naringas

but with individualism we can form a better collective.

however it is harder to do, takes longer to get there, and there are some tough patches on the way.

because quality takes time and effort (and always encounters failure along its path). it's just more expensive to do things that way.

but the vast majority of those "lo" would be the male article not the neuter.

while the article is factually incorrect when claiming that Spanish has no neutral gender at all.

It's also true that "lo" is seldom used in Spanish and there are almost no neutral nouns (like in german).

there's a steady droll of anti-free software going on.

I take it to mean that commercial interests are stronger that potential gains enabled by new technological forms of collaboration. We (as a society) are 'choosing' to keep all gains enabled by digital technology private rather than revising the capitalist apparatus which is strained by these new digital possibilities.

I was assuming that there would be law in China that clearly stated this as a legal requirement?

Also, I have this perspective in which, given the case that this is a corrupt practice, it ends up as a form of taxation (corrupt taxation, but same thing from an certain business perspective).

I was thinking about a comment I read here, that claimed that in China companies have to hire party members because is the politically correct thing to do.

And that got me thinking how in "the west" companies have to hire lawyers (and accountants) for legal compliance reasons.

I see a parallel there.

microtonal harmonic grids free from the rigors of 12-tet (i.e. midi, i.e. the keyboard)

but don't get me wrong, 12-tet is an incredible accomplishment on its own. but it's what it is because of (now obsolete) physical constraints of instrument building.

I've been trying to think about how to go beyond 12 tet for years. I recently read this quote on a (unrelated nothing to do with music) book[1] "So it's a bit like a piano that has a meta-key that lets you add new keys." which summarizes my goal better than I've ever been able to.

[1] https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Don%27t+Teach+Coding%3A+Until+Yo...

"These "investors," who have zero industry skills or expertise, take advantage of a [insert economic activity]-as-a-service (?aaS) model to gain sophisticated capabilities"

The type of billionaire individuals who by virtue of inheriting billions upon billions, don't ever have any real skills (nor the need to develop any) and yet, they live in societies (subcultures) which expect that they keep having (and making) billions upon billions.

Think of descendants of descendants of founders of what are now giant corporations.

They fund VC-backed startups, which they then own (by proxy). They can barely use an iPhone; let alone understand how it works or is made.

Except the business being funded is a criminal enterprise, maybe their riches originally come from "shadier" dealings?

My point is that the underlying principle is the same, it's a very powerful principle. This is how the market enables societies to build super complex stuff. The marketplace abstracts away the complexities. This 'principle' is a technology, it's ethically neutral.

maybe it's one of the perks of controlling the world's reserve currency?

the next civilization game HAS TO use a deep learning based AI. it. simply. must.

This seems to be by design. (or at least a consequence of economic incentives which are politically defined and individual but enacted by the selfish behavior of individuals (specially compnay-size "individuals").

rant-on: the individual potentializing power of software (which necessitates open-source-style collaboration) goes against the centralizing power of empires.

thus, the economic incentives (softly but relentlessly) lead us all into a situation of increasing complexity (google-scale practices for all) which make for ever more complicated software. combined with a lack of incentives towards simplifying this complexity (which is very difficult) lands us in a situation in which software only gets more complex requiring ever larger groups of engineers to be able to handle them. this also happens to law practice, specially in common law systems. /rant-off

very reminiscent of 'freemason'-style secrecy

I recall reading in some random internet place that the Nazis also went on wild goose chases in the Himalayas... might have been a conspiracy forum (which means this "factoid" may be discarded at will; and some might argue that therefore it's immoral to repeat it)

In any case, as such matters are usually state secrets I can never really know, only imagine things.

> what led to such extreme situations

I think it's more plausibly a gradual slippery slope. the kind of slope you don't notice

What about the role of the parents? (the king and queen?)

IMO they handle Elsa's powers in the worst way possible. The trolls sublty hint at what not to do: "fear is the worse you can do"; then they do exactly that. She's taught to deny and hide everything by her parents. So when they tragically die, she just keeps on the same self-repression path until it gets real bad.

