eldude

Lots of sophistry here. Trump’s reputation as a 1st class negotiator is the lens through which to understand.

This is simultaneously many things and it’s best to view them as a negotiated package:

- No foreign nationals: not subject to US law (locality notwithstanding) -> bolsters America First which is the primary role of the government, accountability to its citizens

- Part of a US citizen AI dividend (not cash but access). Yes Nationals are not always citizens but that’s just why it’s defensible bc it bolsters the former under the guise of the DoD’s purview on the latter. Primary point here is leverage. Nationals can have their visas revoked.

- Semi-legit defense concern that bypasses regulation: stays in the executive, no 5y drawn out deliberations by congressional committees where many are clearly influenced by foreign interests (logistically Trump would be a fool to pursue the latter over the former)

- Anthropic receives the greatest marketing stamp of approval in AI history (the DoD fears the power of what we’ve created)

- Anthropic avoids truly punitive government action. FAFO. Not defending the govt here, but Trump has done nothing historically novel here.

- Within the next month or probably the next week (save this post), Anthropic reenables Fable access gated by drivers license verification (no fly lists will exist, which we effectively surrendered awhile ago, legality notwithstanding)

- Anthropic IPOs with the only DoD grade model (OpenAI doesn’t have this, yet) & firmly acquiesces as an American company first and foremost

- America firmly establishes itself as the AI world leader (both PR wise and going forward from a gating perspective).

- Corporations will nationalize for access, taxes will flow, AI dividends will flourish

- Both Trump & Anthropic will come out looking like titans battling and winning their own respective victories and it’s all pre-negotiated theater (Anthropic’s hand will have been coerced but not forced. They will come out ahead, US govt maintains is legal supremacy, Anthropic maintains its technical supremacy, this is the repeated lens from which all of this has flowed going back at least the last year, probably much longer)

Everyone comes out looking awesome in the long run. The only matter in which they look bad is through the lens of public opinion, not in real measurable outcomes. This is PR laundering with real existential stakes for both parties.

Yes. Toxicity was meant figuratively. Another way to put it is…

Burnout is your subconscious mind highjacking your body bc whatever you’re putting your efforts into isn’t worth it at a baser needs level.

Burnout is your body trying to save itself because your conscious brain is killing it.

The solution is not to rest and then resume consuming toxins but to eliminate the toxicity.

In order to do that, you must identify what is killing you.

Complexity in software is a lot like complexity in cuisine; most chefs want to stretch their abilities and create something memorable, transcendent even, but at the end of the day unless they’re cooking for themselves or friends and family there’s a business to be run.

So complexity has a diminishing return for economical reasons.

You’re agreeing with me. The solution is not rest and then go right back to a toxic environment but to eliminate the source of toxicity.

Burnout is your body trying to save itself because your conscious brain is killing it.

Burnout is your body trying to save itself because your conscious brain is killing it.

The solution is not to rest and then resume consuming toxins but to eliminate the toxicity.

In order to do that, you must identify what is killing you.

I highly recommend the excellent

“They Thought They Were Free”

For perspective on what it feels like to become a nazi.

https://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/022...

Ad-hominem.

Things get interesting when we cross the inflection point of having an abundance of lift.

Once you can achieve X+Y lbs of indefinite lift, where X is the necessary weight and Y is the excess, then maintaining Y*C aloft indefinitely becomes simply a matter of scaling the number of crafts to contribute the requisite excess lift (aerodynamics aside for the time being).

What affect will indefinitely floating object, barges, buildings (living, restaurants, business), etc... have on society where fuel isn't a factor? (e.g., Facebook's global internet, cheaper flying transports, cars and eventually domiciles)

Can someone ELI5 why Python is more like rendering HTML than executing JS? This is confusing to me since much of node.js/V8 is C, yet AFAIK (from the title and my experience) it's faster, and I don't recall anything intrinsically more declarative (i.e. HTML) when writing python compared to JS. They both feel very similar as scripting languages to me.

IOW, from my limited ignorant perspective, this feels more like the WHAT than the underlying differentiating WHY.

It's possible it's in there and I missed it.

EDIT: FWICT from the linked slides[1], it's the result of 2 issues: 1. Expensive dynamic language features and 2. python is like node.js, but as if you only called V8 bindings and so VM performance was irrelevant. This is strange to me; while I feel I can conceptualize the difference, I still don't know enough to understand why it is so compared with node.js.

