HN user
Somewhere north of Danube.
I understood why it's called "Carbogen" only after reading (on your provided Wikipedia page) about it being a mixture of "Carbo(n)" + "(Oxy)gen". This is an unfortunate naming habit, because logically "Carbogen" would rather mean "Carbon producer" or "Carbon generator".
"Under normal circumstances, property law in England and Wales dictates the original owner cannot claim their property back even if the title change was made fraudulently."
That's... a curious thing to have in the body of laws. What's its purpose and who does it serve?
"we passed the baton of civilization to the Romans"
As a tongue-in-the-cheek retort, if the Greeks were really doing that (i.e. only playing ball in the grand building up of civilization), then the Roman Empire wouldn't ended up speaking Greek and looking so different in the period in which it is nowadays being called "Byzantine". Romans revered various Greek aspects, and somehow that privileged status that (everything) Greek enjoyed inside the empire played a role into the movement of the empire's capital to the Greek city of Byzantium (renamed Constantinople). It surely feels more like taking (the reigns, and not doing much afterwards, other than holding out for as long as possible).
That is a good question. Excepting the sexual ones, all the cells in an organism are diploid¹, including the ones found in blood (excluding erythrocytes, since those do not have a nucleus, therefore -- do not have chromosomes). Yet in natural development of the organism, a bunch of stem cells, which are of regular (diploid set of chromosomes) type, are evolving to form the ovaries, containing from very beginning all the ova (egg cells) that the female may have in her life. Ovum does only have a haploid¹ chromosomes set, until fertilization.
In their procedure the (full, diploid) genetic content of a "induced pluripotent stem cells" gets placed into an ovary-like culture of cells in order to make it ultimately evolve into an ovum. This evolution involves a "meiosis" type of cellular division, in which the end result are haploid cells, and the genetic load gets thinned out. Therefore, it will need fertilization -- a complementary chromosome set from another source.
What they don't talk about (but should) is telomeres², that normal cells, upon division, loose genetic material and thus -- degrade from reproductive point of view.
The current model, of a cell that cannot live on its own and cannot evolve (being too far from "edge of chaos") is what will be most useful for bio-engineering. Yes, we need the mechanism for creating cells, and the newfound division for a minimum viable cell is paramount. But, we also need for ways to control its reproduction, be it as to die out on its own after few generations due to degraded protein build-up, or (in the best case scenario) due to some other built in mechanism. Otherwise, expect (at least) some amount of scaremongering, about playing fast and loose with things that may get out of hand. The best thing is to have this kind of cell template that could somehow be augmented with whatever additional plug-in functionality (useful for us, case by case) and then get it produced in the needed quantities and not more. The research direction that makes sense is for ways to add such "mission specific" functions to this synthetic cell and ways to create the first generation as efficiently as possible, at large scale. That's it.
Too common, unfortunately. Publishing and getting public credit like this are considered high stakes (which justify, or at least make some sense of occurring despicableness). There is much too much infighting over nothing (compared to the money in the corporate world).
Every domain you've enumerated is but a niche. Computing domain is a behemoth next to other domains, since computing itself is at the center of it all when the software is eating the world. Yes, they have their importance, but they are also mere bricks that built the current state of the world, next to computing becoming the mortar that holds them together. Dismissing computer illiteracy as inconsequential, (or at least comparing its importance to something like "shipping routes") in a world where computing systems are (in one way or another) everywhere, it's... just puzzling!
