Jupyter Nbconvert: Jupyter Nbconvert is a command-line tool that allows you to convert Jupyter notebooks into various formats, including HTML, PDF, and Markdown. You can use the nbconvert command to convert your Jupyter notebook into an HTML file, which you can then upload to a web hosting service or a file-sharing platform like GitHub or GitLab. To use this method, you will need to have Jupyter installed on your computer.
Binder: Binder is a free service that allows you to turn your Jupyter notebook into a live, interactive website that can be accessed by anyone. Binder creates a virtual environment that includes all the dependencies required to run your notebook and launches it in a web browser. To use this method, you will need to upload your Jupyter notebook to a GitHub repository and provide a link to your repository to Binder.
Google Colab: Google Colab is a free cloud-based service that allows you to create and run Jupyter notebooks in a web browser. You can create a new notebook in Colab, write your code, and then export it as an HTML file using the nbconvert command. You can then download the HTML file and upload it to a web hosting service or file-sharing platform.
Binder is great! Here is an example of it in action, with a notebook in a github repo that solves fizbuzz 50 different ways. It is super easy on both the dev and user side. For the dev, just create a public git* repo, upload the ipynb, any data, and dependencies (requirements.txt, environment.yml, or Dockerfile). To use, no login or special permissions required, you can run it on anyone's public repo.
(disclaimer: used to work for Facebook) I had similar doubts about the Metaverse concept until recently. However, Meta has done a great job (better than any other company in history) scaling up VR. They've sold more units than the most recent version of Xbox. The Xbox did sell out, which makes demand appear artificially low, however the fact that Quest sales are keeping up with Xbox sales is a very big deal. I didn't realize that until I listened to Mark Zuckerberg's interview on Joe Rogan. If you're an app developer, it's more than worth considering VR given the size of the audience on those platforms. One other thing to keep in mind - the current concept of the metaverse is essentially an alpha version. Now that Meta has established VR as a legit platform, they're using it to usher in a new future. Meta is throwing out lots of ideas for how VR might help reshape the future. The vast majority of those ideas will not work out but many of them will stick and form the foundational principles that underpin the evolving VR ecosystem as people increasingly spend more time. Once the technology passes a certain threshold of maturity, it will be a fundamentally better way to connect with friends/family/coworkers than any other medium. In general, high bandwidth communication mediums dominate with in-person interactions being at the top of the food chain. Meta aspires to make it feel like you're with people in real life except that your social experiences will be augmented with super powers that don't exist in real life. If they achieve that, meeting with in VR/AR will be preferable to real life and we'll all be using VR, as hard as that is to believe. That's not a future that anyone is necessarily asking for but it is a future that many will find more appealing than the existing options offered by computing platforms, like video chat. Assuming that happens, Meta will have a path to creating the new dominant computing platform. That's the ultimate manifestation of the metaverse vision - defining and owning the future of computing. Recall how clunky smartphone and personal computing experiences felt at first. Those devices weren't for everyone...until they were. Now, <15 after the first smartphone (which I define to be a phone on par with the personal computer, so in my mind the first smartphone was really iPhone running iOS 2, which introduced the App Store), people now routinely idle on their smartphones. That is to say, when they're doing nothing else with their hands (even if they're doing something else) it's not uncommon for their to pull out their smartphones. In 2000, if you predicted that grown adults would impulsively pull out what amounts to an entertainment device while they're idling at the airport, grocery store, or even while driving that would have sounded ridiculous. It's important to remind ourselves how quickly technology can become virtually ubiquitous and how challenging it is to predict the impact on our habits.
The first 3 comments in this thread
"The Left is eating itself."
"Good thing they shielded me from that post. I don't know if I could have taken reading that."
