faceyspacey

I've been wondering about the connection between the "curling effect" and the exponential curve of e for a while. Do you have any links where I can learn more in depth?

Just never pay the debts bro. Forget that shit and let it all go, and start stacking to live a debt free stress free life.

can you link that post you're referring to?

My guess is Libra (and everything else going on in the crypto world) will have 5 years before FedNow is out. A lot can happen in that time.

In theory, yes. But in practice, binary “caring” is impossible—of course the amount of caring exists on a spectrum.

The point is you can care LESS (than in the past) as an effective productivity tactic.

Can you elaborate on the cease and desist? Is there a patent on daily meditations. Sounds hardly "mindful" (without knowing the details).

Agreed, except: he likely can't because the other guy is a jerk. There's some people who just missed the REASONABLE DNA strand.

None of this means they can’t honorably charge $500 for crap coins instead of giving away that work for free.

They can make a fair business out of it where they add a few optional addons and value adds.

Just because we think they are crap and arrogantly feel confident that no non-technical get-rich-minded joe smoe will derive any value (or perhaps "deserves" to) from it doesn’t mean that he/she won’t in fact benefit from it. One man’s trash...

And besides, there are lots of purposes for small independent coins/currencies: reward your kids for doing dishes as someone else pointed out, arcades, company rewards, etc. We may very well end up in a world with infinite currencies that interoperate with each other, thereby giving individual control back of our closest surroundings.

As far as YN’s principles, it’s PR rhetoric. It’s far from representative of the ultimate truth of the intentions and actions of all those involved. In practice, it exploits goodwill to make money for a few. I'm also not all that sure that's a bad thing either.

The devil is always in the details, and as programmers, we must look at them.

Obviously I’m someone who thinks it would be more beneficial if profiting wasn’t demonized. It leads to more disengenuity, which is worse.

There’s nothing wrong with putting your own survival first and desiring to make so much money you never have to worry about it again. The hamster cage is a waste of our lifetimes and very hard to permanently get out of. And if we are so capable to escape, we will surely be able to give back a whole lot. ..you know, like on how airplanes you put on your oxygen mask first before your child’s.

But yes, there’s a flip side: people get obsessed with making money, doing deals, creating things that new jacks would create anyway. It becomes an unhealthy addiction, and the giving back never really happens. I don't think a lot of people see this for what it is as it takes over their lives. Apps and technology become far overvalued.

I think demonizing making money will continue to create the rift that obscures the balanced middle path here. I also think a lot of people who promote how they aren't money-obsessed are obsessed with something else: how good and noble they APPEAR (which I'm not sure is as "real" as BEING good and noble). Likely, it was just too hard for them to get out of the hamster cage (reads: they're lazy), and gave up. Now they work medium energy days for some employer that drives the ship. I know this much: I refuse to spend the majority of my life hustling for survival, or even worse: being someone else's tool waiting for the clock to strike 5pm each day.

The path to me is clear: grind your ass off, get yours, then give back; be conscious and don’t get addicted to anything in your life. The world doesn't need our saving (it's going to continue spinning as an infinitesimal part of a far larger universe); question your intentions, focus on yourself, as they say.

So open source built and invested in to eventually attain money is a bad thing in your opinion? What would that mean exactly? Only large companies that release a few bits as open source is palatable in your opinion? Smaller companies or individuals with a passion and vision for evolving our tools can't structure a strategy to eventually make money from it so they can keep doing it?

At the end of the day, I think it's the perfect model. Especially, when those building the open source, keep what was free before FREE, and simply go even FARTHER to build auxiliary stuff that costs.

This logic just bugs me every time. It's not akin to "selling out" as if you're making art/music, and then you dumb it down for the masses. It's finding the only way to make it work where you can directly and exclusively focus on much-needed tooling, rather than typical non-developer products like Uber or Facebook. And sometimes you don't care about building non-developer products--you just want to build developer tools (because you've gotten obsessed with it and you see what would benefit your fellow developers), and you need to find a way to make a living off of it, or pay the people you've brought on board to attain this long-term vision.

In short, it's a win win for everyone.

And by the way, the fact that you even had to say "[you] knew it was coming" is ridiculous. They at like month 1 of their work on this open source stuff had a paid analytics service. Their paid out service has been out for a very long time. It was as transparent as can be what their strategy is. The amount of work their large team of developers have done could be accomplished no other way.

