"Correct technological choice": I think relational algebra style APIs (a la Polars) are the "correct technological choice" here. SQL is just a tool to express relational algebra, and I'm not sure it's a good one.
Also, from my limited experience with a single OLED screen, it seems that most stuff was created for a certain kind of screen without as much colour fidelity, and now that stuff seems far more...obnoxiously "saturated"?...on an OLED screen.
I was looking at [Low Cost Mini PCs](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41389931) a few days ago, and saw comments recommending vendors such as Beelink or Minisforum.These companies are relatively unknown compared to companies like Lenovo, Dell, HP, etc. My guess as a layman would be that that Lenovo is not likely to try and "compromise" the hardware it sells (e.g. with additional chips that...
I am not afraid to say this is poorly designed.
The good news is that reality does not care whether or not you lack imagination. One can only marvel then, at the sequence of events that lead to the "unthinkable".
Markets are unable to lie (as they are deeply/intrinsically connected to reality).
Anyway, are two different things.
> "Lol, meta-microaggressions that'll fix microaggressions."
I have no clue what this means. Do you?
> "yes, you will win..."
What? This isn't "me", winning. This is the age-old reality of "you are owed absolutely nothing", and that "if you are owed something, you will know because people will be paying you for it". This is capitalism at its core.
When it comes specifically to helping others:
1) you are either paid for it by an employer, in which case you ought to do it based on the employer's requirements, and all extraneous complaints are null and void unless
2) you create your own business off of your expertise, where you get to choose what precisely you offer people, and people get to choose whether they value your expertise; or
3) you do it for free, because you get something out of the experience which is entirely unrelated to how others treat you. If you're doing it for free to establish yourself through "loss-leader" tactics, but you cannot turn your losses into said leadership, then you can't complain. The world considers you to be an overvalued commodity. End of story.
Welcome to reality! You can rage if you'd like. The world will not care. There's business to do, money to be made, and entertainment to be had in the form of people who think they are worth more than what the market prices them. Either they are right and they eventually get movies made out of their life stories ("rags to riches!"), or they are wrong and they serve as living comedy (which can also be converted into money).
This is hardcore Reaganomics I am suggesting, not "youth-communism" (lol, wtf? where does that even come from...). Either you are rich enough to earn respect, or you are sensible enough to know you're not worth any. Which one is it?
If you believe you can be rich enough to be shown respect, then why are you wasting your time commenting on HN, instead of turning the apparent coming-doom into a business opportunity? The wealth you earn this way can then be convert into concrete respect if you so choose?
(Not sure: wondering.)
1) Bioreactors have available many options other than antibiotics for controlling bacterial growth.
2) A bioreactor is not "basically just an animal with a severely curtailed feature set". A bioreactor is not even "basically an organ with a severely curtailed feature set".
3) What precisely do you mean by "sterile techniques will only get you so far, especially at scale"?
There are actual issues with lab-grown meat. In a nutshell: nutritional quality, and the high degree of post-processing likely needed in order to make them palatable in terms of texture and taste.
TL;DR when someone reasons by analogy, doubt everything they say.
I don't think the suggested "requirement" (?) to avoid microagression is to answer both X and Y. I think the suggestion to avoid microagression is to avoid using the term microagression in the first place.
Another one would be to recognize that you are fully within your rights to not offer help where it's not your job to offer help. No one cares if you choose not to answer support requests for your open source project, nor will the world suffer for it.
On the flip side, you can't expect those you do help to care enough to show you respect for your help either. If being respected and/or people making special allowances for your tone is something you do care about, well, then don't help to begin with. Contrary to our self-centered worries, the world will go on fine without us. It might even go on better without us; who is to say, after all? Most certainly not us.
Here's a piece of advice I keep hearing from people who are more powerful than me (Usually, these were also people older than me, but that is becoming less true as I grow older myself.): you're owed absolutely nothing. No one is.
Most human beings on this planet live in full awareness of that fact. So its only a matter of time until those who don't, end up learning that too.
In the highly likely case where your answers are crap, the world is spared yet another person who thinks they are well-suited to add to the mess. In the equally possible case where your answers are not crap, you are spared having to deal with people who cannot appreciate your campaign medals.
nosplaining is great. Welcome to how most of us live.
