Coding_Cat

I think we probably agree on the core issue, I just kept things a bit too brief.

There are people who feel like I described, and there are people who disagree to varying degrees (physicists, amitrite?). But I do think we all kind-of agree that we'd prefer to find experimental results that break the standard model vs proving it right now, but it seems unlikely we're going to find that smoking gun anytime soon. The model is an attempt at fitting data and like you said it works in the regime it was designed for, but it can't be _the_ theory of everything. It would be great if it broke somehow so we could investigate _why_ and drive new avenues of research based on that which might be more promising in resolving gravity and the other forces (or the anti-matter mystery, or shed some light on what dark-matter is)*

As the OP said, it's still good science if we prove that the current theory holds up, but no one is really happy with it at this point because everyone knows it's not going to be the final unified theory that we all want to see

---- * personaly I have a gut feeling those three are going to be resolved in rapid succesion if they're ever solved

The issue for particle physics specifically, is that they _hope_ to find something that breaks the theory. But so far, only find confirmations of the current Standard Model. Succesful experiments, yeah, but doing little for pushing our understanding of the universe unfortunately.

The reason why they want to break the standard model is, simplified, two-fold:

1. While the theory is incredibly powerful in its domain, we have been unable to unify it with gravity and other theories of matter. This is a problem because it's supposed to be a theory summarizing the fundamental building blocks of the universe and it should therefore describe _everything_.

2. the theory is ugly. It's a mess with many parameters and weird interpretations all shoved together. Physicists don't like this. Not just for aesthetic reasons, but also out of experience. It reminds people of pre-relativity electrodynamics for example. Lorentz had what was essentially a working theory of relativity but it was a mess. People fear the standard model is the new lorentzian relativity, essentially correct but missing some key insight that is needed to fix it.

Finding something that breaks the standard model could go a huge way to solving both these issues. But the standard model just keeps getting confirmed at higher and higher resolution.

In software terms: it's like you know there's a 1/1000'000 bug _somewhere_ in the software but every single test you write to try and find it passes.

You can just fine. The nay-sayers are, frankly, just repeating old-wives tales for the most part.

I've been running my own mail server from a VPS (vpsdime) for somewhere around 6-7 years now and the only issues I've had were related to general sysadmining headaches.

Postfix+dovecot(+mysql) setup, SPF/DKIM/DMARC and reverse-pointer record set. Both microsoft and gmail happily accept my emails and give them all the little checkmarks. Checked just a few weeks ago as I added an new domain.

It's a bit of set-up, but email is ancient tech: once set-up it doesn't need much tending.

Unless they changed it, small scale bots (10 servers or less, large bots need approval) can see every message event in every channel they have access to using the websocket API. They can also query older messages. It's pretty straightforward once you know how to use the API.

From there it's no longer a Discord problem, as you just need to export that data somewhere. There's bots which already partialy do this. There's bots that log edits & deletes for moderators to review and bots like TicketTool (https://tickettool.xyz/) let you create special one-off channels (tickets) that you can export to html on closure too.

I use Discord a lot and I agree that it's bad to use it for anything that you can't afford to suddenly lose (though people still use Google and Paypal too).

I do think a modern chat app is a value-add for fast moving (tech) companies. It is a nice hybrid between sending an email or knocking on someones door for a chat.

And as for the 'chat commands', they're usually just thin wrappers around the UNIX style tool. It's maybe not the most reliable way, but it does have a low barrier and there's not much lock-in. I used to have my server email myself whenever something needed my attention, but now it'd probably use a Discord bot for that.

However, I still wouldn't use it professionaly. the lack of self-hosting (privacy) and archival(bots can solve this pretty easilly) and restricting DMs (see slacks previous issues) makes Discord unsuitable.

As someone who was a prolific user of both I'm going to come to the defense of Discord here.

First let me say that yes there is some valid critism to be had. Mostly around information preservation, lack of indexing by search engines, barrier to entry, those kinds of things. I agree that those can make Discord a bad platform for a random technical project to use as a support forum / bug tracker / log. (though you can always write a bot for that).

However, with respect, some comments (not all!) do feel a bit like people are simply getting older and blaming technology for what are really demographic changes.

Consider this comment by Azalea on the first page has a quite a few people agreeing with it, it says

> And without going all good-old days Internet you damn whippersnappers, I think the move towards chat-room style dialogues also signifies a cultural shift towards bite-sized content and quick, shallow, generally meaningless interactions. I have made a grand total of one friend on Discord servers after posting compulsively and replying to a lot of people. Social interactions on the Internet don't really have the same weight and permanence that they used to.

which wasn't really my experience on Discord, but then it also goes on to say

> I miss the old days of logging into my favorite Counter-Strike: Source servers and interacting with the regulars there. Everyone on VOIP playing the same game can lead to bonding experiences, and I made a fair bit of friends on those servers. Now with public matchmaking, that old-school magic has mostly disappeared.