Ultimately your perspective here, I'm sorry--and this is my perspective--does a lot of harm to the community. If everyone had this perspective in earnest (and I'm not even sure you do), it simply would mean less tools we desperately need. It would be fantastic if we could find more cashgrabs for developers to focus on tooling--there's just so much to be done.

I agree. I also think Twitter's in a rough place for one reason: 140 characters doesn't make sense anymore. But dropping it would be even scarier for them, as that's been their defining thing for so long.

When did 140 chars make sense? In the beginning of the social internet 10 years ago. For people new to sharing, it relieved pressure around saying something. For psychological reasons the false restriction made sharing on the internet frictionless. When the expectation is intentionally low, you don't have to worry if you're sharing enough or too little. And perhaps more subconsciously, such a low limit just kind of speaks to you, saying: "just say anything, and spit out."

But now, people are very accustomed to sharing. They don't need these training wheels.

It seems to me, regular people don't use twitter. Only various professional niches. That's just a problem, and will result in Twitter leaking users from their staple niches gradually over time, and probably has been going on for a long time now.

So in short, Jack's job and the decision he has to make is a very hard one. They've been too scared to make the hardest of decisions, and very naturally as a result have only rolled out these minor attempts. It seems like a very logical sequence of events to me.

They gotta do something bold, or die.

I'm not saying removing the limit is the answer on its own. I think it's more of a symbol of a willingness and capability to get back in the game. Do that along with something totally fresh front-and-center within the feed, and they would have a good recipe for success. Make a big moment out of dropping the restriction, and see what happens. Hell, try it for 30 days, and see what happens as a grand experiment.

Still, sounds about right

Ultimately the declarative way of writing apps is objectively better and more predictable than the old mutable way :)

Now that said, I agree on the performance costs, and too wonder why Walmart is hellbent on this strategy, given the endless resources they have.

But at the end of the day, they have a head of engineering and need to make their lives simpler just like everyone else. If you know how to squeeze the performance out of RN/React, developing apps in the semi-FP declarative sate-driven way is a dream compared to all the old ways of client app development. People who's views are so against React/ReactNative usually haven't experienced it for themselves. I suggest really giving it try before making these comments which usually serve just to validate decisions already made. I.e. to make one's self feel better about sticking to the old ways. However, I totally understand what it feels like for new tools to pop up that put into question old ways I've invested a lot into. That said, don't you think you'd be better off fully exploring these ways before shooting them down? Don't tell me you have--zero people that have grokked the effectiveness of declarative state-driven programming make these remarks. They usually leave some hint at their experience with React. In short, it's only you left in the dust :)

Give the tools a try, which I know will likely be hard for you because you are likely coming from the Native world. I will say this: it's a lot more than just one language to make hybrid apps (i.e. like past tools such as Titanium). And, of course perf will be a challenge. That said, the perf is amazing given what it is. But more importantly, the style of development is what it's all about. It's so different and so much more predictable/debuggable than the old mutable ways. To me, it matters not that it's in JS. What matters is the declarative state driven way of development. If you can do that in native code, you're basically doing the most important aspect--and basically there's no argument from me there. There are some libraries that allow for that, but it's nowhere near the extent of what you can do in React/JS, given its ecosystem. I lot of work is being put in here to make this the best of breed future of application development. If you can't see it, you're missing out. Do your homework on React once and for all. You can thank me later.

Last point: Walmart's tool here is specifically meant for making apps where some of it you want in "actual native" and other parts in "react native." Without a doubt coding the React style is the best DX for UI development. AND without a doubt, "actual native" performs far FAR better. So what they have here is a toolbox for those with an "engineering mindset" to pick the best tool for the job. Everything that's happening is just getting better and better for all parties involved, no matter where your experience lies.

I disagree. I think for $10 bucks and that I only watch 4-8 episodes per month it's perfect. I can barely get through all the good content.

That said a few years back I would watch way more and exhausted what appealed to me in Netflix's catalog, as it sounds you have.

I think the idea is you just gotta compare what else costs $10 bucks. Um lunch, maybe.

So if you have realistic expectations for what you get for $10 bucks and don't watch "too much" TV, it's perfect.

