I'm a big fan of taskwarrior, a CLI todo list for linux. I find I use it more than web based ones as I'm always in the console so there's little mental mode switching to use it. Basically not having to go to a browser or touch the mouse makes all the difference.
I'd love it if someone made a todo web app that could sync with taskwarrior. You then get the online slick interface of the web app with the low friction accessibility of the console interface when in the zone at work.
Yeah - this works well and there are no catches. The data is in a few human readable files and there's a path in the config file (.taskrc) pointing to the directory where they live.
So you just move the data folder to your dropbox and edit your .rctask file accordingly. Of course you need to do this for every computer, so it makes sense for the few machines that you usually use but you don't really get the available-anywhereness of an online app.
My plea to the HN community; stop solving the same problems. If you really want to make something that people want then find something that people don't already have. This may be outside you area of immediate experience.
(Note - this comment was made without seeing the app - getting 502.)
Eh... what? If we didn't stop solving the same problems we would still be using WordPerfect and Google wouldn't exist. And without seeing it how do you know what it is even doing?
I didn't say stop improving on solutions that miss the mark. I just think there is a lot of unexplored territory for software developers. People like to solve problems they have and understand. To do list apps are the classic example for developers. I'm just saying there's a lot of opportunity out there if you step outside your comfort zone.
All I know about this app is that it's a web based todo app. I was clear on this so to pick me up on it is a bit out of line. A better response would be to point out how it improves on what's already available.
Not so fast. Yes, there are to do apps out there, but none that I've seen as easy to use and so beautifully designed. This is one of the most useful show HN apps I've used.
HN community: please continue innovating and creating better products. There is a ton of crap out there. hint: project management applications.
Yeah, fair comment. The art is deciding if there is sufficient room for improvement or if a novel approach will work. If I were splitting hairs I'd say we agree in that if the "right" solution isn't there then we don't have a solution.
"We raised from nearly every friend and family member we could get excited about our idea. The joke is, if Earbits fails we won’t have a friend or family member left."
Something is very wrong here. If people invest in anything they must take on the associated risk.
I think we agree, but to elaborate; The point I'm making is that this shouldn't be the case (and needn't be a joke). I've raised funds from "friendly" sources a few times. In each case it's been made clear that the investor should be doing so doing so to make money. If they lose their money it's because they invested poorly, and it was their decision. They are asked to weigh up their other investment options such as the stockmarket and property and make a call.
If friends and family want to 'help out' then investing is probably not the vehicle. They should lend money. There's will be less upside for them but the debt will stand if the venture fails.
The statement is a little misleading. He's not saying you can't have a function that grows faster than e^x as you certainly can, for example the the gamma function.
I think he's saying that for a process where the rate of growth depends on the current "population" such as interest in a bank or splitting bacteria then exponential growth is limit.
Perhaps this would be more intuitive if shown graphically. Something like; draw a curve where the gradient is the value. As the value goes up, so does the gradient, so does the value and so on. What you have drawn, e^x is the function where the value is the gradient - exponential growth.
Thanks for this - this is exactly how you would say it to someone who doesn't know what a derivative is. Apologies for assuming anyone interested in this would know calculus - poor form indeed! Explaining in terms of derivatives definitely isn't simple if you don't know what a derivative is.
Part of the reason for this is that the center of the galaxy is in the South, at about 30 degrees. So many astronomically interesting things are in that direction. Obviously not the case for a solar system object like an asteroid however.
I think there's a converse to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory—let's call it the Greater Reality Stick-up-the-butt Theory. Basically, in real life, we enforce social norms on one another that we don't actually see the merit in ourselves, because others expect us to enforce those norms and punish/shun us if we don't enforce those norms (think of the monkey/water story: http://freekvermeulen.blogspot.com/2008/08/monkey-story-expe...). Anonymity allows for the relaxation of those norms, because nobody's around to catch you not calling someone out for doing something that you would normally call them on, but which you actually see no rational reason to be calling them on, besides some vague sense of "propriety."
Basically, anonymity allows people to treat everyone around them as utter foreigners—you don't expect me to have any grounding in your culture, and I don't expect you to have any grounding in mine, so neither of us "needs" to be upset when the other does something that is uncouth. Because of this, discussion can concentrate more on facts, and less on signalling, which I (and I think many introverted people) find a less stressful mode of communication.
