jilebedev

For a layman's introduction to how (pardon the hyperbole) soul-crushingly difficult this problem is, have a look at this amateur attempt to process language inputted by players into a video game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff6V1yFafW4

proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war

Again, the unstated implication is that the US has a moral right to shepherd the rest of the world to the correct moral conclusion to this situation. The rest of the world is just too damn ignorant to figure out how to not murder everyone with nukes, so the US has to have the hard job of controlling the nuclear stockpiles of the world. It's tough having that moral high ground, but someone's got to do it.

The US has committed crimes of war with nuclear weapons against civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...

The fact of the matter is that knowledge cannot be suppressed. The ability to create and operate nuclear weapons is not something that is going to be a controlled secrete for very long - if it is at all. The current policy of the US asserting its power over the rest of the world is only going to ensure that when this knowledge is common, it will most certainly be used to ensure the end of the US power.

Once a country has a nuclear bomb or two, there is not much other governments can do to stop it from making more, says Ilan Goldenberg, a former head of the Iran team at the Pentagon. Plenty of states want such capabilities.

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

The unstated implication is that weapons and military power are for the US, and its allies. Others can't have any.

The brazen arrogance of that idea is probably among the chief reasons the US is so vehemently and passionately disliked throughout the world.

What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power?

On other discussion boards, I'd assume you were trolling. There is enough good faith on HN that I'll reply honestly.

miserable schmuck barely gets by in his job

People who are miserable schmucks barely getting by in their jobs are the very antithesis of the manipulative human I described above. A manipulative person is usually the director of sales. A manipulative person is someone who spends 20-30 hours in the office at the most, and the rest of it with his/her family or vacationing.

You need to understand that manipulation of human beings isn't a character flaw, or something done for its own sake. It is done with a laser-focus on the results. Either you have manipulated the dev/ops team to work unreasonable hours to meet a promise to a major client that will net you alone a 20k benefit at the end of the month or ... you are going to be "just" the sales guy.

People like "us" here on HN are cannon fodder for people who operate at this level. Manipulation, persuasion, sales, negotiation - people who excel at this eat people who "ENJOY" their 40hr jobs.

I - I'm writing honestly here. It's difficult for me to believe you are not trolling. It's a very thin line for me to believe you are writing honestly here.

cheater actually gain? Almost nothing.

The ability to demand a salary equivalent and easily surpassing that of a 20+ year engineer for ... the ability to sell things? Do you realize this human has no academic expertise whatsoever? They are PAID to manipulate and persuade.

You can call that "cheating". You can find it detestable. You can cry about it in eloquent and persuasive language as you have attempted to do above.

I sincerely do not mean this as an insult but: either you will adapt to the fact that 'success = manipulation' in life, or you will become one of the deluded schmucks in a dead end job because your skills with rails/js are obsolete in 20 years. The ability to manipulate people has infinite job security, and infinite earning potential.

As the Marines say: adapt, and overcome.

Manipulative people succeed in life, and in business.

Unfortunately, this is a skillset orthogonal to focuses of STEM majors: hence the drama generated by this post.

As the Marines say: improvise, adapt, and overcome.

Moreover, would the meditation participants behave compassionately in other situations? A waiting room forms an implicit assumption that the present humans will have further interaction. What of compassion shown to stranger where the subject can be reasonably expected to assume a lack of interaction after the place?

Still further: what of the gender bias? A forty person study seems hardly likely to account for the gender bias inherent in compassionate activities. I would suspect that a male would be more inclined to give up his seat to an attractive female than any other, even regardless of the circumstances (broken foot, lack of chairs, etc.) This "study" warrants some careful reading.

>how utterly incompetent the local military is no matter how much time we put into attempting to train them. Somehow in the US we're able to take (often poor) 17/18 year olds, and in 10 weeks of BCT (Basic) and then in 3 week to 2 years of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) we're able to create pretty damn disciplined soldiers