This point is likely subject to the "correlation is causation" debate. All the countries doing well with big governments are also likely resource-rich and home to ancient empires and culture.

What countries have small states that you are referring to anyway? Zimbabwe? Burma? Equador? Places in the jungle? There are lots of other reasons these places might not be economic powerhouses. It takes a lot more time to trade coconuts through a deep jungle.

Just because it seems difficult now under a heavy antiquated state-controlled system, doesn't mean, say, something like a crypto-currency-backed decentralized world isn't possible. We very well could one day be paying taxes just to local governments, and many local governments compete for our citizenship through things like low taxes. Cut the 25% u pay in taxes that goes to military related expenses (because, say, china now becomes the world's "supreme leader" as someone else said), and now we are well on our way to a small-state government.

I hope we can fix these problems. Things are so inefficient. I'm excited to see how far decentralization can take us.

I agree. The bush family (as representatives of the elite) had ten years to wait for an event to counter punch against. When ur the top dog in town u can mold any circumstance to ur aim. I don't maintain with all certainty that 911 was a false flag. I maintain that what was done and is continuing to be done was absolutely the wrong decision, capitalized on an event decision makers clearly found fortunate.

Right now we are supposed to believe we need to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan because we have to clean up the mess we made. I don't buy it. I think everyone there would prefer us gone. I think everyone here would prefer we left had we not been brow beaten by the threat of terrorism constantly. To me it's obvious that our actions are the biggest cause of terrorism. Those in power want to use the result of their actions to justify more of those actions. It's all pyscology and self development lessons applied at a larger group level--lessons the powers that be refuse to learn. We aren't going to get anything done in the Middle East just like we got nothing done in Vietnam. And if we did get anything done it's simply instill fear in other nations. Perhaps the master plan is no more than peace by strength. And that requires public displays from time to time. Think gang or prison behavior. There is a book though called The Dereliction of Duty:

https://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Johnson-McNamara-Vie...

I haven't read it but the gist I get is that politicians like Lyndon B Johnson didn't wanna be the one to lose the war. And generals all the same selfishly killed millions to preserve theirs and america'a image of strength and winning. To top it off, it looks bad to do so if not in the name of the greater good. So we always manage to justify our small picture thinking as if it's for the greater good. Again, nobody is evil. Just selfish and an unevolved conception of human psychology.

...but ps. I don't rule out that there are top secret weather control projects with capabilities beyond what is publicly shared. The point--as the false news trend has pinpointed--is that very little is knowable beyond your own immediate perception AND more importantly top sources (not just buzz feed) aren't trustworthy. Heads of news companies go to the yearly Bilderberg meeting and promise to not share what they learn and rather operate as willing participants using their media empires to push the party line forward. Supposedly. I don't know that either. But all said, my hunch is top players do fashion themselves as chess players with this planet being the board. We all do the same every day with our friends and families to different degrees. It's very conceivable that those with billions of dollars or the same in influence are doing this at a greater scale. I basically know I would do it. And I think we all would do so with our greatest conception of the greater good. What I'm saying is those in charge are stupid and fuck them! Their plan sucks. It's a pre-internet plan made by stodgy people. I also think a lot more peace is possible now than decades ago. Less might is needed. In fact it's a very bad thing and could be what thwarts the global system they are after.

In addition because of the internet we are not dumb cattle anymore. You have to realize that in 2001 the internet barely existed to the old people who crafted the plan. It might have been around but back then u could get by without it being stuffed down ur thrown like now. So we have old Bush Senior who maybe never used a mouse not recognizing how the internet was gonna connect us all and educate us all. The stupider set of masses we were maybe did need more cattle prodding than now.

Now, we are on the verge of a small set of vocal conspiracy theorists (people more extreme than myself) tipping the world on its side--all because the powers that be thought they could manipulate us incessantly. Whether 911 was a false flag or not does not matter. What matters is the plain as day INTENTIONAL manipulation the media does to us every day. What matters is we have wasted so much taxpayer money on military and debt to pay for it. What matters is the millions the us government has killed. What matters is we continue every day! Let's just stop now. Clearly somebody doesn't want us to. U could say the people want us fighting Isis, but that's only because the media makes us fear them.