">ex manager >manager why would their opinion be at all relevant"
That pretty much sums up the state of the dialog in the industry and it's pretty sad that you can't even find thoughtful comments on Hacker News. Regardless of your politics, everyone deserves a fair shake. I'm a black engineer and manager with experience at several tech companies, including Facebook. At every company I've worked for I've heard jokes about African-Americans (overheard, to my face, from managers and ICs alike) and dealt with people assuming I'm a junior engineer at the beginning of every encounter despite the gray hairs lining my chin. At the conclusion of my tech talks and even technical interviews people routinely ask me if I have an engineering background! These things may seem insignificant ("they're just jokes") but we're social creatures want to feel recognized and accepted. That hasn't stopped me from building a career I'm proud of and I don't lose sleep at night. But I'm an outlier in that regard.
The larger subtext of the entire diversity conversation is learning to coexist. It's not about black people, women, the LGBTQ community, or any other single group. It's about a better working environment for everyone indefinitely. Being against that is literally pathological.
Based on the quality of discourse on this site lately, I'm sure many of you will take my words out of context and make broad assumptions about my beliefs. For the sane ones, please reflect on the words I actually wrote.
The first comments are often thoughtless noise because commenters can skip reading or thinking about the article, or typing something more than a one-liner. The thing to do is wait for the thoughtful ones (more of those will appear, but it takes a bit of time) and engage with them.
That's fair and I shouldn't have let that color my opinion of the entire community. But for hot button issues knee jerk reactions do tend to set the tone for conversations, if not dominate them.
You already do. If you refresh the page now, the much more nuanced positions and things have substance have risen to the top and crap has been flagged/downmodded away.
I'm mixed but to most people I appear white. It's usually only black women for some reason that pick up that I'm mixed. My life experience has led me to take advantage of the luxury of passing and keep it a secret that I'm half black. When you're white, people just tend to see "default", then they look for other identifying attributes about you, like your skills. Otherwise you become the black intelligent guy, not just the intelligent guy.
My younger brother is going into the tech industry but has a much darker complexion than me. I'm not sure what to tell him to be honest.
My older brother is an engineer. He is by all appearances black. His approach was similar to mine but to a greater extreme, he disassociated himself from anything resembling black stereotypes in America down to the very music he listens to, the way he dresses, everything. Unfortunately he takes it a step too far and is quite often jokingly(or not, I can't tell) racist himself. He's finding success in his career but I don't know how much of that is due to the way he presents himself or due to his merit.
I have friends that do the same thing, they have a work face and a home face. I try not to think about it. It's very distracting.
I was lucky enough to grow up around black scientists, engineers, and intellectuals. So I have deep self belief and, to me, emulating behaviors of non-blacks (or other genders, or even athletes) feels natural - I just want to be exceptional and I find inspiration everywhere.
To the extent possible, I've always tried to shape my identity based on what feels right for me instead of what's expected of me, even from my own race. With practice, divorcing yourself from other peoples' opinions of you becomes second nature. When you don't adopt that mindset you're allowing other people to write your story, which some people are fine with but I personally find that intolerable. I can definitely relate to feeling like you have to disown part of your identity but I just can't accept that. It happens in many subtle ways we don't think about. For example, when we sense someone else's self doubt if evokes feeling of self doubt, anger, or sadness in ourselves. In reality, other peoples' flawed opinions don't pay my rent so I try to live in reality and disregard ignorance unless it affects the outcomes I care about.
I chose tech (over politics!) because it seemed like more of a meritocracy and, although I've dealt with some race-related challenges, focusing on doing my best work, creating value, and writing my own story has led to pretty good results.
I do still get distracted wondering whether my story would be different if I weren't black - it's tough.
It's interesting, how much this problem is specific to the US. As someone from a small Eastern European state, who hadn't met a single black person during the first 18 years of his life, I had zero negative attitude towards black people when I first met them at the university in the UK. Actually, many of them were like friends.
I recently learned that I went to school with people of all kinds of colour. When I was at school I was genuinely colour blind.
How did I make this discovery?
At a funeral, meeting some of my dad's friends. One couple said 'you must know Marcus' and then proceeded to describe him by colour. That didn't help. But when they said that he did the posters for the school debating society I remembered who this Marcus character was, and quite clearly. It was his eloquence in the aforementioned debating society that I did remember, not his black skin.
There were other parents-of-contemporaries there who had kids that could not have been white. So I then clocked details I did remember - Asian style eyelids without the crease, darker skin tone etc. Seems as if there was more diversity at the school I went to than I can remember. I had assumed everyone was white, but this was definitely not the case.