A country's military is a reflection of and limited by the society that spawns it. The USA can keep disciplined and ethical soldiers because it has never suffered civil unrest, never been invaded, enjoys prosperity, freedom, public law and justice. No such thing can be said of Afghanistan or Iraq. Moreover - the "10 weeks of BCT" is not "just" "10 weeks of BCT". There is a logistics and supply train several tho-- million pages long that creates those "just" 10 weeks. Consider the fact that humans are recruited. Recruiters need to be trained, fed, paid, and have offices. That costs money. Afghanistan has no money. Consider the fact that young men need to be transported from and to BCT: this requires roads free of IEDs, requires fuel for trucks, favourable economic conditions to produce or import buses. Consider the fact that a certain percentage of all military trainees quit before completing that training. This is accounted for and expected: there are 300 million humans in the USA and this is acceptable losses. Consider the fact that abiding by the laws of a nation and strict adherence to authority is something these "17/18" year olds have done for two decades by the time their military training is over. It is ingrained into their psyche to follow the law from the earliest age, in the most gentle of methods: by the witnessing of safety and prosperity of Americans abiding by the law. Consider an Afghani youth: what is ignrained into them is an invsion by Russia and now invasion by America. How confident in justice do you think they are? How inclined are they to respect authority? How confortable are they submitting to a national government?

A country's military is fundamentally a reflection of the society it spawns. Afghanistan is a failed state in every respect, for the last several decades, and as such it cannot muster a professional military despite the efforts of the US-led coalition.

That's a lot of words from both authors to say: nobody actually cares about "you". They only care about what they can get from you.

That can be horrifically depressing or pragmatic and inspiring: the emotional reaction is irrelevant, it is the truth.

RapGenius is also a big factor in the meritocratic rise of quality hip-hop. A track like Kendrick Lamar's Keisha's Song[1] would have been inaccessible and quickly discarded by a human like myself had it not been for the RapGenius page[2] for that track.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpX--7xb2IA [2] http://rapgenius.com/Kendrick-lamar-keishas-song-her-pain-ly...

I'm actually really impressed. Thanks for the recommendation.

Can HNers recommend a good personal finance management software solution? I'd like something that connects to my bank account and allows me to keep track of incoming vs outgoing money. Ideally, I'd like to tag every outgoing dollar as belonging to one of several labels, things like "groceries", "rent", etc. I'm sure something like this must exist - anyone have a decent recommendation?

>My favorite writers get to the point quickly and effectively.

It's not so simple. If the reader is interested in comprehending a large amount of technical or objective information quickly, then yes, by all means, start with the point, hold no cards above the table, and get to it.

But even this article demonstrates that sometimes, a different approach is appropriate. "When I was a 25 year old editor" -- what the hell is a 25-year old doing being an editor of a paper? What kind of a paper is this anyway?

That - strikes my interest. That makes me want to continue reading. It draws me in. This is why I read - to shed the dust of everyday life - to be drawn in and whisked away to a fantasy world much more exciting than my own life.

The way to start a chunk of text is to be keenly aware of who your audience is, and what they want. And, equally, the way to begin reading a chunk of text is to either adapt to the the mold of the intended audience or simply reject the writing. It's not valid to say that starting a book in a coy, crafty, inviting way is somehow illegitimate because it doesn't get to the point right away. Some people prefer and enjoy that type of opening.

Piloting machines (cars, busses, trains, jets) is a task that is fundamentally fit better for a machine than a human.

Waiting an idea out does two important things. 1. It ensures you're objective and clearheaded. There's no reason to value the thinking process of an euphorically happy man over a suicidally depressed one. Both are irrational. 2. Humans are powered by emotions: love, hope. If an idea is strong enough to emotionally persist for 3 months, then it's a decent bet that the emotions will power the next 3 months also. 3. After 3 months, it's possible to do a double-take, a gut-check. It's very difficult to do a proper gut-check in the heat of a moment. 4. Most importantly, if an idea has persisted for 3 months, it is likely founded on some kernel of truth.

After 3 months, I generally take apart an idea over the course of days. I'll destroy it from every angle, and I'll show from as-simple-as-possible logic. Every single sentence has to be sound logic, and every tiny nook and crany needs to be explored.

The first three months are for my emotions to settle and solidify. The next 1-2 weeks are for me to have a logical, impartial, and objective argument with the idea. A portion of it is to assume the role of a 12 year old internet troll and absolutely assault the idea from every angle. There cannot remain even a single facet I am unsure of, or uncertain of, or cannot backup with facts or logic stemming from facts.

If it stands after this, then it becomes second nature to begin. There isn't any giddy enthusiasm, but there also isn't any hopeless depression when encountering an unknown. The fight has been fought, all that remains is execution. Starting is weary, and execution is tame. There is no gut-sinking defeated feeling once the euphoria wears off: there's just a logical argument - written down - for what needs to be done, and why.