Dacia (Felix) was the Roman Empire's richest region in gold, and this was a very advertised fact. Emperor Trajan's triumphal entry in Rome had in full display the spoils of war, and it was the richest in gold and silver in the entire Roman Empire's history. It's expected that, after "pax romana" went into effect, there to occur a gold rush like the one that happened in USA, drawing massive immigration to the region from all over the empire. Here's one of the gold mining settlements, founded at that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro%C8%99ia_Montan%C4%83
Considering that Dacia Felix was the last incorporated roman province, so the pool of potential immigrants was literally from the Roman Empire at one of its largest territorial extension and thus -- of the highest ethnic diversity. The fact that the region got mixed up genetically and now resembles that of the rest of the Balkan peninsula could be explained by later events. There was massive Slavic migration to the region, then there was significant depopulation of the plains surrounding Carpathian Mountains when Mongols invaded (and periodically raided the region for loot and slaves), and then there was also a massive wave of christian refugees fleeing from the Ottoman Empire expansion to the (still christian) areas north of Danube.
Now, after you quoted me, I see that "affection" in the medical sense is considered archaic: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affection#English
I'll keep this in mind, thank you.
As for your question, I have little to do with USA politics, which includes holding little to no attitude towards POTUS, and I very much hope for situation to stay that way. Prudence compels me to refrain from saying anything more on the subject.
We are lucky that mass epidemics that plagued humans so far didn't affect the brain. Affections like rabies, that require individuals biting each other, and which are the inspirational source of all those zombie fantasies, do not count. That is an attack vector easy to spot and manage. The scary scenario is the one like with this Sporothrix Brasiliensis fungus, which can spread by merely "sneezing out the infectious yeast", and then remain potent (outside a host) for "up to 10 weeks", plus (the cherry on top) -- "developing the disease three years after" the infection event. Any kind of pandemic is scary by the sheer magnitude of its reach, but one that would affect the brain? That would be another level of scary.
"You’ll bring work home with you more often than not."
This happens regardless of managerial position. The only difference in management role is the lack of direct control, which when not yet internalized, keeps the mind in denial and torment (especially at home). Yet, demands from above that don't take into account the limits of control, happens a lot in business environments, unfortunately, for both managers and ICs. This (should be obvious that) is a source of stress, that gets spilled outside of work hours.
"You’re not «part of the team» anymore."
Most often, the managers are the ones choosing to distance themselves from the managed lot and seek the company of other managers or people in the power network. Otherwise, as an anecdote, I know a manager that used to organize free time events for his people all the time, like a true socialite (and getting in everyone's heads when given the chance). Therefore, from what I've seen, given the power (and resources that comes with it), being "part of the team" becomes an unchallengeable choice.
"You need to be careful with every word."
This has more to do with being an adult than being a manager. If nothing else, the power that the managerial position brings is not reflected only in the weight on the shoulders that responsible people feel, but also in the means to control the frame of interaction and with it -- the means to get away with a lot (even with abuse), and afford not to be that careful (with the managed).
"You’ll probably feel very lonely."
It's a choice, an empowered one even.
"You will carry knowledge you cannot share."
This is true. But, ICs have to sign NDAs too.
"You need to network and understand the business."
This is more of a choice that leads oneself to a successful career path, so it's a thing that makes sense for managers (with freed attention and time on their hands) to do. It's also the reason behind the above mentioned "not part of the (powerless) team" choice.
"You will miss being an engineer."
I wish this to have been true for a lot of managers out there, but it isn't. Most of the managers are ambitious people, with clear career plans, that haven't gotten in the industry for their passion of software engineering. Being surrounded by this type of people, "miss being an engineer" comes out just as the right thing to declare for others, or... childish and out of place if one truly believes it.
"You will not get the training you need."
This is just something I hear from managers that haven't yet made peace with the nature of having only an indirect control. Sure, the management game(s) require some learning, but the bar one has to reach is not about its technical aspects mentioned in the article. It's about acting as part of the core group of company (like part of command in an army). You aren't supposed to get training on this bit, you're supposed to "get it" on your own (and play ball once you do).
"You need to be the adult in the room."
Unfortunately, I've seen too many times when the managed ICs are treated like children, and "being the adult in the room" was a designed role to be assumed by the manager as a consequence. Yes, management position gives you a lot to play with, even these kind of unsavory social games. It also gives you the power to demand adult behavior from everyone in the managed team, if you choose to do so.