What matters is that America is the Roman Empire in a hyperspeed world about to have its great schism and eventual demise. All that matters then is whether it sends us all back to the dark ages or if somehow we manage to make it a positive evolution.

..But yea, momma said don't trust the government. Don't. Ur an absolute fool if ur one of those people who can't believe America would do any of these power plays to get what it wants. There's a lot of people like this. Im surprised how many on hacker news. To them here's what I have to say to u: I know a bunch of the people u label "conspiracy theorists" want u to believe 911 was a false flag attack by our own government--u don't have to agree with that to have a strong hunch that ruling elite are up to foul play. It could be an accident they played to their advantage, ie to do what they really wanted to do. Start with that and do your best to read between the lines from the perspective that their may be a hidden agenda. Do you think it's fair we have killed 100s of thousands in the Middle East since 911 where we lost just under 3000. It's not right. Why does our news constantly talk about terrorism? Is the terrorism really as bad as we are told it is? Or are we just being told that? What happened to the Taliban, Al Quaeda? Will Isis be another has-been group soon enough too? I know we surely aren't afraid the Taliban is going to destroy the world anymore. What's the likelihood that Isis is another supposed threat that peters out (when the news stops mentions their name). What does that say about the actual threat these groups pose anyway? ..How many of the newscasters have spent any time in he places they are reporting? Whose really scripting this stuff? They all seem like repeaters to me. And people with opinions have biases based on what's been repeated to them. And the cycle continues. As the game of telephone shows anyone, biases change what we report as fact, thereby giving the audience a different perception of fact than what they could perceive if they were there. I'd be willing to bet if the American public was able to take a virtual reality guided tour of the actual events being covered we would form a very different opinion. Basically we would see how we have dominated the Middle East through violence, scared the shit out of people, made them afraid to come out of their homes, murdered their friends and family, and then we would see how utterly helpless they feel that they are willing to kamakaze themselves to express their anger/hatred. We would see so called terrorists for what they really are: people drowning in despair because we killed their family. End of story. ..oh and you say: "they are religious fanatics!" No they are religious people to begin with that see everything through the lens of religion. Underneath that the core is that they hate us for what we did to them. Not what they did to us.

This dates back to Israel. Israel is a made up country (not unlike many of the other Arab countries since the Ottoman Empire fell in WWI) but one whose religious and ethnic population was not their before hand. Israel cunningly made that area their own in 1948, we sided with them; and the people we took it from and their friends now hate us. In past centuries, there was no internet. Now u have Muslims far far away like Afghanistan with a common enemy. The west and the Jewish people played the land grab move too late in history. If it was the 1800s with the native Americans we could get away with it and beat the victims into submission. Now we can't and we are paying the price for our arrogance. The best thing we could do is admit our wrongs and leave the Middle East. Disown Israel and let them fend for themselves. They are sinking ship we never should have attached to. They will be dealing with suicide bombers for a very long time.

We are on the verge of a great schism because now there are too many truthers able to connect and share their opinion and breed more, while there are still many stubborn essentially idiots that believe in their governments, in America, who will never be willing to concede that perhaps we have done some really bad things we need to atone for, and that their is a hidden agenda enacted daily to manipulate us. America has been real bad. Our day is coming. We still haven't appoligized for Vietnam. You still can walk around that country and be blown up by our land mines. Shame on us.

Oil also goes to our partners in Europe and around the world. The goal isn't just having oil for the United States, but a stable world economy. George HW Bush & Co didn't want be at the behest of one or a few despotic leaders that could disrupt the flow of both oil and the world economy. They/we need heads of state dependent on the global monetary system--so that the decisions they make can be controlled. That's the idea. And at what costs is our day's number one dilemma??

Yes it's all about oil price stabilization. It's also a plan put in motion almost 30 years ago when we first attacked Iraq. So yes as solar and other developments change the landscape we are still foolishly following an old plan to insure the Middle East are willing client states able to be controlled by the global monetary system rather than erratic despotic wrenches in the system.

Terrorism and 9/11 likely is a false flag for ulterior motives. The motives can't be made so clear or nobody would believe the false flags and the media. We aren't to know just how important oil price stabilization is to the ruling elite's master plan.

