managing bibliographies, header formats, etc. But compared to just typing it in plain text, using a word processor feels horrifically obtuse to me.
You can do that with LaTeX too. It will take a bit of configuration first, but once you've got it configured you can type Unicode characters in to your source and have them interpreted as LaTeX commands.
Physicists hope that the LHC will help answer the most fundamental questions in
physics, questions concerning the basic laws governing the interactions and
forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time,
especially regarding the intersection of quantum mechanics and general
relativity, where current theories and knowledge are unclear or break down
altogether.
Also, why does the URL need to be human-readable? URLs are for computers. The content is for the human.
Disagreed. I can't stand sites with ugly, incomprehensible URLs: even if they're just appending parameters ad infinitum, it's unnecessary drag on the process of editing, sharing, and typing the URL. E.g., something like
and could probably be made even simpler. Of course sites need to carry some amount of incomprehensible information (YouTube's video IDs, reddit's story IDs, marco.org's blog post numbers, etc.), but shoving as much as you can into the URL isn't the way to do it. I type specific URLs like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic and news.ycombinator.com/newest all the time. If the site author neglects to even have this sort of basic functionality, I tend to consider it a bad interface.
The context of a hyperlink is meaningful, but the text of the corresponding URL is of little relevance.
'Clean' URLs tend to be a REST anti-pattern, as they are tied up with the notion that the ability to edit an known URL to refer to a different resource constitutes an API, much less a REST-ful one. HATEOAS Motherfuckers!