We did actually have kids being teased for having ginger hair, I can't remember being the one using the shameful gingerist words but I must have been chuckling away though.
I can remember racist words and how there was no association between the words and the persons who were supposed to be derided by such words. I distinctly remember using a derogatory term for people from the Indian sub-continent and my parents correcting me about that. Beatings were allowed in the 1980's... The context of that was a retail establishment where us kids had a name for it that turned out to be quite racist. We didn't know that, we just thought it was the name of the place. The more backward folks in the older generation had 'taught' us this particular word, we didn't know the connotations.
So, think again, are you sure you didn't go to school with any black kids? You could have been genuinely oblivious.
I also wonder why I was so deluded and what the balance has to be between different shades of skin colour for 'them and us' racism to happen. Had our school been 50% black I am sure I would not have had my naive 'everyone was white' memories, but a small percentage of black folks in a white school would have been memorable too.
But what does "black" mean in a UK context? It certainly doesn't mean the same as what it means in the US. Or in Australia, for that matter. Different history. Different cultures.
While it is different, they are still discriminated against and perceived negatively. Most "black" people in the UK are descended from afro-Caribbean slaves. They may or may not be recent immigrants to the UK.
Given how even recent white European immigrants to the UK are treated by the general population (see: Brexit), I would expect afro-Caribbean individuals to not be treated much better, and have, anecdotally, heard as much.
The truth of the statement that most "black" people in the UK are descended from ... rather depends on the applicable definition of "black". In particular, people from the Indian subcontinent are sometimes referred to as "black". (For what it's worth, many people in Britain with Indian ancestry were brought up in Africa so could claim to be "real" Africans...)
I don't think it makes much sense to categorise people by skin colour. An Afro-Caribbean doesn't in general have more in common with an immigrant from Africa than with an immigrant from Syria or Hong Kong.
People with a different skin colour certainly do get discriminated against. However, if you really want to get discriminated against, try dressing in the wrong way and speaking a foreign language or with a foreign accent. In general, people get judged by their clothing and the way they speak far more than by any physical feature.
Perhaps it doesn't make sense to generalise across the UK, either. Afro-Caribbeans are much more common in the London area than elsewhere. Only in Bradford has someone made me feel like a foreigner by speaking to me slowly in Hindi/Urdu and rolling their eyes when I fail to understand. (Quite cool, I thought: I approve.)
As far as the dialog, it is known that Facebook pays PR firms to improve their image by spreading misleading stories (see Definers Public Affairs), so I think there is reason to believe that some comments here may be disingenuous.
We all have biases and those are largely shaped by media and pop culture and to a lesser extent personal experience. The talk of diversity evokes a lot of emotion. I sometimes think the focus ought to be not on race/religion/ethinicity but rather on how to prevent our assumptions from adversely affecting others.
There is a need for diversity training but the way I’ve seen it done is off putting to the people who need it most. All it ends up being is a virtue signaling fest for so called allies of minority groups and the real harm persists - people making false, often times demeaning, assumptions about others that adversely affect them.
I work in academia and have never been outside of academia. My belief about diversity training comes solely from my experiences within academia. Do companies spend time on diversity training? Is it a yearly training like it is in parts of academia? Do you find the way it is done off putting? Helpful?
Lots of tech companies do require diversity/bias training for managers and interviewers. It's often counterproductive. In my experience people either don't take the training seriously or strongly object to being forced to go through it. I'm not sure it'd be effective even if everyone embraced it since shifting attitudes and behaviors takes time and effort even when you're highly motivated to do so.
>The larger subtext of the entire diversity conversation is learning to coexist. It's not about black people, women, the LGBTQ community, or any other single group. It's about a better working environment for everyone indefinitely. Being against that is literally pathological.
You claim the site doesn't have thoughtful comments and then you build up a strawman of diversity efforts and then claim being against it is 'literally pathological'. This is the problem.
