Depends on where you look. Last year (this year, actually) I saw several openings looking for Rails experience I think.
Besides, the projects are pretty open about it. You can approach a project and come up with your own ideas. Not only this makes you more noticeable, it gives you the flexibility to do what you really want.
There has been a lot of buzz in the (scientific) twitter/blogo-sphere regarding this. The main point of contention is essentialy the % of functional element ENCODE annotates. As it turns out, their criteria of denoting a DNA element as 'functional' is debatable (i.e. a DNA sequence with biochemical activity). These elements when deleted from the genome often has no visible phenotypic change to the organism (us), which is why the % they put is believed to be way too much.
Maybe not observable effects. There so many tiny things that must be in our genes that switches that affect anatomy are probably a small percentage. For example, the way people's laughs sound or the fact that almost everyone is attracted to paradisiacal places are probably influenced by genes and not just culture and nurture.
That is one possibility. But with subtle things like that, the trick is to come up with an experiment that either supports or falsifies them. Until such data exist, it remains a mere hypothesis.
As someone who uses YouTube a lot to listen to music: thanks for this!
I have some comments + questions, though:
Comments:
1.The video feels too small for such a large screen estate. Perhaps add an option to resize it? Or relocate it to the bottom of the screen or top of the playlist, instead of using the corner..
2. You should add an option to directly copy-paste the URL. As I see it now, I can't even highlight it.
EDIT: 3. How do you determine which video gets played? Sometimes the video I want is not the one as the top result, but #4 or even #5. Maybe add an option to use the next video in the search results?
Questions:
1. How did you create it? What do you use for the frontend and backend? Are you planning to release the code somehow? (just curious)
Again, thanks :)! It feels very slick and I like the color scheme.
Almost every part of the human body directly exposed to the environment is covered with microbes: the skin, the gut lining, your mouth, your nasal passage, etc. Only a small part isn't (as I recall your eyes are sterile). I don't have proper citation for this, but AFAIK if you disrupt the microbial balance on these surfaces it might result in health-related problems. So in a way, yes, we need them to live healthy.
Other parts have to be kept sterile. Your brain, your heart, your lymph nodes, are some examples. When these parts gets infected, you get sick.
On another note, microbes are fantastic creatures. The earth is covered in them and they've been around much longer than us. They can live off a myriad of different substances and even without the sun.
Getting to the starred lists and to the watched lists require a considerably different navigation. (e.g. why is there a "Stars" tab beside the "Issues" tab but no "Watch" tabs? Why are my own repos starred instead of watched?)
The default was set to the first option, which (as much as I hate to say it), still gives his argument some grounds. Google should've set it as opt-in instead of opt-out.
But, man, talk about being over the top. It's Google's products that he's using for free. They don't owe anything to him. His rant does more damage to his character than to Google's profits, IMO.
EDIT: It goes without saying that I prefer Will Wheaton's post much more than Scoble's. And he's not 'freaking out' as Scoble claims.
They actually do owe him something, like being the evangelist for their platform. Scoble did do free marketing for G+ (on every place he is/was - I know this from Quora, for example).
At least Google could have asked the top users on G+ before releasing this. Is that hard to do? You suppose not to alienate your users, especially when something you are competing against (Facebook) is already established and you want those users.
I feel 'meh'. I just fixed mine, and that's it. People shouldn't rely on Facebook for making new connections anyway. And my friends who are there know how to contact me better than to rely on Facebook only.
I mean, do people seriously expect these things not to happen? We don't have absolute control over these things. These companies only give us the illusion of control so we can make them some cash, at the end of the day.
How does this stack up against Google Docs or other similar collaborative document websites/apps? The only obvious difference I see is versioning support, but I doubt versioning works well with regular documents.
We're based on Crocodoc API as specified above we won't offer the ability to modify the document but rather start a discussion around through a coherent Issue tracking system.
We won't offer the ability to modify the document. The document is owned by the owner of the project who puts it out there to hits participants for review and issue tracking.
Hope it helps better understand the use case for CarbonDraft?
Forgive me for being too blatant, but I'm puzzled by their reason of doing this. Do people really switch search engines because of the UI? I understand that some people might prefer the less cluttered version, but when it comes down to it, the way it looks is secondary to its primary function: giving you good results. After a while, the look becomes less important.
I don't think it also serves their interest well, too, when their UI is a reminder of their competitor (the retro look of their competitor, to be precise). Google succeeded with a minimalistic UI because it made them look different from the rest and no one did it before. When Bing does it now, it makes them look like Google.
>the way it looks is secondary to its primary function: giving you good results.
I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but I'm not sure you understand human psychology in this area. Humans are very consistently swayed by looks over intrinsic value.
People aren't necessarily doing quantitative A/B tests between search engines, they're just plugging the latest search terms they want answers to into the search field and (in many cases) getting a search result that seems to fit the bill.
If the search engine displays results in an visually uncluttered (seemingly authoritative) way then that would seem like a good search engine choice.
There was that blog post the other day where someone updated and improved their site design and was lauded by users for all the new features they had introduced, when all they'd done was refresh the design.
Hey, no problem :), I'm just here for the discussion.
> but I'm not sure you understand human psychology in this area. Humans are very consistently swayed by looks over intrinsic value.
I do understand that looks matter to a degree. Some website redesigns does make them much more appealing. But I feel like at best the effects are only temporary. It doesn't take long before the user gets bored and thinks about how ugly it looks, unless the redesign comes with added functionality/feature (which I fail to find in this case).
Moreover, I mentioned earlier that it doesn't seem beneficial for Bing that its redesign is a reminder of its competitor. So I still find their decision puzzling.
>unless the redesign comes with added functionality/feature (which I fail to find in this case).
The redesign, in-and-of-itself likely provides added f/f in terms of reduced cognitive load in parsing the search results page. It's simple and easily grokked.
>a reminder of its competitor.
I don't think anyone is definitively and quantifiably testing Google search results in their day to day lives, but I suspect there's a nagging sense that they're not really as 'good' as they used to be.
I speculate that it's because the results have become more cluttered. Very few people would consciously compare Bing 2.today with Google 2.yesterday.
I think it's a clever play. It will probably not pan out as it's difficult to turn a ship as large as "Default Search" in another direction but we live in interesting times.
Around 90% of the searches I do are for "easy" things that any search engine should be able to find. Since I would only need to go back to Google for around 10% of the searches, if a competing search engine made the 90% case more pleasant to use would be a win for me.
Are you sure about that? Since one of out ten searches would fail, I'd think one would quickly develop a bias and start saying "Bing never works for my searches and I always have to go back to Google anyways."
That seems plausible only if the search quality differs by a small margin. I haven't been using Bing extensively, but I remember trying some queries a while ago and Google was showing better results. Is this still the case now or have they improved considerably?
I've tried to use Bing as my default search engine in moments of frustration but always go back to Google. The main reason is UI. Bing has too much fancy JavaScript that slows it down and confuses me ever so slightly, and the information is a little harder to scan, perhaps because of familiarity with Google.
The package manager is just so sweet.