"You need to learn how to sell." "You must learn how to manage up."
Most of this part is just busy work. You were IC before (becoming a manager), you know how little need you had back then from your manager to get you excited to do your work. Now, the managers above you were once in your shoes too, you can bet they see right through whatever you serve them with, and more. The other departments have their own readings, independent of whatever biased information you insist to provide them. Yet, the show must go on, something you have to "get it" on your own. It's because, among other things, this is what makes true the last mentioned bit -- "being a manager can be fun and fulfilling".
"how is that a moral hazard if the consequence is that we avoid shops staying empty"
The shops staying empty is one problem. The call for bailing out or helping in any way the creditors that took loans in bad faith by relying on that kind of help (to prop them up along the way) is another problem. I very much want to address the first problem, but not by enacting perverse incentive inducing rules. A better solution (in my view), which I think was mentioned in other comments, was to disallow tax reductions for unused spaces, and maybe even rise them above the tax level for what that space is when rented. In this case the landlord may be incentivized to find ways to make their spaces (at least) look busy (if not be busy with something of real value), which may be what the cities and community think of as an improvement.
"and isn't investing into a property that they then fail to rent out in a profitable manner also already a failure to act within their own limits?"
Yes, it is "already a failure", and it was the reason behind my initial objection. The bad decisions should meet their bad consequences. A "remedy" "to find ways to change the conditions of the loan so that building owners can continue to pay off their loan" sounds to me like a measure to shield decision makers from facing their failures. It is also, in the context of imminent failure, a call for someone else to hold the bag, which is in itself unfair.
This seems an ingenious rule to address conflicting interests indeed. However, I don't see it applicable to many taxable goods, unfortunately. Some goods, although of high value, require operating costs even and (more importantly) expertise in order for that value to be maintained and realized. For example, a hotel is an active asset that incurs operational costs and therefore its potential acquisition prospect may be shunned by anyone not in the hospitality industry, but still, a taxing authority can make some arrangement for another actor to operate the asset on its behalf. (This I think is in fact how the rule was been thought to work, for things like arable land, where the acquired land could be sold or leased to another peasant.) This is not as easy when the need for expertise comes into play, like it would with a research lab, for example, because the research lab may be one of its kind.
Then you'll most likely get moral hazard. That is, rather of people acting in their own limits, as responsible business parties, they would instead be encouraged this way to make deals which they know won't be able to carry through, then after getting this metaphorical foot in the door, they'll expect "to change the conditions of the loan", i.e. beneficial intervention on their behalf (and a kind of bait-and-switch).
"remember it sometimes really is the case that the economy is down and in two years things will recover and everything will rent out again"
Where do we draw the line between reality and fantasy then? If the terms of a deal are not reflecting the reality of the moment (i.e. the office rent market demand quotes) but some figure people come up with on their own, then let's call it what it is -- gambling (in which case it should be treated as such).
"I'm not sure what would be a more apt parable, something about being a leaf in the wind, or trying to swim upstream, aka powerless that no matter what you decide, how you act, bigger phenomena than you is the only thing that matters?"
There was and still is a lot of hazard (and lack of control) in anyone's life. It gets either mitigated (somehow, when possible), or assumed & ignored. So, no need for parables, as this just sounds like life, as it always been, no more and no less.
"The major rupture is the Protestant Reformation, where the split between Protestant and Catholic Christianity proves irreconcilable, and results in the end of the notional idea of a unified Christendom."
The Christendom ceased to be unified a whole lot earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism
The Marshall Plan merely accelerated the recovery, serving as seed money for a lot of investment (among other goals). Even without such help, the conditions for recovery were there. (I also like to think that the same conditions are still present nowadays, and the help you mention won't not play an essential role for anything. But, in case I'm wrong, i.e. if the conditions may not be there any more, then I very much doubt that financial help will count for anything.)
