I'd just like to comment, because this comment hasn't attracted any replies yet, and it is:
a) moronic
b) completely tangental to the point under discussion
The list of "things that people could do" is quite long. You, for example, could go live in a hole far, far away where there is no internet. To qualify for this list, things do not have to be: profitable, rational or feasible. However, when a company like Microsoft creates a product, they consider all of those things, likely in that order. Thus when you propose that "a thing Microsoft could do" is to find every game created within every calendar year, then, at great expense, replicate the antiquated equipment on which that software ran, then market and sell it very cheaply despite the costs of research, licensing and quality assurance, I think that is a thing which Microsoft is very unlikely to do. I don't think it would be a very clever thing for Microsoft to do, nor would it be good for gamers, because after the inaugural release of a million games from 1993 nobody cares about Microsoft would cease to exist as a commercial entity, having wasted all of it's resources on this terrible, terrible idea.
On the other hand, why were you even compelled to write this? The most imaginative, creative scenario you could imagine was that if software copyrights expired very quickly, you would like to pay someone for that software? Which is totally already a thing you can do, and the proceeds (in reality) would go to the creator of the software?
In conclusion, the internet has broken me. I have no more will to live, and I can only hope in the distant future a giant, faceless corporation will populate different planets with clones of all the people born in each year, so that my clone can go and live happily on the planet 1991 forever. Hopefully your clone will not be present.
Ignoring the venom in your comment, maybe the parent commenter is younger and unfamiliar with the infamous and evil Microsoft of the 1990s, and thus could be educated rather than belittled. See https://xkcd.com/1053/
It's kind of interesting, but damn this guy cannot communicate effectively. Was the point that > 8 bits of colour in HDMI is a good idea? That modern displays can't show them (I don't think this is true). Is his example image really suffering from being 8-bit colour, because it looks like it was exaggerated by setting the quantizer steps really big. There's also no real discussion or example of what chroma subsampling looks like.
The point is that democracy is not always good if you want to be exposed to new and interesting things. A million people will listen to Justin Beiber, or Katy Perry, but how does a new/obscure band get traction? It used to be radio spins, but radio is a dying medium. Beats is trying to give you something like your favourite local radio station, with an interesting mix of old favourites and new tracks that haven't reached a critical mass of listeners on other services.
In other words, if you only use people's listening preferences, you can only recommend established tracks well. Adding an editorial component lets you get ahead of the curve.
That's the purpose of the 'hot' algorithms that you get in a lot of ranking sites. In order to keep new content rising to the top, you can build algorithms that prioritise the rate of increase as well. Even weight the listens of users who historically listened to successful tracks before they got popular ('trendsetters' etc.).
So there are other alternatives to human curation when it comes to getting ahead of the curve.
In the next year I can imagine most people deploying Spark will be doing it on Hadoop, since Cloudera 5 will support Spark. It's a natural fit, most people don't hate HDFS but their use case doesn't naturally fit the MR programming model.
We've been using it on HDP2 for about a month now. Everything works fairly well and it was super easy to setup because of YARN (and the work the Spark team put in).
You don't happen to work at Cloudera, do you? I noticed you have some submissions about Impala and Oracle being evil, which seems to be a pretty common view among the ex-Oracle DBAs there
I do happen to work at Cloudera (hence the Impala submissions), although I'm neither an ex-Oracle DBA nor a huge believer that they're evil. I really don't have a lot of first-hand experience with Oracle as a company - which as you'll see, is why my submission was actually a question about the community's perception and why that's a common view.
Hey, I've recently begun the interview process at Cloudera, would you mind sending me an email? My address is in my profile, and I'd love to ask you a couple questions.
Which areas would you say HDFS needs improvement the most? Just so you know, HDFS is still very actively developed, and keeps introducing features / improving functionality (e.g Native NFS, In-Memory Caching, Short Circuit Reads, High Availability, Namespace Federation, etc) on a pretty regular basis.
Feel free to suggest new features, or contribute to the project yourself.
I know of the JIRA, thanks. I'm aware that it is being actively developed, but I don't necessarily believe that activity is progress. Keeping a few different players in the mix helps keep everyone focused on progress.
Buffet isn't a bad guy per se, but it's worth noting that a lot of the businesses Berkshire Hathaway owns are benefiting from inequality. Wikipedia mentions jewelery and uniform manufacture as two industries they're involved in, neither of which has a squeaky clean record. Does anyone know if his companies are involved in any activism?
The problem is that SO is not for entertainment. It's not even really for education. They (the site's operators) want it to be an injective mapping of google queries to solutions. You don't need to become a better programmer. You need to keep coming back to SO to ask more questions. On the other side they need to supply a steady stream of middling difficulty questions, because everyone isn't John Skeet.
Nobody is going to be working on a project and say "My client requires the use of obscure data structures, better Google some!". You can bash the multitude of jQuery questions, but having worked in a variety of settings, some people need things spelled out for them. You need a lot of simple questions with alternate wordings, different permutations of libraries, etc. Even though you can generalize these answers, they're hard to find from Google, and a lot of people will read "Undefined variable foo? Nonsense, my undefined variable is baz. Better open a new ticket".
To me, $.50 a page for a list of links to other resources seems like selling shovels to people trying to get in on the coding "goldrush". That said, I'd be into doing a review for my blog if you care to send a copy.
It's more than links to other resources. Having transitioned from a marketing/business background to a development career, I recall the areas that gave me the most trouble when I first started and would like to simplify that for others who would like to become more familiar with development.
I'll send over a copy as well, I'd be curious to get your opinion!
Flagged, because this is a complete non-story. It's not interesting, it's not well written, they probably feel like they've come out ahead by getting lots of views for their crappy blog. I know everyone on HN wants to pile on and show how smart they are that, but it's basically just long-form flamebait and we've been sucked in.
As far as I can tell the content of the update is never sent back. I just went on FB and started typing a status update. The status box expands, and loads some extra assets. But you can type and erase repeatedly and no extra HTTP requests are sent. I get the feeling their methodology was "Did the user request the status update assets? Did they subsequently post a status update?".
On the one hand, FB isn't doing anything evil. On the other hand, it shows how much clever stuff you can do by looking at people's intent based on information you already have.
a) moronic
b) completely tangental to the point under discussion
The list of "things that people could do" is quite long. You, for example, could go live in a hole far, far away where there is no internet. To qualify for this list, things do not have to be: profitable, rational or feasible. However, when a company like Microsoft creates a product, they consider all of those things, likely in that order. Thus when you propose that "a thing Microsoft could do" is to find every game created within every calendar year, then, at great expense, replicate the antiquated equipment on which that software ran, then market and sell it very cheaply despite the costs of research, licensing and quality assurance, I think that is a thing which Microsoft is very unlikely to do. I don't think it would be a very clever thing for Microsoft to do, nor would it be good for gamers, because after the inaugural release of a million games from 1993 nobody cares about Microsoft would cease to exist as a commercial entity, having wasted all of it's resources on this terrible, terrible idea.
On the other hand, why were you even compelled to write this? The most imaginative, creative scenario you could imagine was that if software copyrights expired very quickly, you would like to pay someone for that software? Which is totally already a thing you can do, and the proceeds (in reality) would go to the creator of the software?
In conclusion, the internet has broken me. I have no more will to live, and I can only hope in the distant future a giant, faceless corporation will populate different planets with clones of all the people born in each year, so that my clone can go and live happily on the planet 1991 forever. Hopefully your clone will not be present.