Tangentially, I think this explains why many people on the internet have a annoyance-trigger at the undefined name-dropping of specific locales within, say, the US (with the usual response of "we're not all from the US", even if the person stating that is, in fact, from the US)—it grounds the discussion in a specific culture, which increases the likelihood of some subset of the people in the conversation finding a valid means of conveying subtext—which then leaves others out of that subtext, creating a kind of I-can't-enforce-norms-I'm-not-aware-of anxiety which is projected into a problem with the context being introduced in the first place.
In a lesser way, this is also why people tend to overreact to women who identify themselves as such on the Internet: they're introducing an ambient cultural context that increases norm-enforcement anxiety. (Interestingly, there's a specific name for Internet-age gender-role-relative-norm-enforcement: "white knighting." It's quite common to see people calling the practice out, though usually even the people themselves aren't sure precisely why they're unhappy about it.)
I'd say that's an overly internet-communication-favoured assessment of the situation. Note that people from the same culture talking over the phone also tend to pay less attention to whether they're offending the other person involved. At least part of the difference in communication style is simply because it's easier to not care about how you're hurting the other person when you can't see them, or directly observe their reaction.
Anonymous communication over the internet (for all its many, many virtues) depersonalises communication, and that has both good and bad results.
There is less risk in being honest when I'm online. If I voice an opinion around my coworkers or family that they strongly disagree with[1], there is a chance that could change my relationship with them for the worse. Some people hold grudges for a very long time over minor things.
On irc, if someone decided to hold a grudge I can simply add them to the short list of people I've put on permanent /ignore. In real life I have to deal with them on a daily basis.
There is also the added benefit of irc having scroll back and delays in communication. I can read what I've said before so I don't forget what I'm talking about. I can also walk away for 5 minutes to grab a drink and cool off if the debate gets heated. It would be very difficult to do either gracefully in a live conversation.
1: Example topic: The death penalty.
One of my coworkers has voiced a strong opinion on putting to death anyone that kills another human being except in a clear cut case of self-defense. I disagree with his opinion in the strongest way but I keep my mouth shut because inviting a civilized debate over that topic is a good way to ruin an otherwise enjoyable lunchbreak. On IRC, I would be happy to invite debate because the cost of the debate going bad is far less.
I don't think the concept of contributing anonymously is necessarily a bad thing. Your online personality might be polite and contribute positively where as your real world personality might very shy and unable to participate in discussions at all.
Perhaps "hack" isn't the right word but there are techniques or tricks that will result in higher productivity.
One technique I use is to think about how I would tackle a task if I were to do it. So you start to break it down, think about the first step, and what would follow. Pretty soon what was an really objectionable undertaking seems achievable and I launch into it.
>> >> but there are techniques or tricks that will result in higher productivity.
Yes, there are, but what nhangen is saying is very important - what if someone is in a totally wrong place (for himself), but tricked himself to be motivated to work on something which ultimately doesn't bring him happiness or fulfillment?
If you have to "#11: Reward yourself. Often.", isn't it an indicator that the intrinsic reward is lacking in the activity? Then why trick oneself to spend time on it?
Yeah, I take the point. I wouldn't like to lead a work life where my only motivation comes from artificial rewards or motivational hacks. If there is no intrinsic motivation in the work then something fundamental has gone wrong, like career choice.
However, we are human, and the most suitable work for an individual is still work, parts will be more painful than others. It's these parts where there can be, let's call them "disciplines" that will help.
1. Some technical people deliberately explain things in an overly technical way as it boosts their ego. "You don't understand this => I am superior."
2. All communication must be for the recipient. You must bend over backwards to help them understand. This is what good communication is. If it's hard work for the recipient it's poor communication.
That idea was from a concept I came across somewhere on the web; "No one wants to read your s--t" . I think it's something of a mantra in the advertising world.
It struck me at the time as I was working with a CEO who thought length == quality in communication, both writing and discussions. I think that he wrote things for his own gratification, it probably gave him a feeling of productivity. Sadly a lot of what he wrote wasn't read, or not a carefully as it should have been. It takes effort and generosity to write for the reader.
Yes. I'm amazed at how many people I deal with have little or no ability to consider they're audience's viewpoint. Everything from inside jokes in front of larger groups that have no clue what's funny to coworkers that walk up to me and rattle off an update on something they've been working on / thinking about all day when I have no idea what they're talking about. The ability to think outside of your own context is very helpful and a key "people" skill.
I'd love it if someone made a todo web app that could sync with taskwarrior. You then get the online slick interface of the web app with the low friction accessibility of the console interface when in the zone at work.