Knuth is great, but if we are going to attribute this derivation, we have to go far longer back in time. De Moivre was the first to derive a closed formula for the Fibonacci numbers, and he did so by "inventing" generating functions. I only have wikipedia as a source right now, as I have most of my math books, including the few on the history of mathematics I have, in boxes :)
That work load should have no effect on risk of depression sounds downright whack. In none of the summaries of the three linked articles do I see that part of the claim documented by their data.
Below are the "results" sections from the summaries of the two non-saliva articles among the 3 referenced in the posted "article".
From "A two-year follow-up study of risk of depression according to work-unit measures of psychological demands and decision latitude."
RESULTS:
The OR for depression according to psychological demands was 1.07 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.42-2.49] for every unit of change on a 5-point scale. The corresponding OR for decision latitude was 1.85 (95% CI 0.55-6.26). No interactive effects of psychological demands and decision latitude were observed.
CONCLUSION:
These findings suggest that low decision latitude may predict depression, but confidence intervals are wide and findings are also compatible with no increased risk.
From "Work-unit measures of organisational justice and risk of depression--a 2-year cohort study."
RESULTS:
Working in a work unit with low procedural justice (adjusted ORs of 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.88) and low relational justice (3.14, 95% CI 1.37 to 7.19) predicted onset of depression.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our results indicate that a work environment characterised by low levels of justice is a risk factor for depression.
"That work load should have no effect on risk of depression sounds downright whack."
Then again, two of the summaries you quote actually suggest that things have a lot more to do with office politics and work environment.
Think of it this way: if you've an infinitely long todo list, but no pressure whatsoever ("wake me up as you complete the tasks"), it's just an insurmountable amount of work that you'll grow used to never completing and you'll do as much as you can and be satisfied with yourself.
Now, toss a boss into the equation -- one that tells you to get it all done by yesterday. Or put another way, one that essentially goes: "let me load your backpack with 50kg before I order you to swimm across this river". That can screw you up rather quickly. Especially if that boss's priorities change daily or hourly.
I don't mind the infinitely long to-do list, but I get stressed out by having constantly changing priorities that force me to drop a project before it's done and work on a new one. Long-term strategic projects (which tend to be the most interesting to work on) can get dropped and resumed several times before they get completed, and each time that happens it seems more painful than the last time.
I think I'm ok with it as long as they have permission/cooperation from the author (a cursory glance looks like they do; could be wrong), especially since the introduction of inline code evaluation makes it so much easier to get into. I know the content probably would have gone into my bottomless "to read later" bookmarks folder if I couldn't knock some stuff out right then and there.
Thinking about it, I guess that's just a licensing issue. Give the author the tools they need to decide how their work can and can't be used.
School of Haskell is actually a website where people can create their own tutorials, so most likely the author added it themselves. (EDIT: I just checked, they were created by user Yann Esposito, which most likely belongs to the author.)
Furthermore, while FPComplete are commercial, I don't believe they're monetising SoH in any way, other than its being good marketing for the company and Haskell in general.
I thought it might be something along those lines. Just didn't have much time to look around.
I would say, though, that it should be (and really is) up to the author where their work can or can't be displayed.
I think it would be good for the community either way, but if an author doesn't want their work in any way tied to a commercial interest, then it's their right to apply licensing in such a way to ensure that, and for others to respect that (though I'm not saying you're implying otherwise; just clarifying).
The monetization here would be brand exposure and site traffic to the domain/website, using the works of others (which I'm not inherently against).
I think it is awesome. It makes the simple stuff dead simple (get a decent IDE with one-click web-deploy integrated up and running in <5mins, with an example app); while the hard stuff is still as easy as it was before (you can deploy to your own hardware, using your own desktop text editor and local compilation).
You say "serious", that's a strechable concept. But if serious could mean: doing some green-field web app consulting gigs (which can make serious money); then i think it is already-ready for "serious".
Then considering they are such a young company -- I'm really interested where they will head for :)
I think Haskell Center will turn out to be a game changer, a next-gen development environment (that graciously degrades back into old-skool native code producing DIY deployed stuff).
