mmirate

> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?

The majority of the Cold War happened while both sides' superpowers had nukes.

In other words: nukes didn't change this scenario; they helped create it.

> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?

Guide? No. Inspire and/or remind? Why not.

To be fair, however, the PKD book that spawned that show, contained factual errors due to information that was declassified only after the book was written. Turns out, even if the US had been neutral in WW2, it's fairly certain the remaining Allies would have won regardless; and furthermore, in such a case it is possible the Soviets might've been so thoroughly weakened by the Japanese, that the former wouldn't have emerged as a superpower nor as the other side of the Cold War.

(And while we're on the topic of conjectures about counterfactual US neutrality: it is possible that US neutrality in WW1 would have averted the creation of the Nazi empire and WW2 with it.)

I'm saying that the patches he has reviewed may have been given more attention-to-detail by submitters and lieutenants because of his personality, in which case by being nicer he would lend his time to be abused to a greater degree. Note that I said "more patches that are broken/semi-broken/subtly-broken", not "more patches overall".

Convey to us reasonable people, reading it at a distance as 3rd-parties?

Absolutely.

...

Convey to the intended recipient, with his inevitable personal/emotional/etc. attachments to the topic, in such a way that it takes the intended effect?

A pending question-of-fact, and one that can only be answered very indirectly and in the long run.

Heck, if the answer really is "no", then it's possible we may never know! (until the NSA pwns us all, or at least pwns the subset of us who didn't kowtow to whoever the central socio-econo-political authority of that era will be)

That's one person of many. And it's not a question of aesthetics of the message in the short term, but of the quality of the overall results in the long term and the effort needed to achieve them.

Hopefully this won't happen, but it's entirely possible that this change will result in Linus finding himself with a much greater number of broken, half-broken and/or subtly-broken PRs to review than ever before, increasing the chances of something like https://lwn.net/Articles/57135/ succeeding.

And having a kernel backdoor ship worldwide is way worse than having a few recalcitrant kernel developers be exposed to - oh no! - coarse language. Results > the "fee fees".

Only time will tell whether that change is for better or for worse.

(Unless your chosen metric-of-value relies on feelings instead of actual concrete results.)

The inherent limitations of human memory likely made that person assume you use a single password everywhere. Your response makes me assume that you memorize a unique password for every account.

You do you; but personally, I would rather memorize timeless things like facts and theorems - or at least ephemeral-yet-important things like deadlines, decisions, names+faces, etc. - than memorize a ton of meaningless blobs of entropy.

> I'd say, "what you should do" is to organize with others and enforce boundaries on those who are in the "bubble" of not giving a (meaningful) fuck of continued organized existence of the human race.

Dumb question here: why should I give a fuck about literally anything that happens after I die?

Why is the .NET integration a feature rather than an antifeature? Don't null and subclassing tend to poke holes in F#'s type system's ability to detect mistakes? And would it not be better to compile to native code than to require the Mono VM or whatnot?

And also wonderfully devoid of error-handling, too. It's the most common way for beautiful-looking C code to look beautiful.

Satisfying the borrow-checker usually ends up implying that either:

a) you used .clone() everywhere and therefore are probably modifying something and failing to propagate the modifications to where they need to go; or

b) your design is inherently better, saner, easier-to-optimize, etc., than one which doesn't have to satisfy the borrow checker.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: loneliness isn't the problem; it's our physical dependence on non-loneliness that is the problem.

(Note: I'm not the OP.)

I don't get paid by-the-hour to drive; I get paid to arrive on-time. So commuting in my opinion (like IT in MBAs' opinion) is purely a (time-)cost center. And from that POV the average driver is indeed absolutely terrible. Ever since I started working in the software industry, I don't think I've ever taken the wheel of my car and driven it somewhere, without getting angry at another driver along the way.

Granted, different drivers can be terrible in different ways.

Some of them do stupid mutually-harmful BS like pulling out right front of me with minimal margin and no intent to travel at even half the speed-limit.

