Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Fridrik Mar Jonsson
Software developer who enjoys cities, data, ethics, music, novelty, products, psychology, and words.
Software developer who enjoys cities, data, ethics, music, novelty, products, psychology, and words.

Fridrik Mar Jonsson's posts

Post has shared content
I may be biased, but I think this topic is awesome!
Put your geography skills to the test in the #GoogleMaps 'Earth from Above' topic on +QuizUp

Play #QuizUp  on your Android ( or iPhone (

Post has attachment
We're on Android! #QuizUp   #Android   #Joy  

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Hey all!  I'm an intern at Reykjavik University, and we're rewriting parts of our student information system using AngularJS.

We needed to authenticate users using the OAuth client-side flow (implicit grants).  I've written a service to help with token retrieval and storage, accompanied by a demo of how to use it with Google's OAuth system:  There's a link to an online demo in the README.

I'm still learning internals and trying to get into the Angular mindset, so I'd love any feedback! Bear in mind that this is literally the first version that works that I'm submitting for early feedback, so it's far from done (see the roadmap; not exhaustive.)

Worst practice of the day: For added security, encrypt all data with MD5 and decrypt it using rainbow tables.

I'm thinking about how it might be possible to improve discussions for long-form articles to solve a some of the usability issues with meaningful dialog about pieces when the number of participants has reached medium to high volumes, now usually contained in comment systems.

As some of you have probably noticed, naively implemented comment discussions often become unmanageable after even 20+ comments, which makes dialog – as opposed to just broadcasting yourself into a vacuum – less meaningful.

One idea that I'm thinking about is whether it might make articles a bit more fun if you could highlight some text and add your comments "inline": to the side instead of at the bottom.  This would be a simple way of quoting something from the article, and readers would be able stop at something that makes them think (e.g., a controversial statement) and look at the discussion.  You might even "like" certain passages, such as something that made you laugh, to give the writer feedback.

It's sort of like code review, except there isn't a goal other than matching up people who share a common interest in further discussing something in the article.  Would it encourage engagement?  Would it make for higher quality discussions or just promote less thoughtful comments that don't consider the author's entire point?  How would you implement the UI with people highlighting overlapping text segments of different lengths?  What are the major problems with this idea in general?  Is this even helpful or called for?

As someone who has just enjoyed the full breadth of what this community has to offer, I would like to thank you for these squirrels.

"[A] researcher attempting to prove that P equals NP only needs to find a polynomial time algorithm for an NP-complete problem to achieve this goal."  – Introduction to the Theory of Computation (Sipser, 2005.)

"Just find an algorithm in P, they said. That's all you'd have to do, they said," the researcher sobbed, five years into his career.

Post has attachment
Just a shout-out to my Google+ followers (encirclers?) and profile visitors (yes, I'm looking at all three of you): I mostly live on +Quora these days. It's quite awesome so if you haven't tried it, come over and say hi!

Post has shared content
Google should offer Street View on Mars.  Of course, the automatic face-blurring algorithms will have to be adjusted for Martians or they'll risk an astronomical lawsuit (literally). I'm sorry.
+360Cities just posted a stunning panoramic scene of images captured by +NASA's Curiosity rover on the surface of Mars.

See the pano (and more) at 360 Cities:
Wait while more posts are being loaded