g*t
2 楼
后来他自己删了的。
I hate almost all software. It's unnecessary and complicated at almost every
layer. At best I can congratulate someone for quickly and simply solving a
problem on top of the shit that they are given. The only software that I
like is one that I can easily understand and solves my problems. The amount
of complexity I'm willing to tolerate is proportional to the size of the
problem being solved.
In the past year I think I have finally come to understand the ideals of
Unix: file descriptors and processes orchestrated with C. It's a beautiful
idea. This is not however what we interact with. The complexity was not
contained. Instead I deal with DBus and /usr/lib and Boost and ioctls and
SMF and signals and volatile variables and prototypal inheritance and C99_
FEATURES and dpkg and autoconf.
Those of us who build on top of these systems are adding to the complexity.
Not only do you have to understand $LD_LIBRARY_PATH to make your system work
but now you have to understand $NODE_PATH too - there's my little addition
to the complexity you must now know! The users - the one who just want to
see a webpage - don't care. They don't care how we organize /usr, they don't
care about zombie processes, they don't care about bash tab completion,
they don't care if zlib is dynamically linked or statically linked to Node.
There will come a point where the accumulated complexity of our existing
systems is greater than the complexity of creating a new one. When that
happens all of this shit will be trashed. We can flush boost and glib and
autoconf down the toilet and never think of them again.
Those of you who still find it enjoyable to learn the details of, say, a
programming language - being able to happily recite off if NaN equals or
does not equal null - you just don't yet understand how utterly fucked the
whole thing is. If you think it would be cute to align all of the equals
signs in your code, if you spend time configuring your window manager or
editor, if put unicode check marks in your test runner, if you add
unnecessary hierarchies in your code directories, if you are doing anything
beyond just solving the problem - you don't understand how fucked the whole
thing is. No one gives a fuck about the glib object model.
The only thing that matters in software is the experience of the user.
I hate almost all software. It's unnecessary and complicated at almost every
layer. At best I can congratulate someone for quickly and simply solving a
problem on top of the shit that they are given. The only software that I
like is one that I can easily understand and solves my problems. The amount
of complexity I'm willing to tolerate is proportional to the size of the
problem being solved.
In the past year I think I have finally come to understand the ideals of
Unix: file descriptors and processes orchestrated with C. It's a beautiful
idea. This is not however what we interact with. The complexity was not
contained. Instead I deal with DBus and /usr/lib and Boost and ioctls and
SMF and signals and volatile variables and prototypal inheritance and C99_
FEATURES and dpkg and autoconf.
Those of us who build on top of these systems are adding to the complexity.
Not only do you have to understand $LD_LIBRARY_PATH to make your system work
but now you have to understand $NODE_PATH too - there's my little addition
to the complexity you must now know! The users - the one who just want to
see a webpage - don't care. They don't care how we organize /usr, they don't
care about zombie processes, they don't care about bash tab completion,
they don't care if zlib is dynamically linked or statically linked to Node.
There will come a point where the accumulated complexity of our existing
systems is greater than the complexity of creating a new one. When that
happens all of this shit will be trashed. We can flush boost and glib and
autoconf down the toilet and never think of them again.
Those of you who still find it enjoyable to learn the details of, say, a
programming language - being able to happily recite off if NaN equals or
does not equal null - you just don't yet understand how utterly fucked the
whole thing is. If you think it would be cute to align all of the equals
signs in your code, if you spend time configuring your window manager or
editor, if put unicode check marks in your test runner, if you add
unnecessary hierarchies in your code directories, if you are doing anything
beyond just solving the problem - you don't understand how fucked the whole
thing is. No one gives a fuck about the glib object model.
The only thing that matters in software is the experience of the user.
h*y
3 楼
Formerly Blind Children Shed Light on a Centuries-Old Puzzle
In 1688, an Irish polymath named William Molyneux wrote the English
philosopher John Locke a letter in which he posed a vexing question: Could a
blind person, upon suddenly gaining the ability to see, recognize an object
by sight that he'd previously known by feel? The answer has potentially
important implications for philosophers and neuroscientists alike. Now,
researchers working with a medical charity that provides surgery to restore
vision in blind children say they've found the answer to Molyneux's question
. It's "no" but with a twist.
Molyneux posed his question in the midst of a philosophical debate about how
we comprehend the world around us. An affirmative answer to the question
would support the argument that we possess innate (and presumably God-given)
concepts that are independent of the senses—for example, that we possess a
concept of a sphere, regardless of whether we have only seen one, only felt
one, or both. A negative answer to Molyneux's question would support the
alternative argument that any concept of a sphere or other object must be
tied to sensory experience. In that view, a blind person would have only a
tactile concept of a sphere that would be of no use in recognizing the shape
by sight.
For modern neuroscientists, Molyneux's question raises issues about how the
brain integrates information from the different senses, says Richard Held, a
professor emeritus of brain and cognitive sciences at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. In search of the elusive answer,
Held teamed up with MIT colleague Pawan Sinha, who founded an organization
in 2003 to help blind children in India. Called Project Prakash, after the
Sanskrit word for "light," the group collaborates with Indian surgeons who
operate to restore sight in children who've been blind from cataracts or
other curable causes.
