Misdicorl

I think we'll simply agree to disagree. But suffice to say that I don't need you to explain love to me or tell me that what I feel isn't "real" love. And simply because we disagree on an adjective some people like to attach to their love and which I do not? How myopic and unnecessarily condescending of you.

Its hard to imagine, and would probably break me. Something like admitted, intentional, malicious, torture of our entire family for no benefit whatsoever might do it.

I agree the word is the sticking point. Unconditional to me means there is literally nothing that can change it. No conditions.

If you found out the relationship was a giant ruse created by a bored billionaire and the person began behaving completely differently because the contract ended: doesnt matter.

All sorts of wacky scenarios you can dream up.

I can't help but feel like saying unconditional love is a giant cop out. I love people for reasons. Important reasons. Some of those reasons can't change (e.g. you are my mom/dad/kid) but those aren't the only reasons. And it's important to me to communicate those attributes of people I love. And obviously the whole is bigger than the parts in some ineffable way. And I (try to) communicate that too.

But the whole concept of unconditional love says nothing. It is a cop out. And ultimately, a lie

I don't think you're reading me properly. I think the statement is bs, not the feeling. Of course the individual matters! That's my entire point about the statement being bs.

And to the other half, of course the conditions are incredibly nuanced and context dependent and probably unknowable to boot. It's not some sort of "three strikes and you're out" situation.

Perhaps that's the intent, but I don't think so. It's root is in Christianity (I think?). God loves you no matter what and all that.

I think you want a different term: though I'm struggling to come up with what it might be at the moment

But isn't that what "unconditional" demands of you?

Unconditional love is a trope I want to die so badly. It's so.... Selfish? I read it as "You don't matter at all. I'm so big hearted and perfect; isn't it glorious?" I love my kid and wife because of who they are and specific things they do. And I tell them that. And I also tell them they can always change and my love for them will continue and change with them

You find it difficult to believe? The person clearly worked hard to achieve this aesthetic. The font even sort of matches the illustrations. This is clearly intentional from my pov. This aesthetic was more important to the author than ease of reading/consumption.

Fair enough and I also agree. Got sloppy towards the end there

I disagree so strongly even though I also found the font horrible. Design is used to communicate. Whether or not you want to communicate "in the clearest way possible" is a choice. There are many other choices to be made and some may conflict with that choice. Some choices will resonate with you and some will aggravate. But only the author/designer can speak to whether the design was successful in it's aims

Point is to make the signal to noise on response too low for the scammers to deal with. Today, they can feasibly have a person look at every response and choose the most promising targets.

If auto respond to even 0.01% of scam email, they suddenly need to have tools to weave through ridiculous amounts of data. Expensive. Scam becomes negative ROI

Similarly, I'd like all the scam emails to be auto responded to with fake data rather than black holed

People seem confused, but this seems very reasonable to me. Consider flying to some far away location. Would you rather

A) A short flight from your local airport to a nearby hub and then transfer to a long haul flight to the far away location

B) A long flight from your local airport to a far away hub and then transfer to a short flight to get to your final destination.

If something goes wrong, its likely to happen at the transfer point. If something goes wrong, you want to be in a place where you have the most resources available to you. Usually being close to home affords you the most resources/options. Stakes are much lower for commuter train travel, but it still rings true for me.

I think the relevant grouping to take to task for these issues is federal, state, and local governments (and probably quite a few corporations). Not "white people".

"you can't simply draw a boundary... Https if people don't have responsibility... Only individuals do"

I think this is specious reasoning. We accept this just fine in other tort circumstances e.g

1) lawsuits against a city after miscarriage of justice

2) lawsuits against corporations when X happens.

Often individual responsibility will be a portion of the trial but to my understanding it is

1) a secondary or even tertiary concern

2) used to deflect blame from the group

I think in general not allowing blame to be allocated to individuals will lead to poor results. We need methods to call systems bad and curtail them in addition to individuals

The solution to your quandary is to realize the division operator is massively overloaded in your expression. What you actually want is to specify s and r as true line segments and define a new operator which takes two segments and outputs the angle between them. This operator happens to reduce to division of magnitudes in certain circumstances.

Edit: in other words, you've encoded tons of information in the problem statement about the relationship between r and s and you aren't properly encoding that in your type system allowing s/r to output an angle

> Multiplying degrees together is not a meaningful concept.