Well, yes -- some amount of water must have been in there from very beginning, plus what may have fallen in as icy bodies from outer space afterwards, this much is mentioned in the article itself. The question was not if there was water, but how much of it. Most of today's planetary body of water resides in deep depressions -- seas and oceans, which is very different to what must have been initially. Back then, the surface supposedly had very little relief, due to Earth's crust being much thinner at that time. That meant that, whatever water was there, it must have been shallow, spread to very large areas.¹ This condition was especially propitious for life, as it provided ample space for life to proliferate. The first organisms must have been at the bottom of this large, never drying shallow "ocean" or mesh of (at least often) connected seas. Deep enough to shield the emerging life from UV light, but shallow enough for light to reach the developing life, including the first unicellular algae. Even today, most of life lives on the shallow waters, where plants could find minerals and underwater sunlight, and thus the whole food chain above them could be sustained.
¹ Today's amount of water spread all over an Earth with no relief gives you a kilometers-depth ocean. Even with only some modest amount of relief (as it should have been at the beginning), if it didn't reached the water surface to produce shallow waters, then that's a non-starter for life. The life should have waited a lot of time for the Earth to cool down, for the crust get ticker and thus for a more prominent relief to appear in order for it to finally get any chance to emerge. Therefore, it was very important for life to encounter an environment with just modest amount of water.
"Other scientists agree that some amount of water could have formed on Earth — but perhaps not nearly enough to produce its oceans." "Earth might have been a water factory for only a moment, but that moment may have been enough to forge oceans."
Well, our planet has magnetosphere and it also had life for a long time already. Although the magnetosphere reduces the influx of Hydrogen in form of solar wind proton bombardment, it also prevents the loss of Hydrogen that managed to get captured on Earth by not letting it be blown away from the upper layers of atmosphere. Life at one point, almost two and a half billion years ago, caused the Great Oxygenation Event, in which the entire atmosphere got Oxygen rich. This very special atmosphere (for all that time) made it possible for the incoming Hydrogen (be it from the Sun, other stars, or just as the most common form of dust in the universe blown in here from whatever direction and cause) to ultimately be collected as water. Two and a half billion years, that's a lot of time to accrue water. It ought to show, at some point. So it's at least one pair of factors that could have led to a surplus of water we see today, besides what might have existed from very beginning.
It amuses me to see so much fuss about US $100 bill, considering that it's today's buying power is merely that of US $50 in 1970.
"I don't understand why the EU loves VAT so much."
Because it's easy money as taxation goes. Facing growing fiscal deficit and worsening credit score, the first thing the government in Romania did last summer was to rise the (general) VAT quota and cut on some VAT exceptions. It works quicker and more reliably than other means for securing the budget needs.
The VAT related fraudulent schemes are a problem in EU as many other things are, but they are investigated, often prosecuted, and written about. For anyone interested, more can be found at the European Public Prosecutor's Office's site: https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/media/news
To me, the rules stated by Phineas Taylor Barnum help one navigate in life while nonetheless contributing positively to society, whereas these "private rules for the Robber Barons" are just a pamphlet aimed to (politically) cast a bad light on the ruthless money making. The later, if taken literally, are more akin to stating how crime (as in practice detrimental to society) and abuse can be profitable.
That induced hydrogen, which you're looking for, can very well be the material particles in the solar wind. They don't reach much the Earth because are mostly charged protons and thus collide with Earth's magnetosphere. However, the lack of a strong magnetosphere on Venus means that, once that carbon dioxide layer gets reduced to lower levels and the reactive (free) oxygen can stay below a certain altitude, that shower of hydrogen should naturally become water. Therefore, the key to water on Venus is the reduction of carbon dioxide levels and production of free oxygen.