People with grievances about how diversity programs are ineffective or are causing harm are labeled as 'pathological', etc by people on the left because they think the criticisms are against diversity in the first place. You are making enemies out of people who believe in equal opportunity because they point out flaws and injustices in diversity programs.
I recommend that you reflect on your positions if you want to build bridges. Assuming that everyone who points out flaws in an approach are against the much larger goal is a good way to needlessly divide everyone.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that being against a better working environment for everyone is literally pathological because it's antisocial behavior. I didn't say disagreeing with the way companies approach diversity is pathological.
But that's a strawman position nobody has. Can you point to anyone who has literally argued "Today I want to stop the workplace becoming better for everyone"? It never happens.
I think you're misinformed. There are plenty of people who are either fine with status quo (which is not totally equitable from my POV) or completely fine with prejudice. Few people articulate it as "I want to stop the workplace from becoming better for everyone" but the outcome is the same. I'm not speculating - I've experienced both groups first hand.
I think an even more subtle problem is people who attack ineffective policies as opposed to focusing on the primary objective, which is coexistence. In other words, people focus on attacking solutions as opposed to helping create better ones. That behavior is pervasive, insidious, counterproductive, and seems to be picking up steam.
Being fine with the status quo is not the same thing as being "against a better working environment for everyone" and is wildly, insanely far from being "literally pathological" - your words, not mine.
Please, reflect on your position for a moment there. You're saying that anyone who is happy with their workplace and thinks things are OK is engaged in "literally pathological anti-social behaviour". That's the kind of overblown, extremist rhetoric that makes diversity initiatives a toxic topic in the modern workplace - it's a demonisation of anyone who thinks that maybe their firm has bigger things to worry about than a never-ending, apparently unsatisfiable quest for "equity".
In other words, people focus on attacking solutions as opposed to helping create better ones. That behavior is pervasive, insidious, counterproductive, and seems to be picking up steam.
It's actually your behaviour that's counterproductive here. There is never any obligation to propose something better when criticising a proposal.
It might be helpful to the proposer, and if someone can think of a better approach then you'd hope they would propose it. But if something is a bad idea, or represents a bad tradeoff (there are no solutions in life, only tradeoffs), then it's a bad idea and shouldn't happen. This is independent of anything else. Indeed, making the status quo worse is absolutely possible with any change, and something people are right to point out if a proposal might lead to it.
That doesn't make them insidious, or counterproductive.
I think you're taking lots of liberties here so I'll try once more: I think that actively or passively resisting progress toward greater coexistence is antisocial and therefore pathological. My stance is that being fine with inequity (which is the status quo) is passive resistance.
You make some valid points about what constitutes active/passive resistance and your comment made me think. I don't think everyone is obligated to come up with better solutions but I do think if you're going to participate in the dialog, focusing solely on attacking existing solutions is counterproductive and makes me question your motives.
>I don't think everyone is obligated to come up with better solutions but I do think if you're going to participate in the dialog, focusing solely on attacking existing solutions is counterproductive and makes me question your motives.
If all of the proposed solutions are garbage and it's a complex problem, rational people will only be attacking them.
Consider when papers are submitted for peer review. The outcome is either paper is acceptable, or you get a bunch of negative feedback. That doesn't mean the reviewers don't want the problem solved, it just means that you're solution is flawed. People who want to solve problems seek peer reviews because they want to find flaws in their logic, data, or methodology.
Critical feedback is absolutely necessary for any solution to a real problem. Calling it counterproductive is misguided at best.
>In other words, people focus on attacking solutions as opposed to helping create better ones.
Because many of those policies are actively harmful and are worse than the status quo. You don't need to have a better solution to point out that implementing quotas results in more racism than having no quotas at all.
When it comes to approaches to diversity, many are significantly worse than nothing at all because they embolden divides by highlighting that fact that some people are different and are incapable without special provisions.
>That behavior is pervasive, insidious, counterproductive, and seems to be picking up steam.
They are only counterproductive if you are already convinced reverse discrimination is the answer to discrimination.
