HN user
Obviously not everyone will necessarily have the same experience as me, but I can't say I've encountered any problems.
I can't actually even think of any bugs. Nor do I have the same patience for tinkering with settings these days. For me, it just works, with the obvious exceptions of allowing it through the firewall, but that's unavoidable.
Great that it's peaceful.
Jellyfin is an amazing project, and works almost exactly how I want it to. By listing and playing my media without autoplaying trailers and other such stuff.
I imagine many here who've never tried it will be of the same mindset
Maybe it's just me, but exploring the settings without a specific aim used to be a pretty fun. It was like seeing a vista of possibilities opening up.
Now I often find it a frustrating experience, because, while I appreciate the attempt at organisation, settings are hidden behind so many sub-menus that it feels like a slog to click to deeper levels to find only a few settings, even if there are a lot of settings in total.
Having learned guitar in a way that's somewhat similar to what's outlined in this article, I will say that someone doing this transcription-based method will likely naturally consolidate their "making tabs" into "making chords" pretty quickly, because the patterns occur often enough. I'd also say that producing your own tabs is very far away from a being a mere tab-consumer, it's just a natural introductory medium because tabs are very easily digestible to a beginner and, as you say, satisfy the craving.
I think that starting off with easy songs, and with enough brute force as you scale up, you can become organically familiar with these concepts to make the educated guesses you're talking about.
Many renowned musicians were able to effectively create music utilising these concepts despite never formally learning music theory, and by just learning by ear.
It's technically possible that early-life microbiome differences from bypassing the birth canal could influence it, but the fact that the association disappears when siblings who were delivered differently are compared is suggestive.
"However, the association did not persist when using sibling controls, implying that this association is due to familial confounding by genetic and/or environmental factors." - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
I don't feel it's particularly controversial to think that Javascript shouldn't be a requirement to use the internet. This is one step towards making that the case.
'Awful' seems awfully subjective there. Can Skype even reasonably be grouped with Teamspeak? If all you want to do is quickly chat with a group, is Discord not actually far more annoying, all else equal?
Windows isn't beating out Linux in the desktop space because Linux is awful. Network effects are much more significant.
Not that I'd call myself a buff, but I don't think my knowledge of larger numbers makes 10^24 a small number in any absolute sense. Cryptographic keyspaces are deliberately designed to be unfathomly large, whereas the number of stars in the universe is simply an observational fact. The number of stars really is huge in a human sense, as much as that's worth anything. There are more stars than there are grains of sand, etc.
The fact that we exist to discuss these odds means that whatever the probability distribution, at least one instance of life has occurred. Not only that, but life arose and eventually led to intelligence at our level - something that appears to be rare even on our own planet, but achieved relatively quickly all things concerned (only a few hundred million years).
While the anthropic principle guarantees that we observe intelligence as we're defining it (since we include ourselves), I agree that doesn’t mean intelligence is inevitable or common. A more likely modelling in my opinion is that worlds of microbial life are abundant, worlds with complex multicellular life is rarer, and intelligent civilizations are rarer still. Given the distribution of intelligence levels on Earth, it seems unlikely that we simply passed every constraint while no other planet gets close. Also, if we observed a planet with humans as they were 100,000 years ago, would we even consider them intelligent life? Probably just as intelligent as modern-day humans if raised the same, but literally nowhere near our technological level.
When scientists evaluate whether soil can support certaing thing, they don’t treat each factor (like pH, moisture, nutrients, microbial conditions) as independent hurdles that must be overcome one by one. Instead, they see that multiple factors interact in complex ways. A deficiency in one area (e.g., nutrient content) can be mitigated by another factor (e.g., microbial activity enhancing nutrient cycling). If you extend this to conditions in which life might it arise, it suggests to me that planetary habitability may be more like a network of contributing conditions rather than a checklist -- actually much more difficult to caclulate?
Also, mostly as an aside, we also have the advantage of knowing that life and then intelligence arose relatively quickly once conditions stabilized - only a few hundred million years. n=1 but I think this is a promising indication on where any variables might lie.
I think you're broadly correct, although it's perhaps less applicable to games designed to hook you indefinitely.
I often think about film reviewers, and how the sheer volume of film they've watched means that their experiences are likely further removed from an average person's potential experience, than basically anyone else.
Much like how if you're an average person who doesn't really go to magic shows, the opinion of another random person on a magic show is probably going to be more appropriate for you than that of Penn and Teller, who've seen it all before.
Growing up, a close relation of mine was an economist, and certainly not of the Austrian school. As a teenager, I was basically ganged up on by a teacher and some kids when inflation was brought up in class. They seemingly had no concept of monetary inflation, and I was forced to swallow that it referred solely to prices going up. I obviously questioned him on this incident, and he outlined that the "prices are going up" phenomenon is price/consumer inflation, and that increases to the money supply are monetary inflation.
Historically, monetary inflation and consumer inflation coincided (Supply of X goes up -> X is devalued -> consumables are now charged at higher X), and so distinguishing between the two wasn't particularly pertinent.
The Roman Empire's observations that debasement of their coins resulted in the increase in prices, meant that the original conception of inflation really was as a monetary phenomenon, not just that prices are going up.
It's really only a relatively recent phenomenon, from the early 20th century, that you had dual definitions trying to occupy the same word, although the concept that price inflation could deviate from monetary inflation probably was starting to be understood with the establishment of price indices in the 19th century.
