HN user
Have you taken a look at MITs SPARC reactor? I’m always skeptical of comments that only reference ITER, since it’s very old news at this point, and there have been a plethora of innovation beyond ITER in just the last few years. The REBCO tape, and being able to get 10x magnetic field strength compared to ITER in a 3x smaller diameter seems like fairly significant progress to me.
Have you heard of MITs SPARC reactor? It’s way more interesting than ITER. It is 3x smaller, with Q greater than 10 (compared to ITERs ~10). It’s also slated to be finished -before- ITER.
They are trying to point out that women also code instead of going with the colloquial understanding that it would be ten people’s jobs.
As someone who lived next to a busy road for about 10 years, I’ve always wondered why people do this, so thanks for the perspective. The apartment was about 10 feet away, with no isolation, and a 65mph speed limit, so, surprisingly, it was worse when there were fewer cars because people would throttle harder. So because of this past living situation, I’ve grown to hate the noise of loud vehicles at any time of the day, and if I were given the opportunity to limit the amount of loud vehicles on the road, I’d always take it. Eventually I bought sound panels and put them in my road-facing windows, and then also in my rooms closest to the road, but eventually I decided it would be best to just move.
It’s funny too, since some of those kids may eventually realize that they were brought here without their consent, and that they don’t actually like working and paying bills. You, suffering for them, then suffering for their existence, and a death of your previous self, in which you draw yourself as a type of martyr. No one’s happy on your road to Damascus, and yet you’re faith and community demand your consent to your animalistic urges to reproduce and maintain face within your community. Having children out of guilt and peer pressure from your religious community is no excuse for their suffering.
Some types of tornado proof homes are not the big square concrete type, like shown in the sibling comment article, but dome homes made out of concrete. The obvious issues are that most furniture doesn’t fit well, wall hangings don’t work correctly, and putting in interior walls is wasteful, while modifying anything for electric or water is quite difficult without careful planning.
This sounds like you might be able to gain something from the “Do chairs exist?” video by vsauce.[1] Basically, he goes through the different philosophical reasonings of the past and then explores where each one of those fall apart. He goes explicitly into how small things can create something larger but why philosophers have struggled to make the leaps to change definition. He ends on the latest philosophical reasoning, which I think thoroughly explains your conundrum.
I’ll try to explain even if it seems less profound here than in the video. Basically, all concepts are emergent behavior of “stuff.” There really isn’t a chair, but “stuff” arranged chair-wise. And humans decide what that boundary is for both chairs and consciousness as they are concepts we apply to stuff that is “chairing” or “being conscious.” A collection of neurons may or may not be conscious by defining how they behave. And the details on where we draw the line for consciousness is no different than where we draw the line for how many atoms we can scrape away from a chair and it still be a chair.
Cars already use larger slower lithography sizes, which are more resilient to temperature changes, but also can be lower margin profit, since they take up more space on a standard silicon wafer. Older fabs, when spun down, may not just sit there, and may have their hardware cannibalized or at least the space repurposed for something profitable. So the old machines usually can’t just be turned on. There’s also a people-problem where that specific equipment may be understood by a select group of people and they may not be available.
There are also problems surrounding qualifications of parts and the supply chain restrictions that suppliers are held to by manufactures. So, trying to replace even just one part on a design that is locked down can be quite painful for a company. We are having many types of parts shortages at this time though, which exacerbates that experience.
Even so, a much “slower part” usually won’t have the same feature set, and may not have the same memory peripherals pinned out, requiring further qualification. Hardware changes of that level are usually done 2-3 years in advance for all of the paperwork and qualification steps. You’d have to build today-cars with standardized qualified parts from years ago. An outrageous example might be trying to stick a cassette-tape head-unit in your latest 2022 car.
I had those same problems until I started using the Factorio calculator[1]. It took some time for it to be developed, and I only just found out about it earlier this year. So I understand where you are coming from.
To reference the top comment right now… I’d imagine if you are looking at the metric at all, you’ve already lost. This, coming from someone who’s mother was walking 10-20k steps per day for decades, and seeing them fully stop walking after a few weeks with a Fitbit.
Someone above mentioned:
git commit --amend --allow-empty
This is absolutely fantastic work.
I’ve been tinkering with Unity’s hex grid trying to automate some top down level building under this alternate grid system. It has some interesting challenges surrounding height/cliffs and water. Quite a useful tool here, even in a traditional square grid space.
Check your original comment. You did not qualify that only “profound secular beliefs” are religious in nature. Rather, you speak in general saying “secular beliefs are religious.” So now you’re moving the goal posts.
Using your original logic, -any- belief can be religious in nature. “Today was 85” -is- religious from your original position because perhaps people ritualistically check the weather every morning like a prayer. The weathermen are like priests disseminating knowledge, and small talk is used to find other weather checker cultists.
It does not matter what belief Id offer up, because it will match your original definition because your original definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Other comments have already said this in fewer words. If you are unable to identify what it would look like if you were mistaken, then you shouldn’t be confident that you are correct. So how could someone identify the difference between a secular belief and a religious belief?
I agree with the parent, you’re argument almost appears disingenuous to the point of looking like a troll or bait. This perspective is substituting any belief with a religious belief which is a false equivalency. It’s unfortunate that the grandparent is the top comment right now.
Maybe this is a hot take, but maybe if a job doesn’t make a living wage, then it’s a job that shouldn’t even be offered? If someone can’t make it on a cashier job then the public shouldn’t be afforded the convenience of having a cashier. Same thing with any other service people provide. Maybe minimum wage destroying jobs (if that even actually happens) would be a good thing.
Imagine Apple wanting their cut from Google, because I used the chrome app to buy something off of Amazon.