Which to me is that quick-fire social interaction they seemingly called shallow and meaningless. This struck me as odd because having lived trough the rise of social media and matchmaking Discord feels like a return to this old 'social' internet. Especially during these last few years, It's been great for my social life. I've made new friends and reconnected with old ones. Just yesterday I visited a friend I met on Discord.

And I don't think I'm alone: plenty of people heavily use Discord for hanging out with friends, forming gaming groups, discussing and playing together. Everything that they say is lacking in the modern internet. And not just for gaming, There's plenty of LGBT+ spaces, location based spaces, or Maker spaces too.

But one thing I have noticed, is that at 28 years old I already skew old in most spaces. Because of that I'll generally avoid spaces that don't have a reasonable minimum age because I don't really care for hanging around in spaces dominated by teens. But for those teens, and once you find spaces that fit you, Discord is a great place for fostering _community_. In a way that games and IRC/forums used to provide when I was a teen, before social media and 'matchmaking' kind of scrubbed that from the mainstream for a while.

That's why I don't think the kinds of complaints given in the quotes is realy an issue of technology, but an issue of demographics and aging.

But maybe this is just me being an extrovert with ADHD liking the shiny chatterbox with cute emotes.

> This works fine, because there is still a profit motive at work and the identical evolutionary forces that will kill a particular silo if it's underperforming, and the same competitive pressure to perform.

the profit motive in a multinationally funded system is still there in the sense of 'we have a budget of X, what's the best way to spend it?'. And research avenues that fail to yield the expected results can be terminated. In my experience, disagreement between researchers or groups were also far from uncommon. But maybe that's just physicists being exceptionally knowitall^H^H^H hard to convince :)

It's not flawless, but I don't think it could be less efficient use of public money than the current system where we publically fund early research and the succesfull projects get snatched up by the industry, patented, and sold for large profits. Even if a lot of pharmaceutical research ends up going nowhere (or a competitor beats them to it), we still end up paying for it trough the profit margins of the parent companies.

Raising healthcare costs are a serious concern for many countries, and part pharmaceuticals are a non-trivial part of the cost. Researching and producing them locally might help reduce that cost and stimulate a broader healthcare industry.

I do fear that pharmaceutical research might be to politicized for a multinational approach(e.g. HIV, what disease to prioritize). And there's bound to be some backlash from certain groups over a large 'shadowy' multinational body doing human trials.

It is possible to maintain the benefits of competition without the level of duplication and profit motives that we struggle with today.

Large scale collaborative scientific endavours like CERN show us that it is possible to both publically share knowledge and still explore multiple avenues and competing designs. There's also no financial profit motive and while CERN receives a lot of public funding, it has to pump that funding back into the economies of the funding countries so it serves more like a high-tech industry stimulus and technological incubator.

I see no reason why a similar aproach for the development of (specific) therapeutics could not work.

I took a brief look at it and saw nothing to suggest that 'web3' added anything of real value.

If you believe there is, then I'd love to hear what it adds that's 1. unique and 2. actually desirable.

that's just a thread of paid picrews. What is the value-add that Web3 offers here? That your avatar comes with a digital slip of paper you can use for speculation?

In terms of ownership, so far, I haven't seen any NFT space that actually adds any value over picrews let alone comissioned artwork. There's no legal framework binding the blockchain ledger entry to the copyright of the images and even if it existed, what's the value add over traditional proof-of-purchases?

you replied to a comment saying "[t]he Ponzi hallmarks are getting more obvious by the day" by... reguritating the typical reply given by Ponzi/scam artists when called out as scams?

> Chinese courts did nothing. China does what it wants inside China.

Lots of people calling this out as 'a bad thing', but at the end of the day the Chinese government/courts handled in what it thought was in the best interest of Chinese citizens.

For other countries that might look like respecting IP clauses but for China it doesn't seem to be. I think it makes perfect sense and is perfectly moral for a country to do so.

and for 6) I think one of the fears there is that nVidia would use ARMs near de-facto monopoly to force their tech onto the market and push out competitors, like qualcom on the mobile GPU market.

Whether it be trough integrating nVidia tech more deeply into the architectural offerings essentialy forcing competitors to license both techs, or by using the ARM IP to in the future outcompete direct competitors by charging more for the IP that they can now use without any cost. Even if they're not planning any of that, I think the fear that they might in the future is what's giving many people (and regulators) pause.

ARM itself is never in direct competition with its customers _because_ it only sells IP, nVidia sells chips and is in direct competition with others who depend upon ARM for their chips.