Keynes arguing that prices could rise independent of the monetary supply post-Great Depression increased the focus on consumer inflation. It was around the 1970s where inflation more commonly came to consumer inflation in academia. 'Stagflation' of the 1970s is probably the tipping point in usage.
To conclude: it's not really wrong to use inflation to refer to monetary inflation, as it's the original usage, but considering consumer inflation as 'inflation' is definitely more in fashion (especially in the US).
While it may be true that the Austrian school uses it like that, it's certainly not the case that they're the only ones. In fact, I suspect if you speak to anyone economically trained over a certain age, there would be a high chance of them defaulting to this.
Growing up, a close relation of mine was an economist, and certainly not of the Austrian school. As a teenager, I was basically ganged up on by a teacher and some kids when inflation was brought up in class. They seemingly had no concept of monetary inflation, and I was forced to swallow that it referred solely to prices going up. I obviously questioned him on this incident, and he outlined that the "prices are going up" phenomenon is price/consumer inflation, and that increases to the money supply are monetary inflation.
Historically, monetary inflation and consumer inflation coincided (Supply of X goes up -> X is devalued -> consumables are now charged at higher X), and so distinguishing between the two wasn't particularly pertinent.
The Roman Empire's observations that debasement of their coins resulted in the increase in prices, meant that the original conception of inflation really was as a monetary phenomenon, not just that prices are going up.
It's really only a relatively recent phenomenon, from the early 20th century, that you had dual definitions trying to occupy the same word, although the concept that price inflation could deviate from monetary inflation probably was starting to be understood with the establishment of price indices in the 19th century.
Keynes arguing that prices could rise independent of the monetary supply post-Great Depression increased the focus on consumer inflation. It was around the 1970s where inflation more commonly came to consumer inflation in academia. 'Stagflation' of the 1970s is probably the tipping point in usage.
To conclude: it's not really wrong to use inflation to refer to monetary inflation, as it's the original usage, but considering consumer inflation as 'inflation' is definitely more in fashion (especially in the US).
That would only be safe if you assumed everyone shuffled well.
The likelihood that more than one person used a poor or lazy shuffling technique on a brand new deck of cards seems significant.
Conversely, I feel like Lost is massively in the opposite category. They did get their massive up-front commitment for 6 seasons while in season 2. The character and thematic arcs are probably some of the best I've seen in TV, while handling a massive ensemble cast.
Heroes, I agree with you, no question.
Most companies certainly won't be using "commercial grade internet" in the way that term is usually used. That would usually be reserved for large enterprises, which really only covers a small part of the workforce in practice.
Many businesses don't bother even subscribing to a business package, because something like a static IP is unnecessary for them.
Further, the point regarding VPNs still stands -- think of the chaos it would cause for many people working from home (on residential connections). And that's just one example.
I don't find it plausible for an ISP to block this.
I think it's clear that solar panels, while working today, clearly haven't been able to solve today's problems, or else this discussion wouldn't be happening. But we should keep investing in them, one way or another.
Similarly, we should keep investing in the prospect of commercially viable fusion reactors. The harnessing of fusion reactors would be instantly revolutionary as opposed to the incremental progress solar promises. Therein lies the difference. Once is not necessarily better than the other.
And it's not a zero-sum game.
If you ever get involved in hiring people, you realise that there are people slipping through the cracks. I've come across freelancers or underemployed people making a fraction of what their skills should be earning them, and it seems totally arbitrary that they're in such a position. It's lucky - for both sides - when this match happens.
An efficient system would make this integration easy, but I agree, for a lot of people to get anywhere, they have to "insert themselves".
Simultaneously, it's actually quite easy to be oblivious to this -- if you go to school, get good grades, get a graduate job, and do well enough at your job (but remain a normal employee), you'll never have the opportunity to have this realisation.
A set? Only US customers are unaffected, i.e. 96% of the planet would no longer be able to use AWS (or anything similar based in the US, all the way down to simple web hosting or e-mail services) without going through KYC.
There are so many things that can fall under the IaaS bracket. Think anything 'cloud'. Maybe that's not how they'll apply it, but legally they are free to do so. It's a huge reach.
It's really not benign as far as I can see. There is an implication that its purpose is to allow providers to start writing reports on foreign users training LLMs (which, incidentally, I'm not condoning either), but in the process it requires every American IaaS has to start implementing KYC folly.
No one wants to send in selfies and their passport just to start a Digital Ocean droplet.
I'm not saying your comment is without merit, but regardless of how talented or analytical one is, language use is something of a subconscious process and it takes mental effort to consciously tailor it. Maybe not to the same degree as fixing bad handwriting, but it's the same idea.
It also takes emotional regulation to refrain from correcting someone's factual errors. While someone with higher intelligence may be better at understanding and analysing emotions theoretically, this doesn't always translate into practical emotional management skills.
I know the evidence is that plenty of people are totally happy with applications running in a browser -- Office Online, Google Sheets, etc. are compelling evidence -- but I strongly prefer dedicated and native applications for something I'll be spending a lot of time using.
I'm not even necessarily blaming this on the performance difference, although that is a pertinent topic, but just the mental structure of something I'm using living in a browser tab rather than actually running on the computer.