* You don't need to have a better solution to point out that implementing quotas results in more racism than having no quotas at all.*
The U.S. implemented quotas/affirmative action in the 1960s. Are you suggesting that this caused an increase in racism? Do you think the U.S. would be better off now if it had not implemented those policies? I think you'll have a very hard time adequately supporting the position I quoted above.
I read this thread early this morning when the only comment was "the left is eating itself", got mad, decided HN sucks now, then decided to try understand the point of view of the commenter, I read the rest of their comments, decided my original position was correct.
>>The larger subtext of the entire diversity conversation is learning to coexist. It's not about black people, women, the LGBTQ community, or any other single group. It's about a better working environment for everyone indefinitely. Being against that is literally pathological.
I think that's something everybody can agree with. However, I sometimes think that HR, Code of Conduct policies, etc do more harm than good in ensuring that happens.
In the ideal world, we all work together to find something that works. In reality, we're prone to change resistance so when we disagree with a new policy (regardless of whether it really has implications for our own lives) we tend to reject the policy, the premise, the authorities, and any groups that support said policy. There's lots of evidence that suggests that's an inherent dynamic of social systems. When policies have implications for social groups things turn explosive quickly, but beyond that I think the reaction we see to diversity conversations is just run of the mill change resistance. I often find it helpful to highlight the inarguable, universal truths in those situations as a starting point for finding a better way forward but...it's never easy.
> The larger subtext of the entire diversity conversation is learning to coexist. It's not about black people, women, the LGBTQ community, or any other single group. It's about a better working environment for everyone indefinitely. Being against that is literally pathological.
About this.... There's something I've noticed is that when one group has rights by default, and another doesnt, fighting for equality or equity feels like to the innate group that rights are taken away.
Its the perception of zero-sum game versus a positive-sum game. For the in-group, having others brought up to your status feels like its reducing yours... But it doesn't.
Whereas rights can be assessed for everyone. The more rights we all have is a positive sum. A rising tide raises all boats.
It's not about rights, which there is no scarcity of, it's about the fact that there's always some social competition for scarce resources (college admissions, jobs, dating opportunities, grants, cultural conversations, etc) and if one group currently has a significant chunk of those they will feel threatened that their share of those resources is being taken away.
Some groups are making hard stands for calling for equity, and others are calling for equality. I'm refraining on making a judgement call on which one is better, given I'm a tall white male. And the groups demanding this are African Americans who have been wronged by various state policies. I'll refrain from interpreting their meaning, and repeat verbatim.
I also think it's disingenuous to claim what "equity" is. This is a common tactic to define a word, and then destroy the stated definition, thus demeaning the original word. And bringing Marxism is guaranteed for a shitstorm..
> I also think it's disingenuous to claim what "equity" is.
The definition I gave is the one widely used in academic disciplines such as "black studies", "gender studies", "women studies" and "whiteness studies". I did not invent it. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada)
> Some groups are making hard stands for calling for equity
I'm not sure which groups are calling for what, but the 20th century experience is clear: Marxism doesn't work. So identity politics should be resisted as much as possible, irrespective of who's calling for it.
> And bringing Marxism is guaranteed for a shitstorm..
As to causing a shitstorm - I believe that's inevitable when you have an honest discussion on such an important and divisive topic. That doesn't mean such a discussion should be avoided, on the contrary - the more difficult and divisive the topic is, the more important it is to discuss it openly, so that each side may argue their positions as best as they can and hopefully advance towards solution that works for everyone involved.
> Because that's a Marxist way of taking care of problems
This is so ill-defined as to be useless. If by Marxist we are speaking of what mark (and Engels) wrote, then it must be pointed out Marx was against equality as a metric or measure. And that, contrary to popular belief, he did not originate collectivism and egalitarianism, but heavily critiqued the proponents and thinkers of such that existed in his time.
