SavantIdiot

And it got flagged. HN: still a bro club after all these years.

Irix! When I got my MFA in '88 we had Mac IIs, Amigas, and a SGI workstation. There was a huge difference: the macs/amigas sat quietly on the work desks in their sleek beige boxes, the workstation was about 3'x2'x3' box with roaring fans that whirred menacingly from beneath the desk, and took up all legroom.

Pivot tables are so 1990's. Vector functions (you have to press three keys at once!) and 2D table solvers are all the rage. Get with the hip crowd. /s

Two satires from The New Yorker on HN front page in one day!

This should have been about Excel. I see way more puffery surrounding Excel than I do Word.

You're doing the same thing you are criticizing your straw-person leftists as doing.

As a leftist, it is quite easy to critique her ideas in good faith: she disdains anyone who doesn't confirm to her idea of "productive", abhors the poor, and deifies the upper class as being the ultimate model of humanity. And that's not even being reductive.

I gave my partner an airtag as a test to see how accurate it was. After three days of daily driving around going to work errands etc, they received no warning whatsoever but I could still track. Don't know why, but it scared both of us.

I soured on the idea (more work, ROI?) and never used them, but when I see pages like Webpack, Bootstrap and Python docs, I drool over their well-designed, easily cross-referenced doc system and wonder what they use. Someday...

I joined a project that used it back in 2014. What I found was that the documentation ended up being about as useful as reading the header files, and less useful once you open the code in an IDE that allows semantic browsing.

OTOH, if someone does take the time to document the header files, they blow up in size significantly.

I don't like it. Better to just keep documentation up to date and keep the two separate. Comments should be concise, documentation should be more verbose, IMHO.

A bit of a grandiose article, but yeah, they actually do mess with your head. Maybe not as woo-like intensity as OP elaborates.

I did one and it took me a long time to feel anything, and suddenly I couldn't tell how big my body was, or where my limbs were: my proprioception disappeared. But that was all I got. That and a bad case of the runs because I accidentally splashed some of the water into my mouth and swallowed it.

I made a spreadsheet of all of his books, and read everything my library had, which was about 70% of them. His early stuff is shlocky and gets tedious by the 10th book from that era. About 20% of his stuff is truly groundbreaking, the rest is ... boring.

Not clicking on that. I recall seeing a picture of rows of hundreds of crabs strapped to harnesses, bent in half, with needles in their backs draining their blue blood. Still can't get it out of my head.

Now I don't know what "rotation" means. After reading that thread, the phrase "rotating through spacetime" is still just gibberish. It sounds like he's trying to solve a physics problem backwards by making the units match: because the Lorentz transformation is a hyperbolic rotation matrix with a trig property applied, somehow it is a rotation? That just perverts the word "rotation".

> "nerds aren't the good guys anymore,"

Why would anyone assume this was ever true?

If you have terabytes of photos, be honest: no one is ever going to look at them. Pare them down to the good ones, get high-quality prints, and make a photo album. There's really no way to guarantee electrical devices will last without labor and cost. Although the idea of passing digital assets down as heirlooms has never existed before, so maybe there's an PaaS here that goes beyond Google photos.

> Intel's internal manufacturing operations must earn Intel's business

This is putting lots of high-level employee's future earnings on the line in a far more direct manner. It will be interesting to see if they accept this challenge, or fight it in order to accept the slow decay that will still ensure at least a longer-term personal financial gain (i.e., instead of failing in 2 years, failing slowly over 10).

I'd say 99% of folks based on my 50+ years of experience on- and off-line. I think I've only known a handful of people who can think critically about their opinions.

Critical thinking is just plain HARD.

Let's face it, it is lacking as much on HN as it is on any social media site. That's because it requires a Vulcan-like lack of emotional investment in an opinion or worse, a belief.

Critical thinking requires dissociation, detatchment from the subject, and a lots and lots of research from varied sources. Not just a few websites, but actual focus with the intent to accept an answer that goes against the current opinion or belief.

This idea of "teaching critical thinking to kids" is valuable, but I think grossly underestimated in difficulty. Especially when parents have a vested interest in NOT raising kids to think this way.