Neither is bad. The production-line approach is good at producing something defined by a fixed specification, reliably. Predictability in quantity produced and product quality are both important.
The craftsperson's approach is good at producing things where each thing is an incremental improvement over the last. Predictability in quantity produced is usually an anti-goal, as it is best left as another project (probably another craftperson's project). Predictability of quality produced is often sacrificed on purpose in order to get out of a local optima and better explore a larger landscape. So, while quality improves in the long term, it may not in the short term.
Patronage, historically, was aware of this. It did not demand, it trusted. It was intensely aware of the imperfection in humans, and it is questionable to what extent it considered genius as a truth, rather than merely a helpful myth (helpful only after the person was long dead, and not actually in the production of new creative works, but rather in keeping up the market value of previously created works, in order to help fund new ones).
Patreon, on the other hand, lacks such nuance.
I am having trouble parsing `pitchm2 pitchcell height`.
Assuming that you meant to use `*` and then HN's markdown assumed it was italics, and placing `×` where italics start and begin:
sqrt(pitch × m2 pitch × cell height)
Then I am left with the questions:
What are the units of pitch? Best guess: length units? (Based on: cell height having length units. `m2 pitch` being dimensionaless?
Why do the pitches "obviously make an area" then?
What are the units of metal to pitch? Best guess: dimensionless. (Based on the final units of the sqrt being repoted in length, and the cell height presumably having units of length).
What the units of cell height? Best guess: length units, based on what the variable is called.
Part of this seems to be due to the reality of creative work: you need to be willing to fund failures as much as successes, or you'll end up getting more-of-the-same rather than something new. E.g. existing creators with well-established patron bases can feel pressured to make more-of-the-same, rather than experimenting, leading to their burnout.
The other part of it seems to honestly be gullibility (on the part of backers) and lack of focus on realistic, achievable goals ("go small, then incrementally bigger") from those seeking funding. The normalization/glorification of advertising culture (e.g. "fake it till you make it") is a non-trivial contributor to this issue, ultimately making it difficult to distinguish between grifters and people who drank the kool-aid.
"That which is the common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care..." is not a universal law, and it is easy to think of counterexamples. Without listing these, here are some axes that can govern which side of well-cared-for resources in the commons may end up:
- the extent to which people hold cooperation to be an important ingredient, versus dispensable - the extent to which people are able to trust others, versus not - the extent to which a commonly held resource is considered as much a personal resource, as a common one, versus purely common and otherwise inconsequential - the extent to which people are able to value the importance (and impact) of small, consistent actions versus grand(iose) ones - the extent to which people are willing to learn from mistakes and change, versus the extent to which people feel entrenched and defensive
Most of these come down to education, culture, and type of previous interactions with other humans.
When lobbying is transparent, it actually loses quite a lot of its power. When lobbying is hidden, it becomes far more influential. Who would you trust more? Your favourite Green Party politician, who unbeknownst to you has been hired as an influencer for GroupA, or the slimy scumbag who works as a lobbyist for a GroupA?
However, "transparency" can also be nothing more than obfuscation, when its incomplete. After all, if your favourite politician is never forced to reveal that they are an influencer, but the slimy scumbag is forced to wear a fedora marking them "transparently" as a lobbyist...
Well, guess who wins again?
GroupA.
"What if we had all this extra data on our customers?! Then we could do a lot more to make more money! So, it makes sense we ought to pay more for that data too!"
The data provider gets to profit based of this speculative "of course more information/more stuff is better!", while the data purchaser doesn't really have a chance to test whether their speculation is well-founded. (How precisely do you test what the causative effect of changes to your ad campaign are? If you make a change, and numbers go up, how do you separate numbers going up caused by any of the other parallel factors? It's hard to be scientific with advertising.)
The person selling the tool always wins, even if the tool is nothing more than a placebo effect. The person buying the tool on the other hand...well, good thing they have deep pockets, and don't really know how to spend their money well, and good thing too that there's always more more suckers ready to take their place (as long as we keep the birth rate up)!
Wiktionary's "etymology" section is great for 98% of words: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/platform#Etymology
In general, Modern English has many words from French or other Romance (Latin-origin) languages due to French being an important vector through which Latin-origin words entered English, evolving it in competition with Germanic-origin words.