dayvigo

There's also an argument that developers of new software, including libraries, should consider making an earnest attempt to do The Right Thing instead of re-implementing old, flawed designs and APIs for familiarity's sake. We have enough regression to the mean already.

The more LLMs are entrenched and required, the less we're able to do The Right Thing in the future. Time will be frozen, and we'll be stuck with the current mean forever. LLMs are notoriously bad at understanding anything that isn't mappable in some way to pre-existing constructs.

for no especially good reason

That's a major qualifier.

It's common enough that there's a well-known term for it: workaholic.

Sure, lambda calculus is math. To call assembly or typical imperative C math, at least in the same sense, is a bit of a stretch.

No, the pathology of Parkinson's Disease is dopaminergic dysfunction (the symptoms coming from this happening in the area relevant to planning movements, separate from areas that influence emotion or reward), usually driven by loss of dopamine-producing neurons. This is well-described by decades of research and tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers.

No, activity and expression are always local. Exclusively. There are no global levers.

One has to be deliberately obtuse to pretend to not see how ridiculous it is to make having a third-party application that shows little icons in the corner of the screen a hard requirement for a cloud file sync application.

I use Linux and don't have a taskbar, a topbar, a sysbar, nor anything similar. I've never seen the need for one when I can manage my windows in other ways and have more screen real estate available. What does that have to do with syncing my files?

If 1929 was a minor pain, then what's a major pain?

AGI which will lead to ASI is going to happen before 2030, and the US is going to lose because of tariffs. Thinking in terms of decades rather than years will be a fatal mistake.

It absolutely is a good idea. User-controlled smart automated filtering of outside content is clearly the future. Not sure why you're being downvoted.

Conservatives are the most prominent and dangerous de-bankers. It is well known that Mormons have a lot of power the payment processor world, and censor content they find offensive to their religion, using concerns about fraud and chargebacks as mere convenient excuses.

To rephrase crudely: "inline everything".

Sounds a lot like what Forth does.

The other commenter asked about why J, but I want to more specifically ask, why did you choose J over K? I can't decide which to learn.

I can't doubt that I want to eat a doughnut or that I want to be healthy or that I want a world with less cruelty in it.

The common case of the smoker (or someone around them) doubting whether they "really" want to quit cigarettes or not, after claiming they do want to quit and will quit, and then failing to do so, shows this is coherent though. It's just not applicable to the two examples you gave, because that's not what is meant.

If you can manage to fluidly update your DSL design along the way, it might work

Forth and Smalltalks are good for this. Self even more so. Hidden gems.

I'm not sure anyone who finds it difficult to write values to file and read from them later should be working on commercial software. I genuinely struggle to think of any single feature that could be more trivial than this is.

No, I mean the developer publishes under a pseudonym, and said developer can use Tor if needed to hide their tracks so they can't be served legally, as no one knows who they are in real life. Joe Public isn't risking going to prison or being sued to bankruptcy because they downloaded some random YouTube client, so they don't have to use Tor.

That works great for the one you already have, how would you discover future "I can't live without this" good videos if you stop using YouTube?

One can publish their client/frontend pseudonymously, using Tor if necessary. Not like one is gonna profit off it anyway, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

Are witness protection programs a form of "censorship?"

We all agree the answer is no, I would hope. It follows that you are not affording this topic a proper level of nuance.

Sure. But how do you write that in a way that is expressive, terse, and readable all at once? Nothing beats x | y | z or (-> x y z). The speed of both writing and reading (and comprehending), the sheer simplicity, is what makes pipelining useful in the first place.

One of the things all abusive and controlling parents have is a singular obsession with maintaining the primacy of the nuclear family and absolute parental authority.

My bank only supports Zelle in the app, not on the web interface, and ever since an update a few months ago the Zelle part of the app suddenly won't load at all on GrapheneOS. There is no fix. So now I can't directly send and receive money through a bank without waiting days or paying a wire transfer fee, because in the United States this ability is monopolized by a private corporation's proprietary service, which can only be interfaced with through one's closed-source banking mobile app.

developers get more say in how apps work.

They do, but they shouldn't. This is one of the worst things about modern technology. My device, my rules, end of story. I should be able to change the inputs to the application such that it thinks it's in whatever region I decide, because I physically control and operate the device.

The hardware I have sitting on my desk is vastly more powerful that what I was rocking 10-20 years ago, but the user experience seems about the same.

Not even.

It used to be that when you clicked a button, things happened immediately, instead of a few seconds later as everything freezes up. Text could be entered into fields without inputs getting dropped or playing catch-up. A mysterious unkillable service wouldn't randomly decide to peg your core several times a day. This was all the case even as late as Windows 7.

I study cognitive neuroscience. Meditation is extremely evidence-based. It is literally one of the most evidence-based things there is in terms of actions you can take to improve mood, executive function, focus, general cognition, etc., it's almost as backed as physical exercise. Of course, there is also a lot of woo-woo spiritual stuff around it, but you can just ignore that side and use it effectively. Not sure about breathwork, I'm moderately skeptical of many the claims made about it, but I haven't looked super far into it comparatively.

I've noticed the left, right, and center have all become more obsessed than ever these past few years with the idea the state and society aren't doing enough to forcibly protect people from themselves, that preventing potential self-inflicted harm due to a poor or risky decision is worth literally any cost; 1% aggregate harm reduction is now considered preferable to freedom of choice. No amount of risk is ever acceptable, and no one is allowed to perform their own risk calculus because they don't know better. And yes, as you said, abusive parenting is a major issue as well. Hard problems to solve.

Source?

My social groups are almost exclusively non-techie. I am regularly exposed to networks that are very, very far away from HN. I assure you, there are people think AI is useless and purely harmful (in the sense of creating "slop," wasting electricity and water, etc. not evil AI). And there are a lot of them.

The actual issue is parents wanting to (basically) anesthetize their kids so the parents can do something as if they didn't have the kids.

A good question to ask is why these people are making the decision to have children in the first place if this is how they treat them.

Maybe an order of magnitude or so less people should have children. People who want to have their cake and eat it too, raising their children largely passively, shouldn't be having kids at all. It's not something you "need" to do or should do without a very good reason and high confidence in your ability to do so effectively. Society should be strongly discouraging these kinds of people from having kids, but it's currently encouraging them.

APL programmers would say it's already maximally optimized for readability (actually, it could be improved further with less and shorter keywords and stdlib function names). That's not even a joke or dig at APL programmers, whether that code would be more or less readable with longer, more descriptive names is entirely a matter of perspective, preference, and context.