I've been thinking about this for a day and thanks for pointing this out. I remember the scene well, as I've seen the film several times, but I didn't catch the distinction between putting glasses on and taking them off. As you quoted, clearly Zizek said this, but it just never registered this way.

However, I'm still having trouble internalizing your claim that the belief that you have to put on the glasses is in itself an ideology. How? Is it an ideology in the sense that anyone can apply it by saying, "Ah, you don't see the truth," where the truth can be whatever you say it is?

Wouldn't Zizek have noticed that? Or is it intentional since the entire film is about ideology, and that's kind of a perversion of ideology.

Come off it. Everyone loves to watch a loudmouth fail [1], regardless of what they are bragging about.

[1] Except maybe Buddhists and the elderly.

I found the learning curve to be quite steep with few examples of graphs that looked well-designed. By default, large graphs look like crap because engineers designed it, not designers (it takes both!).

However, that was back in the late 90's. Now the internet has many examples of better looking layouts, but it is still disappointing that they don't look ... designed?

But integration and automation are great. Like GNUPlot, which I've used for decades because it is so easy to automate once you learn how to make plots look better than the default.

GStreamer uses DOT output by default. But any reasonably sized pipeline is almost impossible to read without excessive zooming. But it gets the job done.

All I want to know is: will the annoying guy at my gym who put brags about putting all of his retirement into Bitcoin this summer provide me with some decent schadenfreude at some point?

What are the best object detector models these days? Is this it?

The last object detectors I played with were SSDMobileNet and Yolo. Their off-the-shelf performance was really bad for a cameras I set up pointing at my house and street. But this was years ago.

> The view that everyone is manipulated while only you see the truth is the ultimate ideological position

Except Zizek never claims that. Not everyone is claiming "only I see the truth and you are a sheep". Some of us are claiming we are all being manipulated and need to be aware: ourselves included.

I think it is disingenuous for you to make that straw-man, to claim people who say ideology is harmful somehow think they are better than everyone else because only they see the truth.

That only serves to put a spotlight on your own personal axe to grind.

This article is a good summary, but I think it still doesn't drive home the point. I didn't really grasp ideology until I watched (don't wince) Slavoj Zizek's "The Pervert's Guide to Ideology." I understood the textbook version of the word, but seeing it explained over and over in multiple film contexts and then calling that back to history really drove home the point: how ideologies are an effective tool in manipulating humans. I highly recommend this film even though it is popular to both adore Zizek and dunk on him (like all people he has his faults).

> That's reductive of my point.

> they wouldn't be able to purchase anything made by an international company

I suggest you don't make sweeping generalizations, then.

> The overall being one's choices for a new smartphone are iPhone, Android, or abstain.

That's why I took care to point out "In some cases, you are simply forced to make the lesser evil choice."

> When the parent comment elected Android for "ethical" reasons those reasons would not include the labor conditions of the phone's manufacture since that doesn't vary between most Apple and Android phones.

You're not allowing for someone to still consider the ethics of an issue: it's not like subtraction, if A has it and B has it than neither have it, so why consider it. IMO that's reductive. It can still be considered.

Nope, not just you. Been coding since the 80's, and command-line tooling has become more noisy and less parser/redirect-friendly over the past decade (but option parsers have def. gotten better). To be fair, once terminals started supporting escape color codes, things started to fall apart (circa late 90's). IMHO.

EDIT: Just noticed a peer comment below captures the issues with ANSI way better than I did.

Gustin and Everlane.

These two clothing companies provide 100% transparency on their sourcing and labor practices.

You absolutely can choose to wear clothing that doesn't enslave people. Maybe not 100% (shoes are still difficult to source), but it doesn't mean throwing your hands up and walking away. Or being cynical toward someone who is trying.

Wrong.

You are making the "all or nothing" fallacy.

You absolutely can make the ethical choice when you have the choice. In some cases, you are simply forced to make the lesser evil choice.

Transparency is the first step. Yes, in some cases it is unavoidable, but to translate that into overall inaction, IMHO, is lazy.

Other than a crappier website, what difference does the servicer make?

Is technological lock-in, or "hostility" toward a user as you put it, an ethical issue?

I would think the use of Chinese labor abuses to make iPhones is the ethical issue. Funny you didn't mention that.