[1] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10j9T4odf67mBSIJ7IDFA...

Not to get unnecessarily political, but there is almost certainly an analogy to be drawn here to American federalism and the state v. federal government interplay on behalf of their citizens.

Taking the analogy further, the App Store trend is analogous to the 17th amendment[1] superseding the states' right to appoint senators. The relevant implication being that tribal power inevitably gravitates toward centralization on behalf of the "user."

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the...

The article you cite disputes your claim, stating the quote was an unfortunate pre-scheduled pre-designed (it was an image with text) tweet that made no mention of the event whatsoever:

"The post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday."

<removed>

EDIT: Oops, I misread the parent. You're right, async/await isn't easy to debug, but it's getting better, and it's a tradeoff. For now, I recommend debugging the compiled code (using generators) without source maps to avoid some of the quirks of source maps. In my experience, the tradeoff is worth it for new node.js developers because it offloads the asynchrony contract (e.g., calling a callback OAOO) to the language.

Meh. Non-enumerable. You can opt instead for bluebird's promisifyAll when you require.

I train enterprise node.js for a living.

My recommendation is to just use songbird (which exposes the forthcoming promise API from core, built on bluebird), async/await and the async `trycatch` library so you don't have to worry about a 3rd party package's choice of asynchrony. It also comes with optional long stack traces.

Then you should look for micro-successes, and build upon them by ensuring they occur more. The goal here is to accumulate a momentum of success that spawns motivation, and avoid measuring success from an absolute perspective (e.g., small victories matter).

Honestly though, it sounds like maybe you're trapped in a lifestyle that may genuinely (rationally) not be worth it for you. The only way to solve it may be to fundamentally alter your lifestyle toward greater self-interest (not the same as selfishness) by pursuing what you actually care more about, or being honest with yourself that you don't care enough about what you're pursuing to succeed (fame for most people falls into this category).

To be fair, sometimes self-interest merely means bribing myself, like for instance with a new Macbook Pro in exchange for seeing a contract through to completion, or maybe an expensive bottle of whiskey.

The self-efficacy portion is harder, but most of the failure of procrastinators is due to the self-created problem of not having enough time. Fortunately, focusing on increasing self-efficacy leads one to start making progress right away (i.e., not procrastinating).

Have you ever tried increasing your self-efficacy (belief in your potential for success)?

Procrastination is a lack of motivation, which itself is a combination of self-interest + self-efficacy (expected probability of success).

I overcame procrastination / lack of motivation when I read this article[1], effectively summarizing the above through a study of the study habits of successful (non-procrastinating) children. Now, when I procrastinate, I ask myself, what is my selfish motivation for completing this, and do I believe I will be successful? If I don't have a self-interest, I create one. If I don't believe I will be successful, I find a way to ensure success or sufficiently increase my confidence in my ability to achieve success.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201601/ill-d...

Or buy a nitrogen or argon system[1] for about the same price ($200 v $300), but which instead is compatible with any bottle and lasts indefinitely after opening instead of 30 days.

Or just buy the gas directly for $20[2], which in theory works just as well as long as you leave the bottle upright, or at least inject enough heavy gas to create a layer covering the air/liquid surface area.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Coravin-1000-Wine-System-Black/dp/B00G...

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Private-Preserve-Wine-Preservation-Spr...

Overall, an excellent and very balanced article, especially the care taken to address what neuroplasticity really means, and what it doesn't, as well as the current state of research.

The conflation of "personal-transformation" as a "myth" with the myths associated with neuroplasticity is unfortunate though:

[Chris McManus, Professor of Psychology and Medical Education at University College London] believes it is just the latest version of the personal-transformation myth that’s been haunting the culture of the West for generations.

&

This myth – that we can be whoever we want to be, and achieve our dreams, as long as we have sufficient self-belief – emerges again and again, in our novels, films and news, and TV singing competitions featuring Simon Cowell, as well as unexpected crazes like that for neuroplasticity.

"Haunting"? Possibly, the author has some derision considering his "great-great-uncle" is "the inventor of the ’self-help’ movement". Regardless, it felt like a rather unscientific ax to grind.

FWIW, the author points out that neuroplasticity myths are used to justify some undesirable conclusions, though he stops short of providing examples or references.

