Lexical Labs read, review and automatically mark-up contracts so that lawyers can review them quickly. There is a lot of tech going on to support this - NLP, ML and lots of UIs.
We are looking for a junior full stack Node.js/React dev as our first full-time developer hire in London, UK.
If you'd like to work at a small startup with big dreams to change how law works email will@lexicallabs.com and let's have a chat!
> Universal health care is a euphemism for the poor and sick getting their medical care subsidized by the wealthy and healthy.
Is it? I would have thought it is the commonwealth looking after the people that make it! Surely for countries with large sovereign wealth funds (especially those derived from the country's natural wealth), it makes sense to care for the people for which it is meant to provide!
The whole redistribution lens is a very specific way of looking at things.
In my experience there are a couple kinds of product management. There is very user focused product management, and technical product management.
User-focused PMing is making tools that work for people - working with marketing, UX and client teams, to make sure you have a good Product/Market fit.
Technical PMing is more about making sure that you are building things the right way - making sure that the underlying models that your tools utilise are close to reality and understanding the roadmap that you will need to hit so that your releases will always be useful. It different from an architects role who is fed the information about the domain, the technical PM needs to synthesise this for the tech team to build, but there is a lot of overlap.
For engineers, it makes a lot of sense to become a technical PM, via being a team lead/architect, managing your devs more and coding less, and understanding more about why you are building what you are building that how what you are building it, and working with other PMs. From there, you do become more and more part of the design process, going up the food chain as it were, closer to the source of your user stories.
It's not the quick way of doing it, but PMs who understand the entire ecosystem are obviously more well rounded and may well be more effective than ones who have fallen into it from client management or marketing!
It's okay. It's just that I tried to use it a few months ago and saw they still don't even have syntax highlighting for diffs. It's pretty depressing and it makes it look like they have abandoned the service.
I've been using BitBucket for years and the lack of syntax highlighting for diffs has never even occurred to me.
Why would you want to use such a limited diff tool at all? Personally, I use the best diff tool that I can find and so far that's BeyondCompare from Scooter Software.
I'm sure guys who have paid for the enterprise version of BitBucket would rather not have to pay $60 for every developer for BeyondCompare on top of what they pay for BitBucket
Yes, nobody would rather pay for anything though - so what kind of argument is that really? It's like saying "Who would pay extra for higher quality tools?" - the answer is: Lots of people would.
Personally, I pay for the best tools because they're worth the money. For that tool in particular, I paid $60 over 3 or 4 years ago. It's practically nothing compared to some of the other tools that we use.
we need to make the web ones get the same experience level then. It's great to have it all there. Were you leave your inline notes, there's a live communication part, all feedback from automated code checkers etc.
I wonder if they were slow on updating their site because of Sourcetree, which I personally love (especially since it is a cross-platoform [Mac/Win] GUI client).
Hmm, they show up for me [1]. That screenshot is an HTML file but I also looked at JS, Python and Markdown and all were showing syntax highlight in diff commits.
Thank you for clarifying. I'm not sure why I didn't initially associate 'syntax highlighting' with what it is. I can see how this would be useful when dealing with a lot of information, especially when reviewing another's work.
You can't claim that Bitbucket has syntax highlighting and then post proof that isn't actually proof. Well you can, but why bother?
I just checked our Bitbucket. There's no syntax highlighting for any of our used languages for diffs. There is no option to enable or disable it. When you do a search for it, it's still an open issue in BitBucket's public issue tracker[0].
If you've got some wizardry working that isn't an external script, hook it up.
... which is kind of annoying if you sleep on top of one. Endless tocking away on a hot summer night where you can't sleep is kind of like water drip torture.
What I don't get is, if it is such a simple aircraft - pretty much an airliner with the passenger section being a bomb bay - and we're pretty good at making airliners these days - why don't they as a short term stop gap just turn an airliner airframe into a bomber?
With modern materials, avionics and engines you could have a aircraft that flies faster and more efficiently, thus able to fly further and for less ongoing maintenance cost. I also imagine training would be simpler, if it meant they didn't have to train pilots with slide rules...
For a parallel, let's look at the state of the USAF tanker fleet ("Nobody kicks ass without tanker gas!") The workhorse of the fleet is the pride of 1957, the KC-135. They're old, and so the Air Force wants to replace them, with the KC-46, which is pretty much a Boeing 767 but with seats replaced with big gas tank, and boom off the back. The 767 isn't a new airframe, it's a 30 year old design. And aerial refueling isn't a new technology either. Afterall, the plane that's being replaced has been in service for almost 60 years. Proven airframe. Proven technology. This is a slam dunk right?
Well, no. The KC-46 keeps getting delayed.[1] It's essentially too complicated and too flashy. For exampe, Boeing is ditching the tried and true, and dirt simple system of guiding refueling booms by having a guy look at a window and put the boom into the receptacle, and instead go with some unproven system using an occulus rift and stereo cameras. Why? I don't know. I guess because it's "high tech".
