JacksonGariety

Seems like a chicken-and-egg problem, no? Power empowers power.

Who wrote that? (Asking out of curiosity.)

I agree that debate cannot occur on social media and it would be better if no one used Facebook; leaving social media certainly sets a good example.

But I'm arguing against the sentiment that whatever goes on on Facebook is merely a symptom of politics that occurs face-to-face. We live in a world in which people can form political opinions and vote in elections without ever leaving their house.

Today, Facebook might not yet be one of "the usual attachments to society." My point is precisely that social media is increasingly seen as one of the "usual attachments," particularly among younger generations.

The dilemma is that leaving social media is increasingly tantamount to leaving society, which is the basis for what remains of politics. On the other hand, the "politics" that occurs on social media is increasingly nothing other than a popularity contest. It seems hopeless.

My two cents: people who really like reading books don't read the books that are most frequently talked about. This is probably because most people don't really like to read. Accordingly, the most popular books are written specifically for an audience that doesn't really like to read, and the content is usually more important than the form, the style, and so on. As a result, the audience of popular books is fragmented by the subjects of the books they read.

Maybe I oversimplified it, but it actually seemed pretty straight forward to me.

His point is that the terms for "wanting to die" cannot be defined, and from there concludes that "wanting to die" isn't really a feeling within us.

He can't clarify his terms because, for some reason, he has taken a disliking to interpretation.

Not a psychological theory. And certainly not a "revolutionary" one. This article is a crude, philosophical "argument" for the non-existence of qualia. It follows from his conclusions that sunsets can't really be beautiful, citizen kane can't really be a good movie, and so on.

Why downvote this comment? Genuinely curious. The article poorly is written and makes all sorts of potentially offensive assumptions. Why have it on the front page?

What about people with illnesses (physical and mental) or simply genuine misfortune who have overcome it? The author apparently doesn't care about them. Flagged.

So you have to prove that all human work is physical when some of it doesn't seem to be physical at all (creative work).

>everything automatable is computable

why do you suppose this?

My understanding was that he thinks we can potentially automate all human work, just not with computers. A precise task isn't necessary: AI researchers are simply mistaken about the nature of intelligence.

Philosophers have been saying this for 60 years Hubert Dreyfus' 1972 book "What Computers Can't Do" is a notable example.

It's always fascinating to me that when this question comes up (are we going downhill or uphill?) the answer inevitably turns to violence. Is violence the pinnacle of evil? Is nothing worse than violence? What about mental illness? Isolation? Separation from your family? Lack of meaningful cultural practices?

Read critical theory!

I recommend starting with Guy Debord's "The Society of the Spectacle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle)

You must choose between a) and b).

"Clearly the telos of the bird is to fly well, as that of a lyre player is to play the lyre properly!"

It's Aristotelian biology.

Yes. Certainly a conspiracy.

Why do you suppose there is a difference between things and the names we give them? What sort of basis is there for that?

EDIT: How do you know that a large number is "there" if you can't count to it? What would it mean for a large number to "be there."

Being-there is something special. ;-)

Does it bother anyone else that the example given in the article (showing up 25 minutes late) is judging interviewing by its worst rather than its best?

I'd say it has a pretty profound impact on your life: share personal information online, get 'trolled', and then watch that encounter become permanently associated with your name.

I was hoping it would be in Racket. Nonetheless great!

I'm posting these notes because I thought that the class did a great job of interpreting the text. Additionally, I couldn't find any comprehensive notes on this text on the internet anywhere. Hopefully someone finds them interesting!

I'm in a pretty weird place with Go.

On the one hand, I really cannot stop using it. I can build an small web applications in a day or two, I can write them in just slightly more lines than Rails, and the applications I can build are much speedier than Rails applications.

On the other hand, I really, really hate using Go. It's tremendously boring and I never feel the code is that elegant.

I've tried Haskell, but I end up messing around monads too much because there's so much IO.

Rails is fantastic, but I'd prefer to experiment. I never grow as a developer when I use Rails.

Node.js is great. But if I don't need to write a lot of JavaScript on the frontend I end up asking myself: why am I writing JavaScript on the backend?

Racket or Chicken Scheme look like good directions for me. Erlang looks interesting. Maybe I should give Clojure another shot?

> there's nothing wrong with [unsafe code]

I suppose I must ask, then: why Rust?

I spent hours trying to get ansible installed properly on arch linux. It just wasn't meant to happen. So I wrote a shell script. The thing is it was easy to get it working on OS X.

I'm bored so here's a revision of that table:

listening to music = cmus

cutting pictures = darktable can stay

text editor = emacs or vim

audio processing = idk about this one

writing iso = nope dd is perfect

irc = erc or weechat

email = mutt or gmail website

calendar = org agenda mode (emacs)

address book = org mode table

terminal = urxvt or st

rss = idk i don't read rss

tweeting = don't

passwords = paper

don't have your don't read articles to you, either.

bonus:

browser: vimb or chromium i guess

terminal: alacritty (fewer kinks every day)

clock: xclock

Just started with go ~5 days ago and I can confirm that after reading all the example/tutorial/gettingstarted posts this is a serious problem with standard golang. Error handling is seriously tedious.

But what if someone doesn't. A chain is as strong as its weakest link.

Please, HN: read more about fukushima.

This could be the end of it all. All of human history could go out in the blink of an eye.