This is how I've made some of the most difficult decisions in my life, and it has so far worked. It protracts the decision making process into months, and that's inefficient and sad. But it is guaranteed to work for me. This is how I have lost a very significant amount of weight, and how I have stopped smoking.

A part of it is, for me at least, to acknowledge that I dislike change intensly. I don't think I'm unique in that regard among humans, but it's something I feel passionate about changing. If baby steps is what's required, then baby steps it'll be.

My next goal is to begin running. I'm in the first month of the fermentation stage: the passion to start running 3 times a week has been building within me over the last 3-6 months, but I've gotten serious about it last month. Now the 3 month waiting period begins. During those 3 months, I'll begin kicking things around my head. Just this morning, it occurred to me that I'll need to keep a precise schedule, and if I lax from it, then I'll miss a day, and this makes me very worried. I want to be disciplined about it. I'm not sure how I'll solve that - perhaps run in the afternoon? It's something I'm going to work out by the end of January.

The most useful context to use FreeMind, in my experience, is when planning a project. After weeks of discussions and meetings and specifications, it's difficult to remember all the details, nuances, and dependencies that simply need to get addressed before project completion. It's simply not professional to "forget" to address a legitimate, solvable issue raised offhand in a meeting 4 months ago. It's fine if the issue isn't solved, but at least it remains in the hopper and it is known.

Simple example:

  Product  
  - Features I'm excited to work on   
  -- the new customer lookup workflow  
  -- the Google mapping API

  - Features Customer has requested   
  -- bulk download and emailing of electrical schematics documents  
  -- text ripping of PDF invoice documents

----

As a result of asking "why X for foo here, and not X for bar there", it's easy to be comprehensive and thorough. That is the secret sauce of FreeMind. If you organize the tasks and ideas sensibly, you can apply simple questions to analyze them and generate valuable ideas and ensure nothing is missing.

The second bit of secret sauce is: I have a deadline for end of week to demonstrate text ripping features of the accounting documents. But but but - the back of my mind is screaming - but that Google mapping API is really interesting and I bet I could get it done in less than ten minutes. How cool would be to map all their customer invoices on a map of the earth? And it would be really nice to research an open source document management system. And, and, it would be kind of neat to see if that system had a "bulk upload/download" feature - I mean, that sounds sensible enough?

All those questions/concerns/thoughts are unfocused, de-prioritized noise. I'm not getting anything accomplished and I'm in danger of getting even less accomplished if I follow any of those thoughts.

To combat this in FreeMind, I simply create another toplevel node called "Today's focus", drag the priorities into it from the other nodes, and then fold all the other nodes so that I don't become distracted.

... this, as evidenced by this sprawling post, still requires discipline to work. :)

Balsamiq is a tool you don't think about needing, but when you find it, it fits like a glove and you wonder how things ever got done before it.

Moreover, Peldi's blog is frequently featured here on HN, and he writes cogently and about interesting things. These posts, in particular, struck a chord with me: http://blogs.balsamiq.com/peldi/2011/09/07/policies/

> When able-bodied competitors engage in hard physical activities like running or swimming, blood pressure and heart rate increase automatically. Athletes with spinal injuries do not get that response.

Can anyone explain why a spinal cord injury would render a human unable to raise their blood pressure through strenuous physical exercise? It doesn't seem to make sense.

It's good that you bring that point up. I disagree with you, and if I could be so bold, I'll paraphrase tptacek's post above: communities are built on principles that goad people to excellence, not forbid them from mediocrity. Communities are built by principles, not by laws. I firmly believe this, and it's why I agree that more good will come on HN from stating what people OUGHT to do instead of listing the kinds of behaviours they oughtn't engage in.

> the article makes great sweeping points, pretending to talk about some sort of general truth while in fact catering to a very specific readership

For reference, here are the article's points: > The market doesn’t care what you love > You must create value > You must be adaptable. > You must learn how to sell > You must be entrepreneurial

Clearly list your criticisms. The absurdity of your two comments is staggering.

Programming started for me as "hey, check out what I can do with BASIC" and turned into "now defend your algorithm using the O(n) notation." There was never any time to play with the things I had learned, to fall in love with them. It became a chore. Something to put up with for a while until you became ... a paid programmer, wherein what you did had enormous consequences, and there was even less time for play.

