HN user

readenough

28 karma
Posts0
Comments26
View on HN
No posts found.

For many you are correct. I can confirm, through my own observation, that many, not all, are controlled by fear, and fear of death is one of the most prevalent. Death is universal, but fear of death is not.

In the early 90's I was visiting an industrial plant that had, in one building, a giant dehumidifier that was necessary for their process. My field work took me to the roof of that building. Unrelated to what I was working on, I saw an air conditioner on the roof whose condensate line had become disconnected. Instead of the condensate flowing through a PVC pipe and into a drain at the edge of the building, the condensate was pooling on the roof in a broad shallow pond. Being a good guy, I tapped the PVC pipe back together the get the water flowing like it should have been.

The next morning I went back into the dehumidifier building and saw that it was raining inside the building. People were moving around in a very agitated state. In a panic, I ran up the stairs to the roof and kicked apart the PVC pipe that I had joined the day before. Water began to stream out, but I got away from there fast and went back downstairs. A few minutes later, a member of the maintenance crew came in. He looked at the rain and immediately dashed upstairs.

He came down a minute later shaking his head. I didn't confess. I only hope that they didn't have enormously expensive damage, but I don't really know. One thing is for sure. I am very cautious about volunteering to help out without first checking with the plant personnel.

I read The City & the City by China Miéville. If I were to recommend it, it would be because the author's English vocabulary is so much fuller than my own. I had to keep a dictionary handy to get through most of it and I appreciated the challenge.

My personal view, as an industrial control systems engineer, is that so much of the world's production software requires teams of software professionals to monitor it and keep it working. When these same software professionals look at systems which physically interact with the real world on a real time basis then a different dynamic comes into play.

Is Math Real? 3 years ago

I think the question should go even deeper. There are so many fundamental axioms that must be accepted on faith alone. The question I usually start with is "Can anyone prove that numbers exist outside of our imagination?" I not talking simply about perception. Even I believe that if I perceive that I am hit with a brick then the brick exists. We have no senses that can detect numbers. When I asked this question to any of the several mathematicians that I know, the answer has always been ~ Yeah, good question ~ and then they move on.

The anecdote I have is that one of my grand daughter's teeth are worse than my other grand children and grand nieces and nephews. She used RO water more than the others when she was younger, and her dentist reinforced the idea that RO water was unfriendly to early tooth health, apparently due to reduced fluoridation. I'm not suggesting that is worse than forever chemicals.

You are correct that those two movements are not completely contradictory. First, it must not be assumed that everyone who is pro-choice will always chose abortion. Second, neither the pro-choice nor anti-abortion movements seem to have a large scale plan for the care of children born from unwanted pregnancies. So there are areas that are not contradictory.

The author brings up some important information that is not always easily noticed. The university should definitely setup a task force to look into the matter and give the author a paid position on the task force.

You're right. I should not have judged like that and I apologize. What I should have said is that I have seen a lot of misplaced skepticism in this industry and I never really understood it. There is plenty of room for Arduino to enter this market and develop good products. We'll see what happens.

I agree. It really helps to read the description and not just the title. I have been in industrial controls since 1980, so I'm I'm not so quick to dismiss the introduction of the next new thing. Ten years ago, when the Raspberry PI was introduced, I didn't expect to see it as the go to thin client for manufacturing floor HMIs. Yet, in some, very large and well funded plants, it is. Am I ready to put the Opta in mission critical control? No. Am I happy to see a more open option for IoT? Yes.

Partially agree, but over a lifetime, many of us need only open a few doors. Picking an area of study that opens the doors you will want to open at some unknown time in the future is still hard. More is not necessarily better for everyone.

"I've done a bit of everything at this point" I wonder what everything includes. Does it include industrial process control, factory automation, manufacturing execution systems, mathematical modelling of gravitational lenses, hacking (improving) automotive engines, hospital records systems? I find that looking outside of my comfort zone helps me find new opportunities elsewhere and also helps me see my current work in more interesting ways.

That is not at all what I am saying. The thought that I am taking to task is that some people seem to think ‘myth’ is synonymous with ‘false.’ It is not.

One of my favorite myths is that an idea can be declared false simply because the science does not yet exist to prove it true. I think we all have beliefs that have not yet been verified. The key is to let go of those beliefs when the science does show the errors in those beliefs. Myths have played an important role in helping us understand our surroundings. Certainly, though, they have often been misused and exploited.

One of the myths I learned early on was that the world was somehow created. Science tells us that this world did not always exist and formed over time in the past. So rather than getting dispelled, this idea is now both a myth of the past and a modern day fact as verified by scientific observation.

Notice that the referenced Wikipedia article very carefully does not say this myth has been dispelled by science. It uses its strongest suggestive statement to disagree with only a very narrow interpretation of the myth.

So, while we're sure the original intent of the mythology is misleading and inaccurate, we cannot rely on science to prove us right. Give it some time.