Senderman

The misplaced hyphenations mid-paragraph in that abstract made me vocalise the text in my head as a reader with hiccups.

Fair use exemption makes specific reference to "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting" - those are just the first three listed, and all three apply to a HN post.

I don't think "malicious chips" was a quote from Apple - Apple's letter mentioned "the existence of malware or other malicious activity." adding "Nothing was ever found." - which is pretty broad.

Every webstory is quoting that same excerpt - if the entire letter was printed somewhere, I can't find it.

Hi Joe.

This answer is a bit rambly, but I think my subconscious has a point to make, and I'm trying to tease it out.

This may come across the wrong way, but: which poor people? Your town, your country, or your whole planet?

I'm not an expert, but my hunch is if you start with a very local project (depending on where you live, it shouldn't be hard to find your local poverty), you'll get the answers you need - and I think if you're going to make a big impact, it will grow from that.

When I lived in L.A., young-me sat down with someone I thought was homeless - a panhandling gent sitting on some steps in Hollywood - we talked, about a bunch of things, he told me about his routine. Said he made about 30 bucks at night at that spot - also turned out he had a home, so I'd made an incorrect assumption.

A lot of my friends thought it was pretty weird that I would engage with the guy. Guess they had bad experiences with similar situations? I don't know. I doubt it; I suspect people were afraid. But what do you have to lose?

Talk to some of the people you're looking to help. A few small things will stand out in your mind - scale those.

I'm jumping the gun here, but if your mind's reaction is that that's not 'global' enough - I don't think anything grows to be a global force without a solid kernel, and that should be able to succeed at a small scale.

For what it's worth, that's my take.

Best of luck.

I've gotten lost in the 'assembly is too high level' series on this blog recently and it was very enjoyable. Also learned some things I didn't know.

That's a good point.

Makes me wonder if that 2D mountain range projection could be used to 'search' through a 3D map for a match.

Maybe my attention span let me down here, but did I miss the part where the alleged taste-altering virus was identified? I enjoyed the article, but I was really interested in finding out more about that particular point.

I'm pretty sure the implied sentiment is "Build programs that look impossible because they might turn out to be possible."

I don't think it's a dumb question. And I think you're right: the closer you get to the way the CPU you're targeting likes its memory optimally managed, you're basically heading towards assembly.

I have notions that there can be something 'between' assembly and, for instance, C, but that's a daydream of mine without any details worked out yet.

Assembly typically requires you to declare your own alignments. There are some higher-level assemblers, with macros and things, but you're right, there's rarely an abstract language offering low-level memory specification.

I also dislike the tendency to only expose the abstract view, although I think that trend is due to the difficulties involved in designing a language and compiler whose job is to output code for multiple architectures. Well, at least I hope that's why, because I don't know why you'd choose to offer less control in your language otherwise.

This comment might sound like I'm being difficult, but I'm genuinely asking.

You imply a downside for Bob in his avoidance of shared-vulnerability-relationship, you didn't explicitly state it - you said it hurts others who have expectations over him. Maybe the details of their marriage, which are none of my business, are where the answer is - but my question is: what is the downside for him?

Same on my 100 MHz Apricot. I like to think it helped. One thing that used to bug me is I wondered how much CPU time was being spent on rendering those graphs locally.

With automated processes for copyright claims becoming so common, fair use is really getting trampled on.

My [lay] understanding is that a portion of spacetime has yet to be found that has 0 countable things. I also believe 'countable' gets tricky the more you zoom in, as it were.

89% of Americans use the internet.

It should really say "HTTP[S]" calls, or "Web" calls or somesuch - when I saw "Network" I hoped it would be a debugger for, say, UDP packets and TCP traffic. It's not.

I think it's worth a peek.

I think it's uplifting to know how much more there is than what goes on around these parts.

fwiw, and this is going to sound incredibly cliché,

One thing I've found is that - people you're in relationships or freindships, of whatever kind, with - they put out a mix of positivity, negativity, whatever -

The only way to master the problem of people 'lifting you up' or 'bringing you down' is to own your own moods, and not ride the whimsy of positivity or negativity that other people are putting out towards you - then you can see other people's negativity for what it is - it might be their problems projected, their interactions with the world gone wrong, who knows - and you can help them - or choose not to.

There is negativity in the world, not negative people - you can avoid it, even successfully, but to be comfortable with it and navigate it well - that's a whole other world.

If you're not in a stable place emotionally, the advice in this article might apply, and I hope things get better for you.