Programming and its teaching has always felt like a culture of passionate people who refused students the passion of discovering and learning but rather decreed their own rules, learned from their own mistakes. It isn't a particular fault of programmers or educators - this is natural inclination of all of us to deny others the painful experience of learning from mistakes. But it's no fun. It's no fun, damnit, and I want nothing to do with things that are no fun.

I would never have developed the mastery of vim that I have now had someone told me "hey, this is what you need to do. This is how you should do it. Here's a semester long course on how to effectively edit text." Everything I learned, I learned on my own, out of necessity. I now consider myself a proficient user of vim, but that would never have happened without the thousands of sequential js pressed before I discovered text objects out of a hunch that "dang it, this is slow and silly. there has to be a better way."

I want to fall in love with something, and write the stupidest possible code, and then learn why it was stupid, and be embarrassed by its stupidity 6 months down the road.

This is why Perl appealed to me. Because it allows for messy, playful, immediate gratification, tweaking fun. Perhaps I haven't the attention span to be a proper programmer.

I'd be embarrassed to admit this to most of my friends.

That's taking it a bit far, eh? Tasteful user interfaces answer relevant questions - not just any question at all.

What pain point exactly is this trying to solve? That twitter is ad-spammed? I'll admit I rarely use twitter, but I can't recall ever seeing ads on it. (I can, as a side note, recall how /slow/ twitter pages load.) That twitter changes its API frequently and doesn't give adequate notice to the people who develop for it? How exactly does a user interact with app.net? I signed up for a twitter account because I wanted to hear a lot about a beta for a video game. How does this work with app.net? Are only broadcasters paying members?

Kudos for taking on the big dogs, though.

What a poor article.

That there exists an unequal amount of men and women in a certain profession means nothing on its own.

That there exists a systematic bias against a group of people in an industry, wherein the defining quality of that group has no relevance to success within the said industry, is something worth discussing.

> comments that don't add to the discussion

Atwood: > don't advocate learning to code just for the sake of learning how to code.

Shaw: > Never listen to people who try to make beginners feel like losers

The OP here is non sequitur at best and strawman at worst. Certainly not a model for constructive contribution to a conversation.

The entire affair from here seems to be a nearly-pointless dramatic back-and-forth between loud people. I read HN for critical insight, not bickering.

Great execution, but I'm uncertain of the idea. My personal perspective: I read wikipedia for information -- I read HN for critical insight. Not always present, but a higher signal/noise ratio than other websites. I don't want a summary of information - I want critical thought.

> Time to ditch the arrogant tech blogs

No. Time to stop disguising attacks at media outlets as constructive advice.

If the author had wanted to be constructive, the article would have read along these lines: "It's a tough problem to find out what media your audience consumes, and then cater your PR toward that media outlet. Here's how we screwed that up, here's what we did to fix it, and here's how you can avoid making the same mistake".

I'm struck by a sense of extravagant expense toward an inefficient process in the name of company PR: "we're green, here's what we've done."

I'm willing to admit I don't understand the process behind this powerplant, but three things jump out at me: a) the natural gas must be extracted from the earth in some fashion, b) the oxygen also, and c) the resulting CO2 must be disposed of in some Earth-friendly fashion.

>MegaCli specifies the address in one format, but sets a flag indicating that it’s in another

Far as I can discern (I'm not a kernel hacker) that is the root cause. Can anyone with static code analysis experience chime in on whether it's possible to detect that kind of error by examining the source?

Each day, you arrive to work, sit in a chair, and focus on Python programming. After five years, you're a pretty damned experienced Python developer: you've become wiser, more efficient, and generally more productive.

But ... you're still no better at chair sitting. You've done just as much chair sitting as you have programming, but you've barely progressed in chair sitting.

But that's different, you say - programming languages are open and complex, with many libraries to explore, blog posts and stack exchange threads to read, and many fun side projects to fiddle with myself.

Heh, that's the key. A programming language doesn't limit your growth, your self-betterment. A chair does limit your growth: it's a simple tool, and there's not much improving in chair sitting after you've fiddled with the levers for five minutes.

I use vim because it's a programing language, not a chair. I consistently learn better ways of editing text in vim.

I'm not advocating vim here, so much as I am advocating to thoughtfully examine an activity you do often (text editing) and then looking at the tool you're using (text editor) and asking: am I constantly learning better ways to accomplish my goals?

Isn't half the thrill in "not wearing anything twice" that you're always wearing something new? It'd be a bit drab to wear something another person has maybe stained or worn in. A good part of the appeal is the "new clothes" feeling, right?