And do you want to know the most damning part of all? Boeing currently sells the KC-767, a refueling tanker based on the 767 airframe, that not only works, but is cheaper than the KC-46, and available today!
It's almost as bad as the F-35 debacle, but not quite.
Honestly, I don't think the military knows how to buy anything, and the contractors take advantage of that. It's Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex writ large.
The hilarious thing is that the KC-46 is basically a means of keeping the Boeing 767 production line open and operating and producing airplanes even though Boeing has replaced it with the 777 and 787 for commercial customers. They may be new production aircraft, but they are not modern in any sense of the word. See also: The POTUS being about the only customer actually interested in purchasing the 747-8i these days.
A lot of what I see large defense contractors get attacked for is just them simply giving the government what the government asks for. Now, that doesn't mean the big guys are or should be immune from criticism. But they're not going to ignore a big pile of money to do something, even if that something is dumb. The days of Kelly Johnson sending money back to the government because "we're building you a real dog" are (sadly) over.
Don't forget Eisenhower's original wording described it as the military-industrial-congressional complex. The KC-X would be flying if the original contract to EADS had not been scuttled by Congress:
The original contract to EADS was scuttled because of the Government Accountability Office, which found that the selection process had been handled improperly -- specifically, that the Air Force "did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation", and that the Air Force "conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing" [0].
I lived in Seattle at the time, and it was widely remarked by Boeing IDS employees that the protest Boeing filed was a remarkably unusual step. They lose out on contracts all the time and just move on to the next thing; it's generally considered bad form for a defense contractor to throw a fit about losing out on a contract. But there were a lot of shenanigans, as detailed in the GAO report, which is why the decision was ultimately reversed.
FWIW, the Boeing E3 Sentry (the "AWACS plane") was based on the Boeing 707.
But for a B-52 replacement, I think civilian planes have quite a few problems. For one, the wings are attached in the wrong place; on the B-52 they're more to the front, since the bomb bay has to be at the centre of balance. (Otherwise the plane becomes difficult to control after dropping the payload.) Another issue is that a commercial jet has a unneccesarily wide body, increasing drag. (Bombs are much denser than people.) A third is that commercial jets probably can't take the same level of structural loads in case of evasive action, particularly at lower altitudes. Compare the AWACS example: that airplane should never come close to enemy fire. A bomber most certainly would have to.
All those are engineering challenges, and could be solved. I guess the biggest reason is that it would cost more than you would gain.
The B-52 is already something of a case study as far as the changes required to allow a high-altitude aircraft to endure prolonged low altitude missions. SAC's switch to low-altitude attack profiles during the Cold War resulted in a huge number of modifications and overhauls to SAC B-52s specifically to allow for prolonged low-altitude flight.
That would be workable only if missions entailed takeoff, climb to 30,000 feet, dropping bombs and returning.
Much of the design difference between an airliner and a strategic bomber is due to extreme stresses from flying balls-out speed at treetop altitude. Older B-52 variants (pre-G) were retired when they couldn't take the load, because they were designed for max altitude cruise and weapons delivery. A big part of the B-1A to B-1B redesign involved removing the fancy high-altitude air intakes and restressing for extended treetop flight (and reducing RCS).
You would of course have to replace the electronics with simpler "hardened" versions. Can't have your B-252 brought down by a cell phone :-) (let alone an EMP)
I like the idea, but likely a large number of components would be replaced by less efficient, but more durable, variants.
Everything in the B-52H is nuclear-hardened. Navigators don't actually use the slide rule or start sextant on a regular basis though they do train on it.
This article sounds like a PR effort by the USAF to help cost justify replacement of the B-52H.
The B52 and earlier bombers programs at Boeing directly contributed to the development of their airliners - so it's kind of the other way around, historically.
the B52's benefits center around it being such a simple aircraft.
modern passenger aircraft have complications and have made design decisions that increase complexity, require more maintenance, and add cost. airliners are willing to put up with these costs because they add to passenger comfort.
It would be nicer if this wasn't tied in to a server implementation, so it could be a standard react component that specifies a couple of handlers as PropTypes. Would make it much more easier for people to reuse it!
Started doing start body weight training this year inspired by these progressions [1].
The problem I found with having to do weights or going for runs is that you need to leave the house and can't just do it right away every single day with a minimum of friction. This reduces motivation and makes it less likely to keep going.
I just get up 30 minutes earlier and go through half of this every day, alternating pushes and pulls. It's really simple for me and don't have any excuse to stop doing it, unless I'm a little delicate from the night before - but I find that even that gets blasted out of the system fairly quickly.
Haven't changed my diet or lost any weight, but I'm sure my muscle to fat ratio is a lot better. Definitely feel stronger and more energised than I was before.
Lexical Labs read, review and automatically mark-up contracts so that lawyers can review them quickly. There is a lot of tech going on to support this - NLP, ML and lots of UIs.
We are looking for a junior full stack Node.js/React dev as our first full-time developer hire in London, UK.
If you'd like to work at a small startup with big dreams to change how law works email will@lexicallabs.com and let's have a chat!