All I know is I love my friends, including the one's who are hopelsss at being in any way encouraging. I see it as my problem and my job to be OK with them. And I think a lot of people share that attitude.

Pardon the rant. The topic got me worked up a bit.

A lot of people are chiming in on 'being that person' - it's me, as well.

I find text awkward, shallow, and ultimately I spin my wheels trying to decode and write messages - the kind of enegry I specifically need for things I'm working on.

Not to mention I prefer to just wait until the next time I see somebody in person so that the interaction will actually be meaningful.

A lot of people don't consider the world of difference between in-person communication and making a small electronic object beep-and-buzz near the recipient on their behalf.

About your question: The problem of deciding if a relationship is 'unhealthy' is very open-ended and rough. I can never arrive at a binary answer, and the topic does make me sad. Attention is hard to gauge and manage. You have some great specific questions though, like Does he crave attention in the same way, Why doesn't he like messaging, etc. You two should find a way to talk about it. That's what I'd do.

All I know for sure is that relying on electronic communication can have weird and annoying effects on friendships where neither person quite realises there's a problem.

Jokes always have an additional truth payload. :j

Hopped back onto Windows last year after a long time away - all the keyboard shortcuts and obscure registry settings I knew from Win95 still worked. Maybe some people would see that as a bad sign, but I loved it.

You open implying that the original commenter's grievance in untrue outside of "throwing up some code," but at the end you say the opposite, and agree that it's "no excuse for being rude to them." I think you agree the original comment basically represents the truth, but you want to offer an elaboration on the complexities -- that's great, but why present your comment as a rebuttal?

I like your point about 'payment' not being a magic excuse for switching from not-rude to rude.

I don't accept the food analogy. You need food to survive, and you might need it free if you get stuck in life. You don't need free software - it's a bonus.

You mentioned the food-poisoning suing example - IA(also)NAL but if you put free software online without everybody's favourite "AS IS" block at the top, I believe you're on the hook if your software doesn't behave properly, so it looks to me like the law agrees with your notions.

Personally, I find the expectations over people offering software for free to be, broadly speaking, obnoxious - I definitely have a chip on my shoulder about it and I know that's coming out in this comment, so, apologies for the out of the blue railroading; your comment is the one that got me to articulate all the above, so, thanks.

I believe I follow: your advice is to the individual looking to maximise their own survival chance. I read your original comment in a more abstract way, I suppose - 'long term survival,' to me, evoked way to preserve what we value as humanity, elusive as that might be, for ITS survival - if that makes sense.

I must say I'm very fond of this hypothetical amish vs. biker gangs throwdown.

I found your comment quite enlightning, and I thought it ended well with an open-ended "What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the circumstances."

But you then pick out a specific socioeconomic system as "probably the best" without specifying those circumstances - unless you mean "long term survival" to be those circumstances? If so, survival of what? Village/tribe systems? The problem seems circular, put this way. I'd even suggest that circularity is the root of the uncertainty in your "probably."

I hope I don't sound like I'm picking a fight; my reaction is just what springs to mind, and you're touching on a topic I find important.

The state of "Bug" vs. "not a bug" is similarly non-binary.

"unaccepted by users" is circular in this particular discussion, because it started with trying to tease out whether a rare* safety* risk was "acceptable."

* All these debatable words tell me GuB-42's comment is taking the right approach.

I do think it's the idea, a lot of the time. On the other hand I suspect a lot of people do it without being aware.

There's only so much accuracy you can squeeze into a sentence - some people don't notice, some take advantage, some try to teach others to keep an ear out for this exact problem.

Your implied comparisons are ridiculous. You're using this website via HTTP, which isn't much different in age from IRC. Age and the number of people who worked on them have nothing to do with their usefulness; some ideas last, some don't.

Protip: Typing in the word "Nothing" makes this pretty hilarious.

When I hobby-program, I use assembly. I find it extremely relaxing; doing most things in assembly requires attention and concentration, so it's like solving a puzzle or like physically building something; I don't think you go into 'problem solving' mode very much, so maybe it's a break from that.

Higher level languages let you skip most of the 'menial' work of laying out the code, so your brain power gets spent a pretty different way. I like each. Obviously some languages are better suited to certain tasks.

I don't have a point; I'm just sharing what sprang to mind when I read your comment.

I will say that for something like C, having some experience with assembly makes it a lot easier to get a feel for pointers, the stack. I genuinely think everybody should try it at least once; it's just enjoyable talking almost-directly to the machine.

Demand it from both.