neilparikh
Ted Chiang has an alternate definition though, I prefer that one to be honest. His definition is about whether there are certain “special people” to whom the general laws of the universe don’t apply [0]. Under that definition, even what we would colloquially call magic (ex. turning lead to gold) would be called sci-fi, as long as everyone could do it; once you have that, you can do things like mechanize it and make factories to do it at scale, and there’s where you get the interesting second order problems.
Under that definition, I think Tower of Babylon is better considered sci-fi, because there are no “special people”. The new rules of the universe also lead interesting second order effects: the tower gets so tall that entire families live in the tower, and people are born and die in the tower [1].
[0] - better explained him here: https://boingboing.net/2010/07/22/ted-chiang-interview.html, see “You have very specific views on the difference between magic and science. Can you talk about that?”
[1] - I don’t know if Chiang intended this, but I think you could probably draw a parallel to missionaries to the new world.
This way, we don’t need to mount anything on the door, we just have a microcontroller plugged into one of the machines.
Our previous solution was a webcam that pointed to the lights that did a similar thing (implemented by someone before my time) but then it stopped working due to some driver issues, and I didn’t want to spend time investigating them.
I recently set up NextDNS on my iPhone and browsing the web has become much more usable (previously, I would get webpage crashes!). Something to look into in addition to or instead of Wipr.
As analogy: "It sucks that my peers earn less than me because they are part of <X disenfranchised group>"; You: "Why don't you just take your extra income and give it to them?"
Also:
> In the United States, accepting PFOF is allowed only if no other exchange is quoting a better price on the National Market System. ... Transactions must be executed at the best execution, which could mean the best price available or the speediest execution available.
I'll steelman your argument to be "Europe has less skyscrapers than NYC" (which I think is true, IIRC).
If you need to get away with less super tall buildings, you need to spread out the density elsewhere; that is, have medium density everywhere. In US and Canada, we've decided that the suburbs are untouchable, so the only solution is to have super tall buildings in a few areas. That's how you get 30 story apartments literally next to 2 story houses [0]. This is an intentional choice. I think it's the wrong one, but overcoming it is going to take a lot of convincing.
0 - https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-stock-photo-aerial-view-of...
Note that this feature is broken when you have a PS1 with a \n in it, in an older version of readline/bash (I am not sure which), so if you're having this problem, just upgrade your bash version.
Are we talking about the same city? SF real estate is super regulated, it’s my go to example of real estate regulations taken to an insane level. This is the city where any citizen can appeal any project for just a few hundred dollars, and basically every medium-large project is a negotiation with the SF board of supervisors (and often random non profits too, just look at what happened to 469 Stevenson St).
This is what the problem was for you. It's quite a leap from there to assume that all children on ADHD medications also happen to have the same problem.
For many people with ADHD, the difficulty is beyond "the system they're in". Being regularly late to events, zoning out when talking to someone, living in a chaotic/messy living space etc. (common problems with those with ADHD) will still be a problem in a hypothetical better school system or post-scarcity communism society.
So really, it's a question of improving accuracy overall, not just "let's make things stricter" (which would make it even harder from those are not diagnosed yet).
(I know you mentioned prescribing, not diagnosing, but I think it's a broader issue beyond just the drug).
Land is zero sum. The easy (partial) solution to that is just to build more housing on the same land, except older homeowners spend their time blocking new housing, which has essentially turned housing into a zero sum market as well.
> greed of corporations who are not increasing wages
Increasing wages will do nothing if those wages end up chasing the same fixed amount of housing/land.
Now, people are going to point out that the US is a big country and there's lots of land and so on. And that's true, but a lot of the economic growth and opportunity is concentrated in the cities where housing growth is being blocked. The same problem occurs in Canada (and a few other Western developed countries too).
If you view programming as trying to avoid writing the "wrong" program from the state space of all programs, this is a good thing.
I guess it's a matter of priorities/viewpoints: whether your goal is to make writing the correct program easier, or make writing incorrect programs harder.
Is more warehouse space really the most efficient/needed use for land in the Bay Area?
It's also worth noting that Apple Pay isn't its own protocol, it just does the same thing as the tap to pay built into cards, so not at all within Apple's control how much it's supported or how the terminal works.
This has the added benefit that you can have some back and forth to get to the root of the question before documenting it.
The key thing is that you have to make sure to actually do the step after (transfer to docs), even if it's a quick copy-paste with minimal editing.
> I read some posts about this movement, and from them it seemed like EAs are more interested in the far off stuff
You can’t really use that as a metric to judge the movement, since there’s only so much one can write about “donate money to AMF”, but you can write pages and pages about the far off stuff.
All the mainstream political suggestions for taxation/wealth distribution focus on correcting wealth inequalities within a rich nation. Very few (if any) suggest redistributing from wealthy western nations to the global poor.