I've touched this idea before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26575155
"The signal shifts from «I can afford this» to «I was invited to spend my money here.»" "the signal isn't wealth but access"
The most shocking aspect here is the mindset of these people that come to value this access, and the fact that they have to have their own self-perceived worth at some lower (i.e. improvable) level in comparison. It has to be, otherwise the value of that access can't make much sense, otherwise that association to a brand (as chosen not chooser) can't be perceived as something of value. The only (sane) question worth asking, knowing that about the people falling into this game is - do I want to count myself as one of them?
"They have a pretty straightforward business, make GPU cards and sell them."
They do, but that's not the (full) story here. Companies tend to easily migrate upwards, to a higher volume and/or higher profit margin market, and hardly (if ever) in the opposite direction. The painful restructuring necessary to enable this kind of reverse change is also damaging to the company brand, culture, and self-perception. If they ever get in such position, they may of course recover, but I wouldn't bet money on that.
The only reason for a source code to be is for humans to read it, bun when the source code gets churned (by AI agents) in too large of a quantity for any human to realistically read and analyze, then what's the point of having a source code in the first place? Generating binary directly simply makes sense. Working with binary does, even when a human is involved, as long as there's an AI helper as well. The human simply can ask the AI assistant to explain whatever logical aspects behind the binary code and instruct the AI agent to modify the binary code directly, if necessary. That may be scary and not easy to accept. Going further with this idea, even the written text may become "too costly to work with" when there will be an AI agent to verbally or graphically serve the human with whatever informational aspect of a given text that could be of interest in a given situation.
I cannot conceive of a way that any form of healthy life, does not want to expand it's resources to improve future outcomes, especially one that is maximally optimized for thinking.
"Then you have a very limited imagination."
This is not about imagination. Given the space of possibilities to act or evolve, if mentioned expansion cannot somehow be ruled out, then it makes sense for it to be assumed (with enough time, for whatever time can mean in this context) as a certainty, even for non-organic "life".
If the current RAM heavy buyers, the AI powerhouses investors, don't get the into a profitable state of business, then sustaining this rhythm "for a long time" becomes impossible. It won't matter much that "fab allocation is booked years out" if the client that expects the goods goes out of business, doesn't it? I, for one, don't find convincing hints that this free AI crazy partying will go on for long, so then what gives?
"UI wise there is the same issue. Someone used to Windows 10 or 11 would find a transition to Windows 2000 more jarring than to say Linux Mint. ReactOS is no longer a «get the UI you know» proposition, it's now «get the UI of a system from twenty five years ago, if you even used it then»." "A perfectly working ReactOS would already be incompatible with what current Windows users expect."
That look and feel is the easy part. That can be addressed if it's really an issue. The hard part is the compatibility (that is given by many still missing parts) and stability (the still defective parts). The targeted kernel matters, of course, but that is not set in stone. In fact, there is Windows Vista+ functionality added and written about, here: https://reactos.org/blogs/investigating-wddm although doing it properly would mean rewriting the kernel, bumping it to NT version 6.0
I'm sure there will indeed be many users that will find various ReactOS aspects jarring for as long as there are still defects, lack of polish, or dysfunction on application and kernel (drivers) level. However, considering the vast pool of Windows desktop users, it's reasonable to expect ReactOS to cover the limited needs for enough users at some point, which should turn attention into testing, polish, and funding to address anything still lacking, which then should further feed the adoption and improvement loop.
"No, people will never be switching to ReactOS. For some of the same reasons they don't switch to Linux, but stronger."
To me, this makes sense maybe for corporate world. The reasons that made them stick with Windows has less to do with familiarity or with application compatibility (given the fact that a lot of corporate infrastructure is in web applications). Yes, there must be something else that governs corporate decisions, something to do with the way corporations function, and that will most likely prevent a switch to ReactOS just as it did to Linux based distributions. But, this is exactly why I intentionally specified "for individual use" when I said "switching to a stable and functional ReactOS, at least for individual use, becomes a no-brainer". For individual use, the reason that prevented people to switch to Linux is well known, and ReactOS's reason to be was aimed exactly at that.