fmblwntr

ironically, he was the head lawyer on the legal team for napster (obviously a huge loss) but it accords well with your theory

No, from the abstract of the paper "The orbital period, 185.6 days, is longer than that of any known stellar mass black hole binary. [...] How the system formed is uncertain. Common envelope evolution can only produce the system's wide orbit under extreme and likely unphysical assumptions"

See section 8.4 for details: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06833 But basically the idea is that they are assumed to have interacted in the past (based on the distance), and given that, all current models of such interactions would predict a very tight final orbit for the solar mass star.

yttrium and indium are both suspected to be toxic, manganese can certainly be toxic. no idea about the relative doses, I suspect that the chemists certainly thought about this etc, so I'm not trying to say YInMn is toxic, but "inorganic, has simple structure" doesn't mean anything, as it also describes Cobalt Blue, which is definitely toxic.

I think you're agreeing with the article if I understand your point correctly?

Everybody says this all the time, to such an extent that an article was written to express the contrary view

I'm also pretty sure that given a famous "highbrow" literature or art work, you could easily find plenty of respected critics who think it's shit, and vice versa for "lowbrow" works.

I'm not sure why you switched to worldwide when it specifically said DRC. Most economic indicators there have been flat or declining for the last 50 years. Vague platitudes about the world as a whole are unhelpful, and if anything only serve to reinforce the mythology of universal progress.

To be honest, I can't imagine a situation in which I would need a new law in order to have follow age of consent laws. Like, you are really complaining that if a user says they're underage, you have to treat them as such? Or that if you operate in multiple countries you have to look up the relevant laws? All of this seems like a basic requirement, and I'm honestly shocked that it was never an issue before.

what if i set a machine to fire a gun randomly and select it for the trait of hitting people? who is responsible?

"NASA did not invent the smoke detector. NASA's connection to the modern smoke detector is that it made one with adjustable sensitivity as part of the Skylab project. The device was made commercially available by Honeywell. The consumer could use it to avoid "nuisance" alarms while cooking. Like the quartz clock, this device is no longer available. "

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/mythbuster/myth_barcod...

edit: actually pretty much none of the things you listed were invented by NASA, several predate its existence.

and Poland of course, got a piece of Czechoslovakia from the Munich pact...

I think it's weird that Kuhn never realized that things work. Could have saved himself a lot of work.

if you work as a software engineer pretty much by definition you are part of a tiny, tiny minority of workers in the world, so perhaps you should try thinking about the experience of workers in the third world via empathy?

Hmm, I think this should link to: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/161 Which is described as a updated and more accurate version of the post linked here.

I think you are reading way too much hostility into this post. I think it's clear that David Samuels has a lot of respect for Coster-Mullen, all he's doing is establishing him as a "person," by giving his notable personality traits. I thought this article was an inspiring account of how somebody with no formal training in the subject was able to recreate an incredibly complex machine, simply through his own intelligence and hard work. The sentence you quote is definitely not ridicule, but simply an accurate description of Coster-Mullen's approach, I certainly don't think the Samuels was intending to criticize a positivist worldview and most certainly not to be "corrosively anti-geek." Furthermore, through the article, Samuels repeats how impressed he is at how much Coster-Mullen figures out simply through basic reasoning, math and geometry, I mean it includes a complete description of how he painstakingly tracked down a vintage car so he could measure the size of a box in a photograph. I really have you no idea how you managed to read this article as suggesting that Samuels believes Coster-Mullen is deserving of ridicule, instead he seems very impressed, as does everyone else who is interviewed in the article. (Still not even sure how you got "anti-geek," Coster-Mullen doesn't even seem like a "geek," just a normal person with a family and a hobby, who is simply very good and dedicated at it.

An article that simply repeated the facts about what Coster-Mullen had discovered about the bomb would simply be his book. Everybody has their quirks, and an accurate representation of the person (because indeed, the article is about John Coster-Mullen, not the atomic bomb) should include more than a bare listing of facts about their life. Of course it seems a bit ridiculous, but what hobby on such close inspection doesn't? I think reading it as a criticism is very far removed from the author's intention.

I do agree however that the title of the article (on HN) should probably simply be "Atomic John," it's okay for an article title to be a little bit mysterious, and using a subtitle creates a bit of the wrong impression in this case. (I am not sure about what the actual guideline is however)

Wasn't surprised to see this was a Rails developer.