Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS
Justin and Jason discuss the release of Justin’s latest project, TweetBoard and it’s potential impact on Pluggio, some thoughts on writing single page web apps, why Jason is using Google+, whether the ORM is an anti-pattern, the latest on AnyFu and Appignite, an update on Justin’s plant-based diet and why Jason remains unconvinced of it’s scientific validity, Jason’s idea for using JSON to define the structure and behavior of a hierarchy of javascript widgets and the recently released book Design for Hackers.
My guess for the direct hit stats would be due to twitter clients expanding the URLs and opening a browser window. Probably safe to say they are all twitter I think.
@justin – From memory, twitters link shortener works differently from most shorteners. Most shorteners do a 301 redirect to redirect people to the expanded link. Twitter’s shortener service (t.co) doesn’t do this. Instead they render a page with some javascript to redirect the user. Interestingly this is quite a bit more expensive than a simple 301 redirect, so they are doing it this way for a reason. Some people speculate it is break the analytics of other link shorteners and analytics tools, so that they twitter can charge for access to stats produced by t.co.
http://getclicky.com/blog/274/breaking-twitters-influence-is-now-zero-facebook-wins-all-hail-the-zuck
That show ended a bit abruptly…
@Jason, go easy on Justin regarding his eating! We all need to experiment sometimes. I’ll give you scientific proof that “hope” (not prayer!) works: the placebo effect. If Justin is happy that it’s doing him good and as long as it’s not doing him any harm, then that’s fine. Also, while I am a big UFO fan and I love the discussions about them, I’d like you to provide one piece of physical evidence that backs up the “UFO experts”. The strongest “evidence” I’ve seen is just military personnel hearsay – and you’re buying that stuff hook line and sinker. So give Justin a break if he wants to eat a fucking cactus!
Hey guys,
If you are routing based on the hash you should use this jQuery plugin:
https://github.com/cowboy/jquery-hashchange
this incorporates the IE iframe hack so that the back button works cross browser.
Using the plugin is easy – it generates hashchange events which you listen to and then you parse the hash and route using your existing code.
– Doug Martin
@Alex Gemmell – Hey, man, if Justin wants to go vegan, then godspeed to him. 😉 Anything that might help him drop some weight will be a big help for his diabetes and fatty liver, and who knows maybe this diet will work for him. I really wasn’t trying to give him a hard time about it, but I just find the claims of the documentary to be suspect and lacking the supporting scientific evidence.
In terms of UFOs, I think most of what you read and hear on the subject is pure silliness, which really muddies the waters and brings discredit to the entire subject. But I think there is some extremely compelling evidence, especially what’s documented in Leslie’ Kean’s book, and if it’s good enough to make Michio Kaku take is seriously, then it’s good enough for me. 😉 But if you’re not interested enough to read an entire book on the subject, the History Channel documentary that she produced covers some of the evidence from her book and at the very least is fun to watch.
Design for Hackers looks like a new take on the classic Non-Designer’s Design Book by Robin Williams. Worth reading if you’ve not come across that before. Joel Spolsky gave it a mini review and recommendation nearly 10 years ago and it still stands up well today as the fundamentals haven’t changed.
Another good show with a structure that works well, i.e. techie and startup stuff up front for those who may not have time to listen to a whole show.
Also it’s great to hear someone try out an interesting marketing initiative such as Tweetboard and talk about it as it happens rather than retrospectively.
One small thing – any chance of making Tweetboard work on 1024-pixel wide screens (laptops, iPads, etc.)?
P.S. I think I double-posted – sorry! Please delete the previous duplicate comment.
Carl Sagan spoke about how to identify bogus claims in his book ‘The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark’ .
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
Also this short video on the same subject is worth a look:
The Baloney Detection Kit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
This must be the first tech podcast where the hosts are scared to talk about tech ;). On earlier podcasts you guys went on and on about tech stuff but now you seem to get hesitant every time you get into deeper tech stuff. We can handle it, don’t worry, bring it on!!
And as Day Barr mentioned, the Non-Designer’s Design Book is good introduction to basic design concepts, although examples are from the print-world mostly.
@Jason There are facts and studies that placebo effect is real and can help speed up recovery. Even knowing about it won’t take it away completely. Here is an interesting (although nonconclusive) article I found: .
@Juha Suomalainen – The reason we’re tentative about talking tech, or at least getting too into the details, is that we’re worried it wouldn’t make for the most engaging listening experience, but hey maybe should ramp it up. 😉
The Non-Designer’s Design Book sounds interesting. Day Bar’s comment is the first I’d ever heard about it.
Yeah, I’m aware of the placebo effect, and in fact I think I recall seeing an article on HN recently about how it’s getting stronger, so I won’t count that out. But I don’t know if it would be smart to disregard scientific evidence based on the hope that the placebo effect will make up the difference. 😉
80% plant based is almost exactly what the USDA recommends (see: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ – if you look at the graphic they have on the main page, I’d say if you add up the sections “Fruits”, “Vegetables”, “Grains” which are obviously all plants and also “Protein” which can also absolutely be gotten from plants that makes 80-85%).
So the science is actually on Justin’s side.
Biomedical researcher checking in (neuroscience laboratory at MIT).
The vast majority of biomedical research is funded through the National Institute of Health (NIH). Any corporate funding has to be declared on the paper and most researchers are loathe to take corporate funding for that very reason. To say that most research is funded by companies is basically plain wrong. Furthermore, most research put out by corporations is pretty awful and only gets accepted into low-tier journals. Academics routinely laugh at corporate research papers.
Secondly, acadamia routinely puts time, energy and money into “worthless” research projects. I’ve worked in two labs and both labs were doing “basic research” – aka research into proteins that are so far away from the clinic that they are basically worthless to medicine. In fact, most research is done on things that aren’t big-pharma drugs or compounds.
Effectively, what I’m trying to say is that I’m sure someone has done a research paper on the health effects of apple juice and it was probably funded by the NIH (aka your tax dollars). =)
Hehehe, behold:
“Impact of apple and grape juice consumption on the antioxidant status in healthy subjects.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21639820
@Zach – Thanks very much for the clarification. I’ll take my foot out of my mouth now. I was clearly wrong about that.
On another note it’s very interesting to see how positive that paper is about the benefits of apple and grape juice on healthy people.
To the argument about research, academia will always fall short because universities will only ponder the questions that seem reasonable (to them) to ask. And because you can ask an unlimited number of questions–there will always be huge areas of inquiry left completely untouched.
Even Google, this highly-networked Borg mind of inquiry, vastly more inquisitive than all of academia combined, has about a quarter of the 3 billion questions asked per day never asked before. Academia’s resources are extremely limited when you think about how much time and money they have available to research all but the most plausible (low-hanging fruit) assumptions–then you realize how big the void is in human understanding of anything and everything.