jbssm

"Bloody and brutal coup"... oh the hiperbole.

Sincerely, it was kind of funny, specially taking into account the dark mood that sets in in the beginning of the article.

It might seem far fetched right at the moment but some thinkers and economists are already seeing a guaranteed basic income for EU countries during the next decades which in time should extend to the rest of the 1st world countries.

I know it looks a bit crazy now, but so did free universal healthcare 40 years ago if you think about it.

It's quite interesting this news comes out when USD is taking an heavy hit against HKD for the last days: https://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=usdhkd=X

Depending in the leverage they used for betting against the HKD these people might be at a serious risk of loosing everything they put there in case the trend doesn't suddenly change or if they don't get enough money from other sources to hold their leverage.

I wonder if there is any project starting to re-write Emacs according to modern practices like we now have NeoVIM for VIM.

I really like editing in VIM but I moved to Emacs using Spacemacs to try and get the best of both worlds (org mode for scientific research seems a really cool approach).

Still I see Emacs as being quite more bug prone than VIM and VIM than NeoVIm.

Perhaps this is what's needed for someone to start a complete refactor of Emacs and bring it (I mean the code not the editor) to the modern age.

You are not very good in exponential growth.

Since non Muslims in France have a natality rate of 1.70 per woman (in fact it's lower you can see why in the link) and Muslim a rate of 3 . And since there is a 0.1% of total French population yearly migration from muslim countries into France.

60 years into the future with generations of 20 years each and NOT increasing the number of yearly migrants you have:

Non Muslim: 65 x (1.7/2)^4 = 34 million

Muslim: (((5 x 3/2+(20 x 67/1000)) x 3/2+(20 x 67/1000)) x 3/2+(20 x 67/1000)) x 3/2 = 35 million

This, not counting the new increase you are having due to the extreme increase in migration this last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

Not in the future no. If the Islamic population in France becomes the majority, and that's a reasonable possibility during this century, then it's perfectly acceptable that part of the population elects a radical islamic leader for president.

Many dictators got to power with free elections if you care to look at history.

Many people think that but archeological evidence says the contrary. Caries only started showing up in humans 3000-4000 years ago when we started doing agriculture and eating cereals.

Before that we practically didn't had caries (just like wild animals also don't).

Throughout human history humans would have the full set of teeth in the vast majority of cases, until we started settling and switched from hunter-gatherer to agricultural society (which is a very recent time in human species development).

My thoughts exactly. I'm in my 30's, I've never had dental problems and every time I go to a dentist and he suggests to remove my wisdom teeth, I change to another dentist.

These teeth exist for a reason, and mine - luckily - were developed in a perfectly straight way in line with the rest of my teeth. Suggesting to remove them seems just ridiculous to me and a greedy way for the dentist to make some hundreds of euros extra by butchering me off.

This is incorrect. The blockchain requires miners to establish an unbiased ledger history. The difficulty parameter is tweaked so that the whole system can be future proofed against an adversary creating a convincing blockchain history (which was biased to double-spending or retracting a transaction).

What was the excuse in the early days of bitcoin then when the difficulty was orders of magnitude lower?

Difficulty is ever increasing just because of the financial model bitcoin tries to propagate. The author of bitcoin wanted to make it deflational and so it had to be this way.

That part has nothing to do with the integrity of the blockchain and you are mixing two concepts here: Blockchain, which was a great invention and bitcoin, a financial experience (nothing against experiences from my part) which turned out to be a waste of resources.

HTTPS encryption doesn't get more difficult to compute as time goes by.

HTTPS is the means to an end, bitcoin is just wasting resources.

If the point was just to maintain the blockchain integrity there would be no need to make its difficulty ever increasing.

Well, it still doesn't make it "good design".

Good design: Then we are taken to a page with a banner so big that you have to realize that you need to scroll way past the bottom of the screen to actually reach the content.

Dear Republicans from the USA, do you want Hillary Clinton as president? Cause that's how you get Hillary Clinton as president.