Federalism and the 10th amendment exist for a reason. If you want to do anything about this, support a candidate in support of strong state's rights.

What a ridiculously useless and distracting comment stemming from ignorance on the origins of morality. Even secular morality originates from some manner of cultural common good.

In this case, I'm obviously alluding to the morality associated with environmentalism, which acts as an umbrella for why anyone cares about the destruction of an external resource: self-interest.

Hypothetically, when pollution removal becomes a logistical issue, how will it affect technological progress?

Forget present biases, how does society change when waste pollution becomes merely a business cost?

What technological achievements are presently limited by the morality of environmental destruction?

I believe the parent was calling you out on your BS. You claimed to care about the truth, but actually misunderstood and mischaracterized me. Then when the ignorance of your original statement became obvious, rather than acknowledge your gaffe, you immaturely deflected with glib sarcasm.

Not surprisingly, consistent with your weak intellectual arguments and preceding dishonesty, your comic forwards bigotry and ignorance while ignoring every meaningfully accurate portrayal of the truth.

You're a mouthpiece for hatred and ignorance.

I doubt you could concisely articulate anything if your preceding contexts depended upon it.

Umm.... My "preceding contexts depended upon it"? First, as stated, the preceding contexts were not mine. Second, concisely articulating someone else's stance or summary, or a current context, while not easy, is trivially simple.

Here's an example: Contents of Moby Dick => "A whale fishing allegory about the idolization of man's desires and its limitations."

EDIT: I believe you are misunderstanding the meaning of my previous comment based on its use of indefinite pronouns and how it was physically structured relative to the quote block. Rather than rehash it here, please re-read it.[1]

EDIT 2: Looks like my Edit window timed out. I meant to also update this line as follows:

    Neither the original DallasNews article nor the TechCrunch article
    makes any such assertion about the officer's use of his surname.

EDIT 3: One last time for clarity, the kid felt his name to be relevant (which still does not mean his name was in fact relevant), but did not assert that the "police made repeated mention of his surname", which, apart from the mischaracterizations, was specifically what I was refuting.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10228819

You're mistaken.

    You might want to ignore race [...]

    police made repeated mention of his surname.

    "my argument is based [...] on facts, [...] yours ... on nonsense, [they're] not comparable."

    Except I don't see a single fact in your original comment.

Now, we're in agreement that you believe presumptions are sufficient to reach different conclusions, and I do not.

    while bringing in our own biases based on a lot of assumptions

    The difference is, I admit it.

You falsely conclude that I have a singular (implicitly subjective) "real issue", to which I "offer" "no other explanation." In fact, despite your projecting, by "real" / "original" issue, I meant the mistreatment of children by authority in schools, which is both the context of the parent comment and the original article from which the TechCrunch article derives.

Again, for clarity, I am asserting that the original article focuses on student mistreatment and not race, TechCrunch subverts it, and the parent comment refocuses on it. In other words, the "real issue" was pre-established as the context for and precedes my comment. All my comment served to do, was concisely articulate the issue of the preceding contexts, which is self-evident when reworded to be less generic, "Use of institutional force by the police and school officials to suppress or punish divergent student behavior."

You're misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, and conflating your own arguments.

It's a rhetorical appeal to authority, so implicitly, in addition to anyone who shares my respect for and identifies with the values of the American legal heritage, I agree with it. Therefore, even though it has no direct application, as you unnecessarily point out, it is a rhetorical convenience for delineating our very different views of right and wrong.

You misunderstand / mischaracterize me in that despite the existence of institutional racism, I think it is morally wrong and intellectually dishonest to presume or even assert that the specific police are racist, without personally specific supporting evidence.

    And institutional racism against certain categories of brown people is far beyond a mere assumption at this point.

I'm not interested in engaging the rest of your arguments. It's not related to my original point, there's too much material to cover, and we clearly have wildly divergent views of right, wrong and what constitutes appropriate treatment of the individual police officers in this situation.

I will say, to avoid being mischaracterized, that we are in agreement that the student was mistreated. We merely draw different conclusions as to why. Mine upon the specific facts; yours upon generic presumptions, assumptions, assertions and other views that are not specific to this situation. As a personal admission, I don't see any avenue for myself for effective communication with someone that communicates as you have chosen here.