Interestingly enough, this is another way of saying no equality at all. That is, the outcome of the competition is, by and large, predetermined. Children born into affluent homes will be sent to better schools, have better tutors, have parents who understand such social systems, and even posses such (seemingly minor, unless we of course want to talk about brain development) advantages as being fed enough nutritious food as to not be hungry. The athlete with access to experts and money and training (and time to spend otherwise not having to earn a living while they train) will outperform the runner who gets in a couple miles after work. (This, of course, extends to everything aspect of business and life. I'm sure there are many people who, if they're parents had had a few extra hundred thousand or million dollars to invest in their child't first few failed businesses, there are a lot of people who could be "successful".) So if we want "equality of opportunity" the first thing we have to do is divorce parents and children in something like Plato's creche. Otherwise we must admit that the system is built not on allowing the meritorious to rise (with whatever definition of meritorious we employ) but instituted by a power class to maintain that same power class.
> plays the game
When survival is on the line, how is it rational to 'play by the rules'. If someone existed in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, would it be rational to to hand over their family's stock of food on the outcome of a chess game?
Actually, the poverty level doesn't continue to rise, it's been stable around 13.5% for the last 30 years. The reason why it stays that way instead of shrinking is probably related to the Pareto distribution problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcEWRykSgwE
There's an anecdote from Philip K. Dick that goes something like: You turn off the outside light and you go to bed, then you get up and look out the window to make sure the light's off, this is when you know you're crazy, when you know what you've done, but you can no longer trust your own mind.
We live in an age of numbers. My own state managed to drastically reduce unemployment. They did it by limiting unemployment benefits to six months. And only those who get unemployment are counted as unemployed. And I know a lot those people who are no longer unemployed. Some of them have already died, some from medical reasons compounded by lack of insurance, others suicide, overdoses, etc. Some of them are working on it. Couples work each two jobs, struggle to payback loans, to pay for the car they need to get to work, always seemingly one payment away from disaster. Children go home from school on the weekend and won't eat anything until they come back to school on Monday and get a free breakfast that there is talk of being cut. Certain of them are dying, not for any technological or medical reason, but because they have no insurance and can't pay any other way and couldn't take off from work even if they did, and it's not that they want to die, it's just that that is the only option on the table. Those with their homes lost, those living in motels. Those who make too much to qualify for food stamps, and those who make too little to qualify for insurance assistance.
This is not some abstraction. I can touch it. I can point: over there is an old couple who don't have enough money to heat their house through the winter, over there is a guy who needs a tooth pulled, but he can't afford it.
Perhaps we've made an error in calculation. Yes, we have stuff. Even the homeless have cellphones now. And yet the society we inhabit, that which was ostensibly supposedly had been constructed to buffer us from the brutal savagery of nature, now mirrors that savagery, so many always one step, one mistake away from maiming and/or death. Yet, yes, many do live in many ways better than kings of yore. But a phone doesn't cure cancer or an abscess or kidney stones or dull pain. But we have stuff. And we wouldn't trade it for anything, not to have medical care, not to feel less lonely, nothing. In one sense, however, at least the jungle, the real jungle, was honest about itself, it would eventually chew you up and compost you. And what use is it to live like a king without the power of one? A kind of Schrodinger's paradox: to live as a king and as a peasant, one in the same, at the same time. A postmodern version of the Prince and Pauper, perhaps?
But, then again, maybe I am crazy, maybe I can't trust my own mind, maybe all of these things I've been seeing around me for a long time aren't real. I don't know anymore. I'm not sure it matters.
I think the world has two futures. In the first, the world simply becomes Dubai. I think that's already happening. Compare what is said there to here[1]. Are the justifications really that different? In the second (the utopia one?), there's a swath of people, how many I can't say, maybe a few hundred thousand, maybe a million, maybe even a billion, it's just a number (to quote Stalin: "Quantity has a quality all its own."), but it is this number of people, this swath of the human population that needs to die so that the remainder can live as millionaires.
Unfortunately, I really cannot begin to understand what you're talking about. What country is it in? What city? What kind of people are involved? What kind of jobs are that low-paying that two jobs are not enough to live? Why don't they move to a better place? So many questions. In any case, it's all anecdotal evidence, so is there a solid, unbiased study that describes this?
The article you linked provides some quotes from Marx and Engels which argue that full equality along all dimensions can never be achieved. But this didn't stop all the implementations of Marxism in real life to still push the equity thing hard. So your argument is actually immaterial.
