Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Sean Bradshaw
Gamer, Auto Racer, Gadgeteer, and all around nice guy.
Gamer, Auto Racer, Gadgeteer, and all around nice guy.

Sean's posts

I had a thought this morning as I was meditating in yoga class, how many +GoPro Session camera's would you need to create a solid ring of them in geosynchronous orbit. So I decided I needed to figure it out.

According to Wikipedia the radius from the center of the Earth to geosynchronous orbit is 42,164km. Thanks for the shortcut of not having to add in the radius of the Earth and the altitude, that's awesome.

That makes the circumference of the ring you'd need to be 264924.22529192007km.

Unfortunately the GoPro session isn't measured in km, so the number is about to get really big, or about 2.6492e+11 in milimeters. I hate scientific notation.

And then the simple effort of dividing that by 38mm.

It would take close to 6,971,690,140 (give or take 10) or almost 7 trillion GoPro Sessions to create a Dyson ring of them.

Assuming that you didn't get any kind of bulk discount that would be US$2.1 quadrillion. Maybe +GoPro could give us a discount? Or themselves come up with a wholesale number?

Post has attachment
This morning I was vindicated in my architecture choices for the web application at work. I made the early decision to go to the effort of extracting out subpage controllers (javascript code) from the entire application and keep them modularized and only load on demand. It created some waterfall states, where one javascript file figures out what it needs and then goes and requests the next javascript file. It sounds like it would be a mess of linear code transfers and execution, but it turns out over an application that spans 10 or so pages that including ALL that javascript into one massive file that loads initially causes such a backup of code to transfer, evaluate, and actually run can take much longer than one should normally be required to wait for.

One of my co-workers decided to go the latter method for what's supposed to be a minimalist SDK, and he ended up with more transfer time for his enormous JS file than I have transfer and render time for my entire page with images. All told, the minimalist SDK takes twice as long to load for my entire initial page experience.

You can see mine on the bottom. Part of it is that my page in it's entirety is 690kb and his JS file alone is 787kb, but loading assets on demand rather than when your app is starting up is a huge benefit. You may never need half the assets that you're getting in that initial payload, but you're still loading and running them every time, and on mobile devices that's money and battery that's being spent.

Post has attachment
This is a few years old, but still really cool.

Post has attachment
It's pretty interesting to have gone from:


In just a little over three years. What's really interesting is that Extreme Tech has made it's existence based on PC's and building them to be the fastest that the latest tech money can buy can get you to, and there they were calling Windows 10 the Microsoft killer. Fun.

Post has attachment
There is no excuse for a car to ever hit a slower moving object, it will always be driver error, and if it comes down to it, everyone in the car needs to die every time no question in my mind. In addition, these examples are all aweful. You can't see forward in the direction of travel where there could be a bus full of people approaching this spot in the opposite direct of the car depicted. By changing lanes in any scenario you are then potentially killing 40 or more people. So this whole series of examples is useless.

Basically the moral dilemma is "why can't the car stop in time for a visible crosswalk, or road barrier. The particular example you see here also begs the question of why the barrier is at the end of this road and not the beginning. This is aweful on so many levels I can't even.

Post has attachment
Epstein is not wrong, we are paying for Google Services with our freedom. What he leave out though is the part where the moment Google breaks the trust we give them by paying for their services with our clicks, searches, location, and browsing, in aggregate is the moment everyone conveniently switches to every other search engine, and starts dropping all the other Google services. All it takes is one person with the proof and tenacity to get the word out that Google or Facebook has abused their information and those companies and their hundreds of thousands of employees are near immediately out of work. That's a risk those companies cannot even fathom, so it's in their best interests to keep you happy, keep your personal information on the down low, and keep it internal rather than actually selling it to the companies that advertise with them. So yes, it's a risk on your part by letting them continually aggregate your personality, but it's a far far bigger risk for them to actually have it.

Post has attachment
Okay this was so good. As good as the first one definitely! There wasn't nearly as much gross out humor as I thought there'd be, the characters were fun, competent and delightfully awkward.

If you are at heart an anti-feminist then this movie is not for you. It's women power, anti-men the whole way. The villain, and Hemsworth roles both fit right into why you'll hate this movie.

But if on the otherhand you like women, then hell yeah this is awesome. I'm of the personal opinion that these 2 scientist characters, one engineer, and the horribly awefully stereotypical black lady are all in their own right really fun. Personally as a software developer and wannabe scientist myself I found Kate McKinnon's delivery of all the epic jargon fluid, on spot, and believable, and her awkward carefree antisocialness entirely endearing and super cute. She stole the show for me.

So you can ignore the obvious gender and racial stereotypes and have a good time with a decent story, or you can bring your personal internal biases into the theater with you and basically turn your movie ticket and free time into a heaping pile of hate and disgust, I'll leave that to you.

Post has attachment
So a coworker was reading through the AirBnB javascript style guide, and was excited about ECMAScript 2015 and it's fat arrow notation => right up until he saw they suggested leaving out the braces in fat arrow anonymous function calls.

"If the function body consists of a single expression, omit the braces and use the implicit return. Otherwise, keep the braces and use a return statement."

[1, 2, 3].map(number => (
`As time went by, the string containing the ${number} became much ` +
'longer. So we needed to break it over multiple lines.'

He initially thought 'number' was the function name, but fat arrows are only for anonymous functions, so I had to explain him through his ambiguous confusion and now he's on my side as to why the fat arrow is a bad concept rife with opportunities for human illegibility. It looks to me like it was added in by someone who's a dedicated programmer and not someone who pays attention to human fallibility and it really needed a user experience person to be involved and explaining how it could be misunderstood, and really asking what problem it's trying to solve and why that is actually a problem.

Remember, programming is an act of managing complexity, and anything that can make your code clearer is a better thing, like typing out the word function, and using parenthesis and braces. Be safe in your programming, or later you'll come to regret it, and usually that happens at the worst and most stressful time.

Post has attachment
I don't know how I can be expected to work and concentrate with this sitting next to me at work

Post has attachment
Yet another play of the game, this one happened 0.5 seconds before the match was over however.
Wait while more posts are being loaded