Held, Sinha, and colleagues recruited five children, ages 8 to 17, from
Project Prakash to tackle Molyneux's question. The researchers built 20
pairs of simple shapes from toy blocks and tested the children within 48
hours of the surgery to restore their sight. The children had not
encountered these unusual shapes before. In one experiment, the researchers
gave the children a shape to feel (without looking), then asked them to feel
two more shapes and indicate which was the same as the first one they'd
felt. All five children chose the right shape more than 90% of the time. In
a second experiment, the children could look but not touch. Again they
nailed it. But on the third and most crucial experiment, their performance
plummeted. After feeling a shape, the children did only slightly better than
chance at identifying it by sight alone, the team reports online today in
Nature Neuroscience.
That result suggests a negative answer to Molyneux's question. Because many
children travel long distances for the operations, most go home with their
families before the researchers can do follow-up experiments, Sinha says.
However, when the researchers retested two of the boys with a new set of
shapes a few days later, their accuracy on the touch-to-vision experiment
jumped to above 80%. That suggests a more nuanced answer of "initially no
but subsequently yes," Sinha says.
"It's a great story," says Alvaro Pascual-Leone, a neurologist and
neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School in Boston. The change in the
children's ability to integrate touch and vision happens too fast to be
explained by major rewiring in the brain, Pascual-Leone says. Even though
they grew up recognizing objects by touch, they needed only a little bit of
visual experience to learn to translate between the two senses. "They're not
starting from zero," he says.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.2795
In 1688, an Irish polymath named William Molyneux wrote the English
philosopher John Locke a letter in which he posed a vexing question: Could a
blind person, upon suddenly gaining the ability to see, recognize an object
by sight that he'd previously known by feel? The answer has potentially
important implications for philosophers and neuroscientists alike. Now,
researchers working with a medical charity that provides surgery to restore
vision in blind children say they've found the answer to Molyneux's question
. It's "no" but with a twist.
Molyneux posed his question in the midst of a philosophical debate about how
we comprehend the world around us. An affirmative answer to the question
would support the argument that we possess innate (and presumably God-given)
concepts that are independent of the senses—for example, that we possess a
concept of a sphere, regardless of whether we have only seen one, only felt
one, or both. A negative answer to Molyneux's question would support the
alternative argument that any concept of a sphere or other object must be
tied to sensory experience. In that view, a blind person would have only a
tactile concept of a sphere that would be of no use in recognizing the shape
by sight.
For modern neuroscientists, Molyneux's question raises issues about how the
brain integrates information from the different senses, says Richard Held, a
professor emeritus of brain and cognitive sciences at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. In search of the elusive answer,
Held teamed up with MIT colleague Pawan Sinha, who founded an organization
in 2003 to help blind children in India. Called Project Prakash, after the
Sanskrit word for "light," the group collaborates with Indian surgeons who
operate to restore sight in children who've been blind from cataracts or
other curable causes.
Held, Sinha, and colleagues recruited five children, ages 8 to 17, from
Project Prakash to tackle Molyneux's question. The researchers built 20
pairs of simple shapes from toy blocks and tested the children within 48
hours of the surgery to restore their sight. The children had not
encountered these unusual shapes before. In one experiment, the researchers
gave the children a shape to feel (without looking), then asked them to feel
two more shapes and indicate which was the same as the first one they'd
felt. All five children chose the right shape more than 90% of the time. In
a second experiment, the children could look but not touch. Again they
nailed it. But on the third and most crucial experiment, their performance
plummeted. After feeling a shape, the children did only slightly better than
chance at identifying it by sight alone, the team reports online today in
Nature Neuroscience.
That result suggests a negative answer to Molyneux's question. Because many
children travel long distances for the operations, most go home with their
families before the researchers can do follow-up experiments, Sinha says.
However, when the researchers retested two of the boys with a new set of
shapes a few days later, their accuracy on the touch-to-vision experiment
jumped to above 80%. That suggests a more nuanced answer of "initially no
but subsequently yes," Sinha says.
"It's a great story," says Alvaro Pascual-Leone, a neurologist and
neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School in Boston. The change in the
children's ability to integrate touch and vision happens too fast to be
explained by major rewiring in the brain, Pascual-Leone says. Even though
they grew up recognizing objects by touch, they needed only a little bit of
visual experience to learn to translate between the two senses. "They're not
starting from zero," he says.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.2795
d*3
4 楼
本身就是存在卡上的
s*y
5 楼
求总结
Z*L
6 楼
但是手机用着用着存储空间就变小了是怎么回事儿？
【在 d*******3 的大作中提到】
: 本身就是存在卡上的
【在 d*******3 的大作中提到】
: 本身就是存在卡上的
d*3
7 楼
可能是其他应用的缓存之类的
相关阅读
生物索南贺福初都忽悠进军委了，放军不可战胜阿。 (转载)Rapamycin需要微生物、代谢工程审稿的请私信从一件小事看学生物对人的摧残（美女篇）老板卸磨杀驴，我该怎样办 (转载)朋友说，能持续找到博士后就是成功cortical neuron gene？公司招聘Research Assistant，克利夫兰区域需要审稿经验的 -有帕金森相关方向稿件加州Irvine分校VS.明尼苏达Re: 针灸的西医原理是啥 (转载)如何一次性测多个蛋白的表达量变化？[求助]RNA-seq data怎么做broad的GSEA分析现在做cancer genomics是不是势微了？下周ASGCT年会约饭confocal microscopy 的两个问题生物女薄厚颜值的确高生物博士后的难题在于一个多目标任务文献求助所谓“有机食物”，“有机奶”，是否最大的忽悠？？？？？？？