Curious what you think of the d_theta * d_phi term in a spherical coordinates integral...

I think this will devolve at this point. But you should consider that you are perhaps far too confident in your position here. My last attempt is due you to consider what happens when you

A) multiply two degrees together

B) multiply two dBm values together

The output "units" in A change but do not in B. dB and angles are very different.

Edit: the units in B do change, but the dB part doesn't. Tired.

I understand your analogy, but I reject it's validity. Degrees/radians/turns map to meters/feet/angstrom. Decibels and octaves are true "number" multipliers. You could for instance talk about degrees in octaves or in dB if you like. It's just not particularly useful for the domain

Edit: another example difference. I can't measure an octave or dB. I can measure a degree

Edit2: we've reached reply limit but I concede you can measure a decibel. Point about dB degrees still stands though

I think I fundamentally disagree with you. Angles do not have a "base" any more than meters do (being embedded inside some metric space could be considered a base I suppose).

But you seem to be drawing a distinction between meters and angles in your analogy where I assert none exists. The base of a number system only affects representations.

This is not true for divisions of lengths. 1 meter divided by 2 meters is 0.5 as a number. But it is only 0.5 radians under (1ish) specific arrangements of those lengths in a particular metric space

This is not true. Angles very much have units and it's why you can express the same concept with different numbers. Pi equals 180 degrees equals 0.5 turns.

1 radian has different units than 1 steradian and if they didn't there wouldn't be a need for two different words to denote them.

The quantity is a ratio of two lengths, and the length measure does "drop out". But it's not just any ratio, it's a very particular ratio, and the unit defines the particularness of that ratio.

Surely the lighting matters but I think it is only secondary. The thing that's missing in reproductions is the physical texture of the paintings.

desalinization (does require transport infra, but mostly steady state)

Could you solve/mitigate it with curation? Let the users be anonymous or pseudo-anonymous and keep the server signing, but add another signing field called the curator.

At first blush the curation signer looks the same as the server, but I think its subtly different in a way that is maybe effective?

A) You can re-curate or multi-curate a message, but you should (probably) keep the source community constant

B) It separates moderation concerns from on-topic concerns which is a constant struggle. Easy for a server to host many different communities/topics/communication mores and import the content stream in different ways from different curators

Who does the curation? I guess its as simple as the upvote button, but perhaps you can improve that model substantially

Your application must feel I/O bound. But in reality it must be syscall bound in order for io_uring to make any noticeable improvement.

In other words: if your application is already writing/reading at the max speed the hardware its on allows, you will see no improvement from this. That application is truly I/O bound.

An application that feels I/O bound will be doing lots and lots of little reads and writes and achieving low hardware utilization. That application is syscall bound rather than I/O bound, and io_uring will help tremendously.

Nit: Syscall bound, not necessarily I/O bound.

I take the same approach with the extra precaution that those logins also get a separate email address (with a different pseudo-strong password). Makes it really easy to share nonsense logins with my wife/family.

Another answer:

> Imagine I want to fetch user data by id from Galactus, the user data service. I know what shape of data I want from it, and Galactus knows what shape of data it provides. Should both my service and Galactus have full, individual copies of this data structure?

No. Galactus should have the full shape of the "user object" but should never put that on the wire or expose it. The wire API should expose sensible things like "what is the billing and shipping address(es) of this user id". Galactus is responsible for maintaining the mapping between the "user object" and whatever the relevant return format is for those data.

Edit: This allows you to run API migrations and data migrations independently. Which is crucial for any service that will last longer than 1 year.

They made a coulomb bomb https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/what-if-i-...

> I worked on all sorts of problems that involved the Coulomb interaction, and occasionally my proposed solution would be very wrong. The worst kind of wrong was the one that made my advisor remark “What you just created is a Coulomb bomb,” which meant that I had proposed something that wasn’t neutral on the large scale.

Its callous, not stupid. Consider whether those individuals best work (nobel prize granting e.g.) came before or after they started families. Consider how involved they can be with their families given how often you likely saw them around the department. Yes, it can be done. But its hard. And you're unlikely to be ultra successful if you devote the time your family deserves (not to mention the luck/charisma/skill/dedication needed on top of that).