And facebook also tracks what you browse. (And Amazon lets people die in a storm.)

> which is why it's rare to see a man with breasts who isn't also overweight to some extent.

While (assumedly) true, I feel the need to note that the reverse does not hold generally: 'man boobs' are purely fat in nearly all cases and will go away when someone loses weight.

Gynecomastia is breast tissue and does not go away if you lose weight.

For rust it's sometimes useful to split it like that, because it makes it easy to publish small subsets of your project on cargo. Say you develop a custom datastructure, or an extension on Streams.

The same applies to other languages to some degree, but crates/cargo just makes it very painless to grab crates that are on a seperate git.

> we are aware of the issue. > We're trying to sort out how to kill the audio behavior now.

Are you really aware of the issue? The issue people have here is not the fact that the ad is trying to access the audio api per se but that it is trying to fingerprint the users.

There is a rather simple way of stopping the ever growing tuition bubble, one that is employed in the Netherland, but I feel like it won't be popular in the US: Cap the tuition a college is allowed to charge and restrict them from charging additional fees.

Unfortunately, it's the multi-tenant applications that tend to gain the most from hyperthreading.

For HPC it's usually turned off, and I think for gaming and workstations it also has little if any use.

True enough, but I personally hit bandwidth limits on occasion for my most heavy processing jobs (data analysis, wouldn't be surprised if the same applied to people doing media editing or working with databases).

Threadripper or cheap EPYC are looking quite attractive to me because of the high bandwidth per core and price-point. I just wish Intel would also compute on this point.

Disappointing that it's still only 2 memory channels. Would have loved for quad channel to become the norm.

And probably (because of that) a very robust codebase-base. Adding a JIT to a 'textual query'->'results' pipeline is a lot easier if you took the effort to silo off each individual step than it is when you consider 'text'->'result' to be one fixed step. Even if the initial partioning is a lot of work.

(pure speculation, I haven't seen their code yet, but I am curious now).

What's good for manufacturers (the bottom line) is not necessarily good for consumers (or the environment).

Teenagers natural sleeping cycle is markedly later than any other age bracket. When I was one, I wasn't allowed to play any videogames past 20:30, and I would often spend the evening reading books by a nightlight. Everyday I cycled for almost 2 hours (at ~20-25 kmh), so I got some regular exercise each day too.

Nevertheless, I would still on occasion go to bed at 10:30 (had to get up at 6:30) and lie awake in bed till 01:00-02:00am.

It funnels all _firefox_ requests through CF, as opposed to all _$ISP_ requests. Which one is worse for the user I find hard to say, but they'd definetely generate two completely different datasets. (for example, CF's set would be international).

>everyone is assigned a number at birth.

Nitpicking (but what do you expect with a board that's majority programmers): only people born Swedish get one at birth. I got mine at age 23 when I studied there :) It still used my dob though.

>It's far more socially acceptable for a woman to wear men's jeans than men to carry woman's handbags (speaking for the US).

Women's and mens jeans have different fits. Womans jeans tend to have a looser cut around the hips and butt for their waist size. And mens jeans tend to have a larger leg length.

Pants with a small cut will also be way more tighter on womens pants than mens. They also often have a much higher waist.

Men who wish to carry more than their pants allow can always carry a small backpack or satchel too. (which, if you know how to dress, will often count as a plus to your look)

> My issue is the false characterization as a patriarchal design choice ("patriarchy of pockets") as opposed to a pervasive fashion choice which nobody is obligated to participate in.

Women want pockets, it's a meme among women that any piece of clothing becomes 10x better if it has 'real' pockets (and even those are smaller, as this article shows).

Why don't women's clothes have pockets? I doubt every modern day fashion designer is horribly sexist, they just don't put real pockets on because it's 'unseemly' or 'unfashionable', but the reason they think that _is_ historically patriarchical. As the article does provide quotes for towards the end.

Any (well written) data analysis code could benefit from the increased core count and high number of memory channels.

Any kind of process that's batchable too.

Why do you say low-memory? I got the opposite feeling. I've been drooling over EPYC and TR2 ever since they released the specs for my memory bandwidth limited projects.

>Set extremely low speeds that don't make sense on highways. Allow most people to go 10-15 above.

I doubt people really speed because the limits have been set too low and the people know better what is an ideal speed limit.

I think people_think_ they know better what the speed limit is, and/or reason "well if 60mph is okay, 75 mph can't be that bad, I'm barely speeding and I'm in a rush". At least, that's the attitude I've seen with people who regularly speed.

If you were to raise the speed limit to 75mph, people would just use the same logic to drive 90mph instead.

In case anyone wants to disable tracking(?), this is the page you need I believe. https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols