andagainagain

This whole thing just sounds like it's based in multiple bits of poor logic and improperly used principles.

- Don't take away data points to find averages you like. When you have a category like "fastest growing successful startups", I want to know how many you looked at. And no, 45 is not unreasonable. Neither is 40. We're dealing with people aged 20-80. But actually, 20 is unlikely because you also put in "successful", which takes a few years to figure out. So like 25-80, with more at the young-ish end of that spectrum.

- "Specialists do not do well as predictors of financial or political trends. Nor are they good at predicting human behavior" is a bad generalization to make on specialists. EVERYONE is bad at predicting human behavior, financial and political trends. EVERYONE. If you think you've found someone who is good at that, I think you've found someone that's good at hiding how much they suck at it. Test them, with specific claims, and usually they reveal they're just as bad as anyone else.

- "Specialists often learn from experience" - of course they do. So do generalists. Also, so do you.

- "Inspiration is everywhere", hey, on that I agree. Inspiration is indeed everywhere.

- "What can do you to thrive in such a world?" - The author recommends all sorts of things, most of which are quite silly. Reading books every day? GREAT! Read magazines that cater to different hobbyists? Less useful. Listen to music from another country? I suppose... if you want. Learning about motor cycle racing and polymers? Again, if you want. But it's implied that this is somehow beneficial to your career, which it almost never is.

I know a bunch of biology, a smattering of physics, plenty of skeptical stuff, a touch of programming, little bits about music and cultures around the world, an enormous number of trivial things. I know those things because of my history, my experiences, and my curiosity. I am no better at predicting human behavior or economic markets than the world leading chess experts. And I'm no more likely to succeed at making a startup than someone who doesn't know about ancient tea and black powder muzzle loaders.

Exactly. I want these things too. But I'm also willing to pay for them.

Everyone wants the best stuff for free. That's not controversial. But it is controversial to complain that the best stuff is more expensive than the cheap stuff. Of course it is. That's the type of stuff they sacrificed to make it cheap.

If they want low end free btw, they do have that too. Pinebooks are super cheap.

People should buy things they want to own. When you rent things, there is explicitly no guarantee you'll have access to it later. Books, music, videos - the only way you can guarantee you'll have access to it is by owning it.

That said, we are not even remotely in farenheit 451 territory. And the author of this article doesn't spend much effort even trying to claim or defend that position.

From the title my first thought was "RUSTLANG!". Then I saw it was a google article and thought "well, that's not going to be rust-lang at all". I guess the answer was somewhere in between.

It would be nice if there was more meat on the article though, like what types of things to do, or how each memory error happens, etc.

Even then, that's more a problem with google than amazon. Or, more accurately, it's a problem that we treat email as electronic mail. We feel we own the account like we own our address, Heck, for some stupid reason we use them for identification all over the internet.

But technologically, they are postcards sent to a business. And we just visit the business to pick up our postcards. Imagine every time you bought something, they sent the receipt to walmart for you to pick up. Not in an envelope, just handed to the guy at the counter and put into a box for you. We never should have let email get this far, but we did.

Indeed.

I'm not trying to separate myself from society. I'm just trying to keep the stalkers away.

A lot of companies seem to want to act less like members of society and more like stalkers.

The beauty of both mediums is in the compression.

Text is that it's highly compressible while also being highly compressed (and lossy) info already. To make text we have to filter our own ideas, and then to interpret text we have to add a bunch of info back from context.

Pictures have the same tricks up their sleeve. Bitmaps are great but inefficient. If we put it through a lossy compression, it's a lot better. If we make it semi procedurally with a vector file, it's even better. How far can we take a compressed procedural file though? Well.. .kkreiger was about 97 KB, and stores a full 3d shooter. For a meg, you could store 100 such full games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger

Text isn't best in every way. With clever design we can use all the same principles that make text efficient, and make other types of data more efficient. It is a very good default though.

I'll take "will" to be a given. There is something that is capable of thinking, and the thoughts it has are will. A decision, then, is when that entity has a thought that has intention.

I think it becomes nebulous by adding "free" to the equation, because it's not defined in relation to something specifically. Free from what? How would you differentiate it from a decision that's not "free" in this sense?

Free from thoughts? Free from gods? Free from memory? Free from circumstances? To differentiate it from "non-free will", we have to define what we actually care about, and then use it only with that scope.

it's not just illogical, it's an infinite regress. It's purposely adding in an extra layer that by definition can't be discounted. So if you disprove one layer of free will, you still have an infinite number of possible ways you still have (or don't have) free will at yet deeper levels.

"Free Will" is a nebulous concept, so of course nothing can disprove it.

The question I always ask with this is "free from what?". Not freedom to do something... that's not how freedom works. freedom is generally defined from the lack of control. So freedom from what?

From someone else controlling your will? Sure, we have that mostly - though we can definitely screw with people's minds. I can't make you think something. But I can, say, get you drunk and change your decision making ability. Teh yes/no question is trivial as soon as the definition is specific enough.

From literally any connection to your memory? Of course we don't have that because we know we use memories to make decisions. Again, the question becomes trivial.

Why is this still treated as hard? I'm sure it's because people are attaching vague definitions based on emotional wants. I want to be free! of what? just free!

> What exactly is it that you think Wayland couldn't do and why was it necessary to invent an incompatible application interface to achieve that?

From the mir technical architect (found on askubuntu): https://samohtv.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/mir-an-outpost-envi...

> And AppImage came before snap.

Exactly right! And if the ONLY goal was compatibility, we all should be using appimage over snap. But snap was and is trying to promise more in terms of end-user security and transactional updates from the vendor. So there is a legitimate reason to make something new.

Mir and WAyland was because wayland couldn't do what they wanted technically.

Snap came BEFORE flatpak. Flatpak was the "new competing standard" in that situation.

And Gnome shell, quite frankly, sucked. IMO it still sucks, but back then it sucked WAY worse.

Per the Azure's T&C? It's easy to blame Canonical here... but I that sounds like Azure's screw up, and Canonical accidentally revealing it.

It almsot sounds likes what we need is a differentiation of words. Most people that like "philosophy" disagree on what they mean. I mean, that's a layman problem. But if philosophers themselves disagree on what philosophy in general is, then perhaps it should differentiate into specific philosophies.

Say, "scientific philosophy", which is the subset of thinking that considers philosophy as a science, with assigned true/false values. Then the rest of the philosophies can name themselves, or otherwise in aggregate consider themselves the nonscientific philosophies.

Would that work you think?