A bank transfer within the Euro Zone takes less than 1 work day to complete (if you do it until 15:00).

I believe the question of legality when carrying a concealed weapon is an all different matter.

The reason you cannot make ilegal is that some people (read NRA loonies) keep trying to make look as carrying a concealed weapon is a constitutional right granted by the 2nd amendment. When it's clearly not.

If it's really that way then you wouldn't oppose that much for a part of it to be taken away from you. After all, it doesn't have "any real value".

What people earn depend on the society they live in, it's not morally acceptable and as such shouldn't it also be legally acceptable to keep it all to yourself when you rely on what others built and in the education and infrastructure paid by others to achieve that wealth.

If you want to keep everything to yourself without giving anything back then go live in the middle of the rainforest. Let's see how rich you get without the wealth that other people created around you in order to be able feed your own wealth.

Yes, there the words of Thomas Jefferson put it quite explicitly:

You have the right to have arms within your own house in order to potentially use it in a rebellion against an autocratic state in case it arrises. Nowhere it gives you the right to carry weapons around with you on the public place.

This makes it as clear as water really.

Since when the right for self defence calls for the use of fire guns?

Basically every society preserved the right to self defence from the time humans first started to gather until now in more advanced cultures where gun possession is strictly controlled.

I believe it doesn't have too, it can work in a way similar to optimus + prime on the Linux using the GPU.

I wonder is this opens the door to PCI passthrough in order for the guest system to directly access the GPU.

That is the turning point in all this. No more bootcamp to windows to play games and no more hassle configuring CUDA in OSX, you can just use it from a Linux VM and have all your development system there.

Not so well. There are plenty of problems in the term and the community kind of avoids fixing/ta;king about them.

I had some trouble with it: things that only work with a fringe, the theme colors all mixed up, even putting a sensible line number background. And after quite quite some time trying to fix it I decided it was just not worth it and started an emacs config from base (I come from Vim). Now I'm quite happy.

Also, I go back to spacemacs git repo to get ideias, tips for my own emacs config.

Same in Portugal. The movie catalogue is severely lacking, most people just used the free month Netflix gave and then they canceled the subscription since there was not much point.

"I'm not claiming that the standard model is the ultimate mode."

I'm sorry, but it's your level of understanding in cosmology and physics that is the problem here.

1 - I'm not claiming that the standard model is the ultimate mode. I'm just claiming that following the assumption of the Big Bang which is part of the standard model, then the existence of a God before the creation of the universe is a de facto impossibility.

2 - Something that may or may not exist outside our universe, can't have any influence or even be able to observe our universe. This, is not a theory, it's the definition of Universe. Thereby, the most your could say from the Plato's cave allegory, was that a God created the cave, but that the rest of the world where that God was must have existed before he himself came to exit.

I believe they exist, I've just never met one personally to discuss these things.

If the God is outside the physical bounds of the Universe then he cannot interact with the Universe. From the moment the God can exert some change or even just observe parts of the universe then he must be within the physical bounds of the Universe.

Again, the issue here lies in your understanding of the Big Bang theory.

TL;DR: It's a logic truth, if you accept the Big Bang theory, then God couldn't exist before the beginning of the universe.

I think you didn't understand the premise here.

The premise is: "The Universe started in the Big Bang.", now, following from that premise it's impossible to have a God before the Big Bang.

You can contest the Big Bang theory and with it find a loophole for the existence of God, but the OP was finding it "amusing" and nonsensical what actually follows directly from accepting the Big Bang theory: God couldn't exist before the beginning of the Universe.

Sorry, but you just don't understand physics and cosmology. It's not about the "type of things that make up the universe we can see and observe" it's about ANYTHING that makes up for the universe, including dimensions for instance.

This is exactly the issue that I was pointing. People discussing these themes don't have enough knowledge to discuss them and they enter in easy - but totally incorrect - getaways like the one you just did. And when trying to explain them the science behind it, they realize it jeopardizes their faith and refuse to learn it.