14 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2019
    1. I don’t like reducers. I’ve tried using them, but I always end up migrating away. Something just feels wrong about dispatching actions to trigger business logic when I could instead do so by invoking a function with arguments.
    1. As Sebastian Markbage pointed out, no abstraction is superior to wrong abstractions. We are providing low-level components to maximize composition capabilities.
    1. Case in point: take this css selector: h1.header > a[rel~="author"] Its shortest functional XPath equivalent would be //h1[contains(" "+normalize-space(@class)+" "," header ")]/a[contains(" "+normalize-space(@rel)+" "," author ")] …which is both much harder to read and write. If you wrote this XPath instead: //h1[@class="header"]/a[@rel="author"] …you would incorrectly have missed markup like <h1 class="article header"><a rel="author external" href="/mike">...</a></h1>
  2. Sep 2018
  3. Jan 2018
  4. Oct 2017
    1. But, how confident our we that our manipulation of the light switch was the only variable changing in our experiment?

      Correction first "our" should be changed to "are".

  5. Apr 2017
  6. Nov 2016
    1. Coral reefs result from the work of little polyps, creatures only a few millimeters long, budded on top of one another. Over centuries, the shells of these creatures combine to form the exotic shapes of coral reefs. Tiny differences in the anatomy of each polyp species affect the shape of their shells and produce the exotic shapes of each reef.

      Skeletons, not shells. Far from the most articulate description but generally not wrong.

  7. Aug 2014
    1. When CO2 dissolves in water, we are NOT adding acid to the water.

      CO2 does increase the acidity when dissolved in water. For reference, see for instance "Once dissolved in seawater, CO2 gas reacts with water to form carbonic acid" in Doney et al (2008) http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834

  8. Oct 2013
    1. The ambitious man does wrong for sake of honour, the quick-tempered from anger, the lover of victory for the sake of victory, the embittered man for the sake of revenge, the stupid man because he has misguided notions of right and wrong, the shameless man because he does not mind what people think of him; and so with the rest -- any wrong that any one does to others corresponds to his particular faults of character.

      Types of people who commit wrong-doings. It is interesting because they all do the same things but for drastically different reasons.

    1. The fact is that anger makes us confident -- that anger is excited by our knowledge that we are not the wrongers but the wronged, and that the divine power is always supposed to be on the side of the wronged.

      It is pretty true. We aren't objective when we are angry.

    1. The worse of two acts of wrong done to others is that which is prompted by the worse disposition. Hence the most trifling acts may be the worst ones;

      But how would anyone know what kind of disposition the doer really possessed? This seems something that only an all-knowing God or gods would know, that is why our justice system works off of the crime committed. You get into difficult judgement calls when you start at the root of why someone did something. Like when people plead mental illness for why they committed a crime. I'm not making a judgement call on whether this is right. I'm only stating that if we start going that route, when do we stop? Do we scan everyone's brain for why they did it and blame it all on mental instability? What about when our technology gets so good that we can see each area of their brain that has been affected by abuse? There most likely is something funky going on in everyone's brain who does something terrible... so should we judge them on their actions or the reasons behind them?