dysfunctor

Because people are subconsciously aware that an unstandardized language will never be appropriate for systems work. Rust is also hard to learn, very few resources, small community, disreputable maintainer and without an incentive to exist and make money like Oracle or Google, it's future is hopeful at best.

I was curious about that as well. I've known folks who were genuinely discouraged and exhausted from working with matlab, and are now happy toiling in python. I've not converted them to the Julia side yet, but I will!

Julia is definitely harder to learn than python, but it's far and away worth the effort, and its only ever going to get easier. There's merit in having to push your mind a bit when learning a new skill. Struggling has certainly helped me concrete my skillset. I remember my first time reading sicp, and it was very difficult and foreign to me at the time, but after sticking it out I realized what a huge effect it has had on my work, my ability to push myself to learn new things, and how I think about programming problems to an extent.

Julia feels like a modern, less academic scheme in a lot of ways, and I see all these people so much more intelligent than me that are making it into an even stronger language and I just get this sense of pride about it all.

So yeah, matlab sucks.

Go outperforms rust on all kinds of benchmarks, has a larger community, better documentation, more third party libraries, and significantly better tooling.

What's the value proposition for using rust over go?

Is Nintendo making a big mistake by missing Christmas with this thing?

The irony of WashPo publishing this article when Bezos has been under fire for near-servitude conditions in AMZN facilities for years, is palpable.

It's common sense that certain people are predisposed to learning certain fields quickly, especially given a family tradition.

I mean, consider a family where the husband is a carpenter. Then, one day his son decides that he's going to be a carpenter, but his dad has retired so he find another carpenter to apprentice under. That very same day, the carpenter actually hires another apprentice from a family of bankers. Which apprentice would be MOST LIKELY to become the superior apprentice, learn quicker than the other one, complete more satisfactory work, etc?

Multiply that by a hundred years or so, thousands of industries, millions of families, and there it is. Maybe the banker-family-apprentice has a knack for it, and becomes a carpenter one day. If he sticks with it long enough, surely he'll figure the work out. That's what mobility is all about anyways, being able to adapt to new circumstances.

I don't really buy in to this idea that there's shame in coming from a family that has done well. Now, this is from someone (me) who comes from a "family" that has done very poorly, and I've done sorta kinda good. The banker-apprentice has as much chance and opportunity to become a carpenter as the other one, since they were both chosen in the first place.

Knowledge isn't some heirarchical weapon that only the privileged elite can obtain.

"– such as financial resources, personal connections, or knowledge about how Wall Street works from her grandfather – that make it easier for her to become a banker than it is for the average kid."

What about the library? The NYPL SIBL has an entire section of FREE textbooks. You want to learn about Wall St? Free. You want to take the series 7? Free. You want to take the series 66? Free.

The phrasing of "surrendering a larger income to write poetry" or whatever it was, is some sort of prose gymnastics that I think is trying to imply that people are "destined" to become poets, and that there's some boogieman to point the finger at and scream about inequality. If you wanna get rich, maybe you should think twice about writing poems. If you want to create art and have some sort of impact on the social sphere, maybe you should think twice about sacrificing your life for FINRA's sick amusement, - I mean premiere regulatory excellence.

Anyways, this was an OK article. I chuckle whenever I see WashPo trying this pandering to try and convince ambitionless people it's the rest of the world's fault, somehow.

But you realize that's like saying "Well, I tried IRC but there are dozens of competing clients that all do the same thing."

The Tox protocol is really the core tool. As long as the protocol is well-defined and maintained, I think developers should be free to make whichever clients that they want.

I used tox ages ago, and I used the Blight client or whatever it was called, and I liked it pretty well.

I think a bigger issue is convincing people to use it in small groups. My whole team is just fine using Mattermost/Hipchat/IRC and the majority of them don't see the need for something like this.

So what are the implications of an object that breaks that symmetry? Would it be possible to observe an object in different times in the same state, or the same time in different states?

Can you explain what you mean when you say motion through time, and shape in space?

I was under the impression that the whole idea of time symmetry revolved around being able to "zip/fold/traverse/map" both forwards and backwards in time. It's my understanding that such a concept would imply determinism, because time is really just a set of states, in the smallest possible interval of time.

I also don't understand why the time crystal loses energy over time if it is trapped in a temporal loop. I mean obviously there's not such a thing as perpetual energy, but I would think that the energy of a certain object at a particular frame in the set of states that is time, then when it returns to that state from either direction, it should be the same.

Edit: This is meant to be inquisitive, not necessarily interrogative. Thanks!

I don't know anything about anything, but I want to enumerate some things I learned reading this article, and if someone actually knows what they're talking about and sees fit to take pity on me, please correct me so that I can understand what this actually means.

So a time crystal appears to be made up of real matter. The article mentions ions that are arranged in a certain particular way, cooled in order to reduce their energy, and this still makes sense so far.

So, the idea is to create a closed loop of sorts from a temporal perspective. I'm imagining an object as a set of states that the object can be observed in, and if there was a loop, it'd be possible to observe a certain sequence of states over and over.

The arrangement of the ions is important, and one of the properties is the spin, which is possible to change with a laser beam, because obviously.

Anyways, I guess the frequency of the oscillation of the ions changing spin, since they interact with each other in a domino fashion, can be controlled with the frequency of the laser.

They did this, and observed the ions changing in such a way where there was no driving influence and it's implied that the reason that this behavior was observed is because time symmetry was broken, which is just a fancy way of alleging that the universe is non-deterministic, I think.

Maybe this will eventually be useful?