Do you really think all the lives and money lost in the past 16 years has been the appropriate cost for just 3000 dead? We need to speak up and completely pull out of the Middle East immediately. The plan might have overall been good for the world but they were wrong and their dishonesty has destroyed people's faith in government and has made an entire region far more "terrifying" than they ever were. We are following an outdated strategy by outdated people that don't know better. That is to say they were never evil, but just impatient operating on a small big picture. I'm referring to the Bush Family, members of the Bilderberg group, the Rockefeller's, what remains of Standard Oil in obscured new company names such as Exxon and Mobil, and the tip top banking institutions that have been so arrogantly proud of the fact that money can be used to control the world and maintain peace rather than war as in past generations--for if everything can be controlled by money rather than might, we have the makings of a more peaceful world. So they thought...

What do you mean by "the next feature you would logically want"?

You're going to have to rely on A) "piecemeal reading of events" and B) the lens that someone is pulling the strings to see anything other than what the powers that be put out through the media and foreign policy authors. So no, I'm no master of foreign policy, but I've done plenty of my own research, and reading between the lines I've determined there is a high likelihood that there are hidden actors doing major things, and therefore that the conspiracies are the bread crumb trail to something big, specifically within the United States Intelligence Community and the Military Industrial Complex. The school of thought you seem to be representing likely never acknowledges such--so it's like: who cares how much foreign policy knowledge you have when it's all geared away from so called "conspiracy theories."

All you need to do is use personal logic. Take JFK as an example: a man killed JFK. Then he was killed. And then within 3 years that guy was dead too. Is that not extremely fishy. Gun to my head and I have to make a split second decision whether that was a plot or not--the logical answer, for me at least, is that it's a plot. There are too many things like that. And all those events will never be proven until they are, at which point we'll be living in a very different world. That was their whole point--to hide and obscure what really happened and true intents. All these so called conspiracies were carried out by extremely powerful and formidable people with the sole aim of keeping them secret--do you think it will easily come out. Of course not. But with too many discrepancies it's become increasingly difficult to believe anymore.

All you really need to do is watch this short interview of General Wesley Clark on his shock about our pre-planned strategy to invade a bunch of Middle Eastern countries and--provided this guy is real--you know something is up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojcoKnTGf4s&feature=share

Anyway brother, just remember one's true intent is extremely easy to conceal if that is your goal. Do you think all the true intents of all the politicians and heads of states are really out out there worn as a pin on their breast? No, it's not. If they are smart they will always find ways to make it seem like the enemy's fault, e.g. Saddam Hussein invading kuwait because what he claims was them lending Iraq money to fight Iran and benefiting from it and therefore should mean the debt is wiped clean. I'm not saying whatever nonsense he had in his head wasn't "nonsense" or that he wasn't working is way through Kuwait to Saudi Arabia. What I'm saying is a power as powerful as the United States can dodge and weave and use any circumstances to its advantage. That's part of the advantage of being the top dog--you can counter punch anything and still come out unscathed. But it doesn't make it right when the powerful intentionally blow things out of proportion to attain an aim the public would otherwise not support. And it's definitely not right if they fabricate lies to do so. I do believe everything is a matter of degree, and do I believe the US is far on the evil side? No. Do I believe they've taken it too far and tipped the see-saw to a very dangerous side. This I know to be true, even if they have been wrongly pegged by conspiracy theorists--their handling of conspiracy theories alone has been egregious in its inability to allow for any perspective other than a hyper patriotic one; no perspective is allowed other than one that thinks America can do no evil. I think it can, and I don't think the thought needs to be the end of us, but rather the beginning of a conversation and hopefully a new era. Either way, it's going to take something big to reverse the dangerous course we're on.