I see two sides: the numericals and the algebraists.

I've talked with people who also see these two sides but call them differently.

As I see it, this book is closer to the algebraists side. Thus, you probably lean closer to the nuemerical side.

I also like to think about it as the Turing perspective (numerical, algorithmic) and the Chruch outlook, which is more algebraic-symbolic.

At the end of the day, it's both "contrasting" viewpoints coming together that truly animates the science of computing.

there was a project but it seems abandoned

https://github.com/patoline/patoline

there's an aspect of readability that is in the eye of the reader.

I've been thinking about this a lot. often I hear (specially old-guard) hackers talking about easy and simplicity but they really mean it's familiar to them.

> It is just a tool, like a hammer or chainsaw, that serves a greater purpose.

I think it's better analogy to think of it as a technique, like a somersault or a cartwheel. but I'm just nitpicking.

> Since AIs are smarter than humans, why bother teaching humans at all? Unless there is a point where a developed human brain could outsmart the AI, it seems to be a waste and emotionally guided.

taking this point and running off with it. why bother having humans at all? let's all become a simulation and live within a computer.

> the user has control over their Mac.

for now, because observing the current trends, they'll likely won't for much longer... all for the sake of safety and convenience.

from a very broad conceptual viewpoint; "the law" exist from (or out of) written language (where "language" is seen as a social-technology).

what computer technology and the internet (or for short: software) is doing to civilization is still at a very early stage. As I see this, the goal of "law" and the goal of "computer science" are quite similar.

As I see these kinds of articles (stratechery focuses on exactly this), is that we're witnessing the 'adjustments' in society brought about by the invention of software. I put all of this on a level comparable to the invention of writing and the subsequent 'rise' of rule of law.

having said this, the difficult thing to make sense of, and to explain to people with less software-experience is coming to understand what this article taps into in the section of "the global internet"; it's actually quite tricky to pin this down for me right now.

I'm referring to that aspect (or quality) of software that causes several executives to say this kinds of things:

>We have tried to get to what’s common, and the reality is it’s super hard on a global basis to design software that behaves differently in different countries. It is super difficult.

>If you’re a global technology business, most of the time, it is far more efficient and legally compliant to operate a global model than to have different practices and standards in different countries.

It's that thing sowftware does in which special cases worsen software complexity.

Software (and computing, and even industrial automation) are all about doing the same thing, no matter what. It's all about finding ways to avoid special cases; to avoid code repetition; and all that.

I'm sure that most people in Hacker News, due to our hands-on experience with software, are quite able to intuitively grasp this. But it's not so easy to explain and this 'quality of the digital' is (and will continue to) forcing contemporary capitalism to be re-evaluated (or something along these lines).

I guess so did machine guns and all ways to kill more people for cheaper and with more effectiveness (rockets, etc..). then again, it doesn't matter; they're here to stay, cat's out of the bag.

so empty space on a galactic scale might have measurable weight??

emtpy space does have energy and energy equals mass

> and may spend the next ten or twenty years aggressively fighting against it regardless of its merits.

it seems more accurate to say that they retire and the new generation of physics professors are more open to those ideas because they encountered them as students before building a career on some sub-sub field which migh have ended up as a dead end...

so... might makes right?

well, he was downvoted. but not overwhelmining so; let's call it controversial.

> And who exactly has been fired for "believing male and female are real concepts"?

I recall some kind of minor debacle about a Stack Overflow moderator (or employee? details are vague) who got in trouble for something related to individual choice of pronouns. It seems to be what they're refering to.

"we can spy, but you can't" --"1st world" western powers

There must be a more modern term than "1st world", I just don't know it.

what if... the soviets had had an internet and computers? what would have come from central planning? would it have been a failure?

Maybe the chinese will answer this questions...

I would argue that many of these changes the world is going throught are technological in principle.

the perpsective that the pandemic merely accelerated already ongoing trends towards remote work, and the growth of internet-centric society?

i.e. all because of the internet?? I know it's a stretch...