That's completely fair. But my proposition was not about your preferences. I conjectured that a shift to a more whole view of employers (rather than just machines) would be beneficial for most people.
The purpose of my life outside of work right now is dating women so I think you are treading dangerous waters by asking people to bring a more "whole" view of themselves into the workplace when that is perceived to be the problem in the first place.
Again, a "more whole view" is not a complete view. I didn't suggest that we bring in all aspects of life. Why is it that people purposely misunderstand my words / does not see the scope? (I talked generally, not individually, and I did not talk about bringing all aspects in)
What we really need is that fast to start up apps for customer acquisition and then the long term downloads as an offering for the customers who want the speed.
As a developer I'd also prefer to use QT. I actually enjoy C++ a lot and writing performant, pleasant apps. Slow bulky electron apps are the bane of my existance but maybe they look good to an over-budget project manager.
I have noticed that with some Electron apps in the past, but I had actually never noticed that with Discord. I thought it was native for the first 4 months I was using it because it was just done so well, no lag and such. The one thing that usually gives away electron apps is their lack of custom right-click handling, meaning a right-click will give you the generic context menu you would normally see in a browser. Discord seems to handle all right-clicks with their own context menus which is why I never caught onto it at first.
Make the window too small and the buttons overlap in the titlebar. I didn't even pick an extremely small size or anything, this was about half my screen width on my Macbook. But this is the kind of thing that making a proper native app forces you to think about, but that making an Electron app often doesn't.
I can pretty much tell within a minute of starting an Electron app because things just don't feel right no matter what the app is. Sibling mememachine is also pretty accurate - Discord is very oversized like many other Electron apps.
Not using native platform widgets is also incredibly noticable. Every time you're not using native platform buttons or menus it's so easy to tell, it feels weirdly slow, has excessive gaudy animations, the spacing is wrong, text size is wrong, etc. That's not to say that it can't be done right just that you're on an existing platform and that consistency is key.
While you do raise some valid points, and some that I disagree with, I've grown to appreciate such apps as of late. There was a time not long ago where half the shit on my computer was Java because that was the only practical way to make a decent cross-platform application without having to relearn different things for each platform. Yeah, the whole "apps built on web-technology" movement could use some refinement to reduce bloat and such, but when done correctly, it seems to work out pretty well for the most part.
It can be a good thing. Imagine Donald Trump saying that Obama wasn't born in USA. Obama or anyone could create an annotation with a witty response on that particular sentence or video time frame and a link to the PDF with his birth certificate. Trump could also defend himself inside the "fake news" by commenting directly and exposing the malicious attempt of manipulation.
I actually find comments like yours far more obnoxious than level-headed criticism. This communities purpose is not to be a marketing team for whoever wants to post here. Criticism is much more edifying than blind support.
The problem I see in this community is that much of the time, many aren't providing criticism. If it were only criticism, I'd even agree. The truth is that the so called "criticism" is really armchair quarterbacking most of the time.
With the quality of data we have from the past your reconstruction can only be so accurate. Its not a stretch to say our reconstructions cant really predict the short term spikes were trying to compare against.
That's what's called a "p-value", and as you guessed it is indeed calculated. It's a basic tool of science, to the point that even better probabilistic tools have been advocated for years, and it's one of the first things you check when you're reviewing a paper.
I'm aware of what a "p-value" is but what were talking about is reconstruction from historical samples and its perfectly calculable what kind of events wouldnt show up in that reconstruction (and p-values have almost nothing to do with it). Your attitude is obnoxious.
You say it's calculable and I agree. What's make you think it isn't calculated? Sorry if I came out as obnoxious, but "you should be able to calculate that" is a veiled accusation that it is in fact not calculated, as if no scientists take this seriously.
"How unlucky we would have been to see this data of the past, if a spike in temperatures had actually happened then" is P(data|hypothesis), the frequentist argument for or against a hypothesis. It's what a p-value is, but arguing what to call it is pointless anyway.
Im not making an accusation that climate scientists wouldnt calculate this, because its not something thats in the content of the paper were discussing. My accusation is that you (or whoever i replied to) didnt have that data.
At the same time I wouldn't be surprised if there were climate scientists who chose to avoid these sorts of calculations.
Also, the p-value might tell you whether or not an event like this would literally be one of your samples, but its not whats going to tell you whether or not a reconstruction from these samples contains information about these events. Although I guess its not much of a distinction.
I don't have the data, and it'd be a cool trivia to know. I don't think corradio said "incredibly unlucky" because he just flipped a coin. Rather because if the probability weren't so, global warming, as an unprecedented thing, wouldn't be discussed outside of scientific circles yet.
And that's fine, given that I nor that commenter have the data. But if you believe your critique against the science of the matter is something the whole set of climate scientists happen to have overlooked for decades, the burden is on you to read the actual papers and find out if you're right or not.
If you're right and all of them have overlooked it, you'll have material for a hell of a paper yourself: There's nothing more juicy than a paper that mathematically proves that a pile of accepted scientific literature is flawed.
Imagining possible flaws of a paper before reading it is so easy that it's hard to really strike gold (it is equally easy for the authors and reviewers). But it is also an enjoyable way to learn how those flaws have been taken care of.
Of course I don't think all climate scientists would've over looked it, I think probably the friction is between climate scientists and people who report on (and thus people who end up talking about) climate scientists. I think its perfectly possible that the results arent as dramatic or causally linked as theyre portrayed to be, and I have yet to see a genuine consensus to prove me wrong.
And lets not pretend one or two papers that make bold claims hold much water.
I've been misled by popular media many times, so color me unsurprised that they might be selling some bullshit about this as well. (Not that they certainly are.)
Agreed: you have to read the papers, or literature reviews by experts, to convince yourself. I'm a physicist and when it comes to physics, the articles journalists write might as well be completely made up.
The AGW papers I've read, though, are very solid, and more sophisticated than I expected.