Others think that because they have an 8-cylinder engine and a traditional automatic transmission, that they should rule the streets - which they can and do, but that doesn't make me any less angry at them when they e.g. pass me at a 20mph relative-speed on the same side into which I was signalling to change because I was behind a schoolbus.

That ought to be a oneliner in any sane language today:

    numbers.into_iter().filter(|n| n>10 && n%2!=0).for_each(work);

    map work . filter ((/=0) . (`mod` 2)) . filter (>10) $ numbers

Insert tirade about how for-loops are free to do so much that they are slower-to-comprehend than specific-purpose iterator/list functions, here.

> as long as they can charge reasonably quickly.

Commercial battery tech is going to have to improve a lot before this qualifier begins to hold.

> Were not for the battery degradation ghost, people would be switching in droves already. But they are familiar with laptop batteries, and they think car batteries degrade the same way.

Don't they? Elsewhere in this thread it is said that these batteries are still some kind of lithium/polymer tech, so unless the capacity is severely artificially-restricted in both directions from the optimum storage charge, (a) it becomes dangerous and unusable when fully discharged and (b) it loses capacity continuously whenever it's close to full charge, even faster if it is at full charge with the power-source left connected.

How is improving a handful of people tantamount to poisoning everyone?

The GCs alone? Yes. The rest of their respective runtime architectures? Highly doubtful. As GC-dependent as Go may be, it still does end up as native code.

But frankly, comparing Go to Java when things like Rust exist ... seems analogous to comparing the z80 to the AVR when 32-bit ARM cores exist.

Because the JVM takes another tradeoff against Go and Rust: it has a runtime interpreter+JIT, which causes even more performance overhead than Go's GC let alone Rust which - at runtime - is effectively a zero-cost abstraction over C and jemalloc.

As I read the article, I was most puzzled as to how people could possibly be afraid of such a trifle as loneliness.

The answer is in the buried-lead at the end:

>According to the Campaign To End Loneliness, loneliness has been found to speed up cognitive decline in older people, with one study concluding that it can increase your risk of developing clinical dementia by 64 per cent.

>Increasing the risk of high blood pressure, coronary heart disease and stroke, as well as disability, loneliness has also been found to increase your risk of dying early by 26 per cent - that's as much as obesity and smoking.

> So this isn't just a social problem - it's a potential health crisis.

This results in the question: how can we re-engineer humanity so that our 22nd-century cousins' physical health isn't dependent on, well, dealing with people?

(On second thought, it maybe doesn't result in that question after all: because nobody alive today could actually benefit from such an effort.)

> A boost in one area tends to cause problems in other areas.

Some problem areas are no longer as such because today's environment is much better at compensating for them than the environment that we actually evolved-for.

Energy efficiency comes to mind prominently: we've never been better at producing human-consumable energy in our entire history, yet we can't actually use the stuff because our bodies still interact with energy much like children-of-the-Depression interact with money.

What exactly would remain after this "destruction" of yours?

Unfortunately, back here in the world of today's reality, the "intelligent consciousness" phenomenon still requires this shitty fragile "meatbag" form, to carry it around ...

... but if it makes you more comfortable to think that people who disagree with you, aren't actually people ... then go right ahead.

Why does scientific reductionism need an antidote?

"antidote to scientific reductionism" seems about as useful as "antidote to nonblindness".

On larger Linux distributions, the trust is less with Mozilla and more with the distro-package maintainers - use of dynamically remote-loaded JavaScript here shifts the trust back to Mozilla; if you trust your maintainers but not Mozilla, then this is a problem.

This is Hacker News, not Manager News or Lawyer News.

Ever heard of something called an unjust law?

Today there are very few of them in the US, and fewer still of them (if any at all) that actually matter.

But it's not hard to find other nations where the story is very different.

When you overestimate a foe, you waste some resources; when you underestimate them, you die or get tortured or etc.

I agree it isn't. The person I was replying to, implied it inherently is.

That's easy, and the answer even has a googleable name: "first past the post".