I discovered the technique he’s talking about on my own back in maybe 2016. He has some extra fluffy language around it that makes it seem more than it is. It’s really just falling back asleep after you’ve already woken up at a specific time. For me, it was 4 AM. The point is that you can control your dreams. So I was using it to have sexual dreams. Which is why the other guy says it can be addictive (which I’d argue is also hyperbole).
There was a post on here a few weeks ago that discussed code as the translation between the desire for a particular behavior from the person coding, and the machine instruction that needs to be executed. The comment section had a video of Guy Steele talking about growing computer languages, and was trying to make an argument for Computer Science Metanotation being one of them. [1]
He started of the talk describing Regex, and how it came to be, and basically showed how that functions have been/could be formally described in papers the same way that Regex is used.
In the same way regex formalized the notation for string parsing, so too will the next language regular function expression formalize. Perhaps computer meta notation is the source of true no-code solutions? Perhaps instead of reading articles about "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Regex," in the future, we'll be reading about "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Computer Science Metanotation."
I also understand that what no-code solutions we are typically talking about is a user interface that is graphical, drag-and drop. But who is to say we don't create a tool that does that with CSM?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNPlDnX6Mio&ab_channel=Erlan...
Aren't you falling into the same trap that the post explains? That there are nuances around when types are useful and not useful? An indie game developer might spend a lot of time designing methods of gameplay and artwork for the game, but that doesn't mean that types should go out the window for all levels of programming.
Wouldn't it be better to approach this by which problem we are trying to solve? A script that is run during development, where resources are unconstrained, and stability is not an issue, should absolutely value the time it takes to develop and maintain the script. So using a typed language may not be useful here. A situation where small optimizations make large improvements might benefit from a typed language, maybe a physics engine of a game intended for multiple platforms?
In the OP, the author approaches it from a "systems" perspective, that when you need either of the 3 scenarios, then you might consider using types. Type inference, Sum/tagged union types, and Soundness, which I think could easily apply to certain areas of game development. Ignoring the nuance around the issue, and being dogmatic that all scenarios in a given field do not need types is ignoring that what we're really doing is writing in languages that need to be interpreted by both humans and machines.
The other interpretation of this thought experiment (and maybe what you alluded to) is the idea that humans, and all living things with a nervous system, are really just "meat computers." Processing inputs and outputs using the cascading electrical signals, swapping circuits for neurons. The technical name for this philosophy of thought is called computationalism, or the computational theory of mind (CTM). The term was used first around the 1940s as digital electronics were starting to gain traction (precursor to the AND gate, the Coincidence circuit, being documented ~1920s). I think that this type of philosophy appeals to software and hardware minded people because of the lens through which they choose to view the way the world works.
You're right, it's not a very good argument. It's just like someone saying that not having children is selfish. Both aren't very good arguments.
It would be better to use some other kind of metric, like overall happiness vs suffering, perhaps like antinatalism attempts to do. For example, someone who enjoys working all the time, might see that as a boon for their children, and so decide that overall, it's better to have kids. While someone who doesn't like work might decide to empathize with their unborn children and decide it would be a blessing not to have them. Very subjective, but more well grounded arguments for each persons' decision.
I'm still quite a fairly active user on reddit going on a decade now. If they started implementing this on a wide scale then I'd like to think I'd stop using it completely. I've gone on a few hiatus during some of the controversies regarding the degradation of the communities and values that they original founders represented, think like 2014 during that debacle with the office move, or the "good cop, bad cop" that was taking place with Pao and her restrictions on what some communities viewed as free speech. As more corporate interests and perhaps even governments take notice of reddit's community impact, I'm sure that more restrictions will be implemented and content watered down until it's hardly any different than facebook. At that point I will hopefully have found and fully moved on to a better place.
"It's the product not the people"
Sorry, but social networks are made of people, without the people you don't have a product. He's trying to say that because important people create the community then that's the most important thing to the product in this case. Trying to say that the product creates the people makes no sense.
There is a Princeton study that shows that the laws passed at the federal level have a 0% correlation to the public opinion unless they've donated at least $10k to a campaign. This means that the average voter has taxation without representation.
Some Harvard Business people suggested that we could curb this issue by a three pronged approach:
1. Open primaries to prevent minority duopolies in the general
2. Gerrymander with an open source algorithm or a "shortest split line" method
3. Implement single transferrable vote, ie ranked choice, instead of first past the post (plurality voting), which spoils votes and results in sub-par representation.
Could the internet, and the idea of things like "bodily consent" training that result in things like antinatalism be a cause for this? Or maybe that sort of reasoning about how we fit into this world is a result of that conditioning?
Perhaps in another 20 years we will find out if it really was Roe V. Wade.
Have you seen the statistics for young people showing that they are in significant decline for relationships, marriage, sex, drinking? My theory is that they are just sitting at home on their phones.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the...
I couldn't even remember the offensive definition when I read the title. I only associate the name with the program. Language can mean whatever we want it to, and by admission that it's offensive, you make it offensive. Should a definition change in the future that makes "hacker" a negative word, should this social platform change their name? Or could we simply say that it has a different definition to us? Is changing the name of a product really just superficial, if the name is the primary way people recognize it is safe to use?
This is how I use it too, and I probably have a problem with it. I've set up timers so that I don't use it more than a few hours a day.
Basically I've maxed out the filter on /r/all (yes, it's actually called /r/all and there was a time when it wasn't...) And then I visit just the communities that I'm interested in. I am subscribed to some of them, but I don't use the home page at all.
Just cause of collateral. You can impound a car, foreclose on a mortgage, sell it and get back much or most of your money, which is why rates can be a lot lower.
If it follows that the interest should be higher on a more risky investment, then why are student loans (that are unforgivable) not essentially free? As they should be basically a zero risk investment since they follow the person around forever, through bankruptcies etc.