Styx-

Anecdotally, I started wearing glasses a couple months ago and have been annoyed at how often I have to adjust my ahead when I would have normally just moved my eyes. My glasses tend to slip down my nose just a tad which cuts off a non-negligible amount of FOV.

Well, I'm sure you would still get different people commenting due to one set being home on a Friday night one month and then a different set the next. I would prefer monthly, personally.

I find that just such a sentiment prevails on HN alarmingly often now.

Can you recommend any alternative news sources with a better signal to noise ratio?

Second generation Muslim man killed fifty people and injured approximately fifty more. Shooting took place at gay nightclub.

Not OP, but Wait But Why did a great article on it a few weeks ago:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html

You're very welcome! I do it all the time, so I knew I couldn't be the only one.

For those that skip straight to comments, this is an article in which I introduce myself and talk a little about my experience of applying and being accepted to a coding bootcamp.

Hope you enjoy!

There is a time and place. An article about Dr. Heimlich in which some senior citizen invokes an age old remark isn't it.

Once you can show me the data on the benefit from that single remark, and that it doesn't correlate with the concept of 'diminishing returns' strongly, then I'll concede.

All ideas should be up for criticism, yes. But not all ideas should be criticized.

The difference being that some criticisms are productive (presumably fresh, creative takes on thinking about something) and some simply serve the purpose of making the critic feel good about himself.

In what way do we benefit to hear a criticism of religion for the umpteen-millionth time and on the internet of all places? No one is refining their thought processes, no one is benefiting.

Why shit all over someone else's way of viewing the world if it doesn't affect you?

And none of the nonsense about Christians that don't believe in global warming or abortions or something, because you have no idea of this woman's stance on any of that.

Disclaimer: I'm as agnostic as they come.

EDIT: Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to criticize religious people for being religious. It is regressive and promotes animosity between the religious and the rest of us. A truly religious person will sooner die than give up their religion.

EDIT: "All of your needs as a human being are met (according to Maslow's hierarchy.)"

You're right, I should've defined "needs". I actually had Maslow's Hierarchy in mind when I made my comment. Also, "all of your needs as a human being are met" was meant in the context of a technological utopia, not now.

As for the hedonic treadmill, I'm sure this is something that philosophers have considered for ages, but I can only give my personal thoughts on it which are this:

I believe that "happiness" is attainable. Perhaps not pure bliss like popular culture likes to portray it as, but when I think of "happiness" I usually think of "contentedness." In this frame, I think it becomes more obviously attainable.

And if it is attainable in the far-from-perfect world we live in now, then surely it will be attainable in some-distant-future-full-of-convenience. I also think that this concept of hedonism is self-perpetuating. If you believe in nihilism, it becomes your reality. If you reject nihilism, it doesn't.

BTW, are you /u/combinatorylogic on Reddit? Just guessing because of the (potential) serendipity.

Well yeah, as long as they keep moving the goal posts. The laughable variety you speak of used to be the only variety.

Pessimist! :)

I disagree. I think much of human suffering due to competition stems from lack of security, or the lack of reassurance that basic needs will be met.

Imagine a technological utopia. All of your needs as a human being are met. All of the needs of your friends and family are met. Can you not imagine how much easier it would be to advance toward a "social utopia"?

Before the Renaissance, the cut-throat psychotic human beings tended to do the best in terms of gathering resources, security, etc. Since the Renaissance, this has become less and less true and merit has started to take precedence.

Eventually, once the conditions for a technological utopia are met and for the majority of the population, it will be a like a light has suddenly been turned on. Those that have all of their basic needs met, tend to be nicer to others on the whole.

Besides, even if I'm wrong, it's not hard to imagine some sort of machine or system that short-circuits "our biologically driven urge to dominate the gene pool" for the good of humanity.

Yes, I agree.

Considering a post-scarcity world, it is not difficult to imagine a pseudo-utopia with the way technology is going. Using the example of Manna, imagine the ability to plug into some perfect VR world that looks and feels just like reality. Why would anyone want to "compete" in that scenario?

Already today, human beings would rather stay at home and consume various forms of media (tv, games, etc..) than go out and "compete." Humans typically value security over a marginal gain in luxury. Even the risk-takers among us err closer to the security-side of this spectrum on the whole.

I think those in this thread that worry that humans will always have an innate desire to one-up their brethren are worrying about nothing or some close approximation to nothing.

How would you suggest a typical run-of-the-mill object-oriented programmer go about learning such a methodology?

Most of the links in that article are dead.

Thanks for the laugh, that was well done.

I don't really understand the other guys' argument, but I don't necessarily agree with you either.

In my opinion, bitcoin will be overtaken by another coin, most likely ethereum. This is because while bitcoin has many issues, the underlying tech (blockchain) is sound.

The reason ethereum will succeed is because it is not just a currency. It's not even mostly a currency. It is a decentralized network that gives users the ability to engage in trustless programmatic contracts.

Decentralized, meaning that no one person has the ability to tamper with important documents or files.

Programmatic in that contracts are actual programs that get run at a predetermined time.

And trustless in that some third party mediator isn't required to enforce terms. This point is the most important because it means that organizational structures that simply would not be feasible otherwise are possible.

Organizations as we know them today are necessarily built like pyramids (governments, large corporations) or they are kept very small for mobility (startups). With trustless organizations, this won't (always) be true anymore.

And with the momentum of these features, I could see Ether (Ethereum's currency) dethroning Bitcoin. It's already got a fifth of the market cap that BTC has.

Two questions. Why wouldn't they, and how could they tell?

And see this is the part that I never got past. In your example, it's the cop that's committing the infraction. And yet, I'm the one that is expected to improve the situation, despite the fact that I've never been racist.

I'm all for helping people that have been disadvantaged in life. What I'm not okay with is the fact that society expects me to do anything on the basis of my skin color or gender. I will do something if I think it's the right and moral thing to do, not because a bunch of people on the internet told me it was the right thing to do.

I think the disconnect lies in that many people (such as yourself) believe that it's such a clear cut thing when in reality it's much grayer, like everything else in life. Essentially, stop telling other people how to live their lives.