> That is, the outcome of the competition is, by and large, predetermined.
I disagree. The Western states have social lifts that are designed to allow people from low-income families to still be able to achieve high positions in society, given talent and hard work. Public schools, state-sponsored higher education, public health care, children services are examples of such lifts. If these systems do not work very well, then we should improve them as opposed to favoring a Black kid at the entry exam of university at the expense of an Asian kid who is just as smart. Because once we start discriminating and making preferences, it's very hard to stop.
Especially when the problem we're trying to solve by throwing resources at is not the real problem. E.g. some Black communities have a very particular set of problems absent in other communities, for example MUCH higher rate of single-parenthood than in any other community with similar income in the USA. 73% children in Black families are born out of marriage. Clearly, it's a cultural thing. You can't solve these problems by throwing money at them, money actually can make it worse. So we need to have an honest conversation about the real problems our communities are facing instead of following a blanket "all the people are exactly equal, so every group at the bottom of the hierarchy must be discriminated against" approach.
Saying Marxism is like saying Christian or intellectual property: they're only ever mashed together to profit someone. It's all one convenient blob, until it isn't.
> to still be able to achieve high positions in society, given talent and hard work.
This reminds me of the time Pat Robertson told a mother her child died because she hadn't prayed hard enough. It's a fundamentally tautological position.
What is interesting to me is that before reading this part I assumed you are a man even though there was no hint before this line that you are. How many people thought kwamenum86 is a man from start of his writing?
I find repl.it's go REPL to be totally unsatisfactory. I don't want to have to type `package main` at the top of my REPL before being able to evaluate any expression [0]. Avoiding that sort of boilerplate is a REPL's raison d'être.
In contrast, [gore](https://github.com/motemen/gore) lets you start evaluating expressions right away [1], and provides nice REPL short-hand for importing packages [2].
PS: On a sidenote, and as Torrent Freak has written about them, I must point that Time4Popcorn are pretending to be developing another version of Popcorn Time. The truth is that they are ripping some of our community work without crediting the authors. We would obviously have no concerns if they acknowledged the source of the work, as Popcorn Time is an open source project. The latest example being how they compiled in their app 5 days of our UI work.
I can understand the logic, but no one using Popcorn time will credit the movie for being their own. No one thinks the star of Hunger Games was the developer of Popcorn Time, or the person pirating it, and no one is claiming as such.
Secondly, from my cursory glance, it seems as if T4P can/will easily spread malware, but this could just be fearmongering on Popcorn Time's end.
I used to find these types of articles useful. But now I see them more as dogma. Great engineers don't struggle with things like JavaScript inheritance because they understand best practices and trade offs. So in general, I find it more useful to read about best practices and trade offs than "xyz considered harmful" articles that don't present viable alternatives to xyz.
That said whenever I see something on raganwald.com I'll still read it :)
The alternative he presented is not to share private state between class and superclass. This really isn't a "know the right tool for the right situation" kind of thing -- it's almost never a good thing.
You could accomplish this alternative, among other ways, by:
1. Using composition and delegation.
2. Using mixins, if your language supports them.
3. Using inheritance, but depending only upon your superclass's public interface.
Jupyter Nbconvert: Jupyter Nbconvert is a command-line tool that allows you to convert Jupyter notebooks into various formats, including HTML, PDF, and Markdown. You can use the nbconvert command to convert your Jupyter notebook into an HTML file, which you can then upload to a web hosting service or a file-sharing platform like GitHub or GitLab. To use this method, you will need to have Jupyter installed on your computer.
Binder: Binder is a free service that allows you to turn your Jupyter notebook into a live, interactive website that can be accessed by anyone. Binder creates a virtual environment that includes all the dependencies required to run your notebook and launches it in a web browser. To use this method, you will need to upload your Jupyter notebook to a GitHub repository and provide a link to your repository to Binder.
Google Colab: Google Colab is a free cloud-based service that allows you to create and run Jupyter notebooks in a web browser. You can create a new notebook in Colab, write your code, and then export it as an HTML file using the nbconvert command. You can then download the HTML file and upload it to a web hosting service or file-sharing platform.