So no I'm not convinced America is a benevolent force operating for the broadest picture of the greater good, and I'm not going to be intimidated by anyone who's read tomb after tomb of perspectives biased toward the anglo-saxon tradition/hierarchy of the west or whatever you wanna call it. The west has been dominating the world in the open for Millenia. With the advent of media and various news networks, it now needs to do so in the shadows. I highly doubt the agenda has changed. I highly doubt those with lots to gain are able to see how ends-justify-the-means-mentality is not in interest of the biggest picture for humanity when they stand to benefit in the immediate short term by such actions. I do believe they think they are doing good. I dont believe in James Bond villains. I believe their perspective is outdated, skewed by self-interest and will not ultimately create a cooperative more integrated world as they hope. We have gun-to-your-head peace in the world now, thanks to the US. History has told us that never lasts. Somebody will creep up behind us and eat our lunch, and use our same aggressive tactics against us, and at this point in history with so much technological progress, it might be catastrophic. In short, America needs to lead by not muscling around so much. Our time will come unless we start to back down. It's as simple as that. We're dealing with people who have the thought process that you can only stay on top by ruling through strength. And I disagree. My opinion is it lasts for a time, but always comes to an end, and that what has far more longevity is a cooperative attitude that sometimes requires backing down, specifically when ur wrong. But America won't back down even when they're wrong--hence we never apologized for Vietnam, hence our approaching 20 years in the middle east that didn't need to happen. I firmly believe we should 100% get out today, and that THAT would be the best decision for humanity, even if it leaves things in a disarray. Most people believe we now have to pick up the pieces for the mess we made. Well, that's about to lead to us in Syria, etc, and all the other countries General Wesley Clark says has been on our list since 2001. Yea, we need to get out immediately. The world doesn't want this. It's only a matter of time before it results in a major conflict. In addition, it's just wrong. It's not the right way to go about it. You can't make a cooperative world through the lack of it. What goes around will eventually come around. America is the Roman Empire and it doesn't need to go down in flames--rather it can be a stepping stone to a more conscious cooperative planet. But our invasions will lead to us going down in flames, regardless of what good intents we can get the media and foreign policy authors to claim it was about.

So unless you're a foreign policy expert trying to see everything through the lens of "who's really pulling the strings," I don't value much what such a writer says. The reality is all the writers that are looking for whose pulling the strings are cast off as conspiracy theorists. So you're basically saying: if you don't trust the consensus the powers that be and the media put out, your point of view is a conspiracy theory or that of a dilettante. That's unfair and nonsense. The good thing is that times are changing--most educated people in their 20s and 30s, that i meet at least, believe the conspiracies or strongly entertain them. The world is changing, and though we may not have proof, we aren't stupid and it's not going to last much longer. Trump is a reflection of that. He may be egregious, but it's a step toward unraveling the powers that be within the Intelligence/Military Industrial Complex.

There's a difference between leaders and leaders willing to go to any means to achieve their ends.

What I'm doing is sharing info in a more balanced less conspiracy-laden way than many would. And believe me I am--what I'm saying is tame relative to what many others would say and how they would say it. The problem is too many people still believe 911 wasn't manufactured just as the weapons of mass destruction Iraq never had was.

But this is changing. Alternative media networks like hacker news itself are growing in influence. Sharing this info in a balanced way and seeing what people think is what I'm doing. Our media is getting displaced just like every sector of society is fragmenting and decentralizing (think music industry, what Netflix and Amazon are now doing to film, etc). We need to form our own concensus to destroy the grip western media has on people. For example, without sharing a bit of proof and providing a bogus motive-centric report, the DNI told the media that Russia hacked the DNC and the media repeated it without question. That's a problem. It's a problem when we are all just supposed to believe our intelligence agencies without question. It's a bigger problem that the media actually did it. Russia likely didn't hack us, yet we'll never know--yet most people believe it without question!

The real problem is the journalists and politicians have no choice but to believe it in order to not appear anti-establishment. Basically our leaders can't go against a corrupt worsening country because it hurts their careers by making them appear anti-establishment. Some--Trump--have made a political career out of being anti-establishment, but he's an outlier. However as egregious as he is, he might be the impetus to many more taking stronger stances against our hidden government.

The only thing we CAN do my friend is achieve concenus in a grass roots manner amongst the people. That's the only thing that will stop this train. Do you think 911 was likely a false flag attack to spur action or not? That is the question.

Well that's not what I'm trying to say all. I'm saying specifically the war on Iraq and Afghanistan was manufactured by the powers that be. They either made the attack themselves on the twin towers, knew about it, or capitalized on it nevertheless as soon as they were fortunate enough for such thing to happen. They are willing to make sacrifices that the rest of the world might not agree with in order to create how THEY envision a utopian earth. And because they are going about it in such an uncooperative manner they are destroying the likelihood of the cooperative/integrated outcome they are aiming for. They are rushing it so they can see it and benefit from it during their lifetimes. They are shortsighted and dangerous to all.