bsedlm

nope, they're just people with a larger carbon footprint; to put in some way, point being they're using more energy. keeping in mind that these people are usually healthier thus look good.

I think of this a bit like tiying your shoes and untying them over and over, or maybe it's like putting a lego set together, taking it appart, then back together...

I hope that by the time a PC with keyboard and mouse (or even a laptop with trackpad and keyboard) are considered retro I am able to stay away from all computers.

because on this trend, such a world where all computing is through 'smart' devices is a world in which we have even less individual power than we do now.

fact is we live in a tiered society. no matter how many times we repeat to ourselves that "we are all equal" (before the law).

as I see it, such phrases are a goal, an intention, more than they are a reality.

we need to keep working perpetually in pursuit of such an ideal goal, but just pretending we do not live in a caste (or tiered) society does not really do anything to achieve this goal.

this is the my point: to pretend that tiers (or castes) do not exist does not move us any closer to the stated ideal goal.

the more direct action I can think of is to dissasociate what somebody does to earn a living from their social status.

I agree 100%.

once upone a time I asked myself what the heck do we mean by 'nothing' when asking "why is there something rather than nothing?"?

from wondering that, I concluded the same thing you did. that nothing is a made up concept; and I agree, it's super useful and it's ideal instead of real.

later on, I started to ponder what the heck does 'everything' really mean, and for now I think that 'everything' is just as made up as 'nothing'. hence, 'everything' doesn't exist in the same way 'something' (anything) exist. it's also just a very valuable made up concept.

there is no instance of everything, it's also an assumption.

then again, maybe I got stuck in the trip

I'm not sure I follow...

value is the realocation of wealth?

hmm, surely to realocate wealth has some value, but what's the relation between wealth and value?

also, what about rent? what does rent do to wealth? to growth? to value?

sure, from the perspective of the final user it doesn't matter much at all.

with my point about normalization being easier to understand I meant to say that it is easier for a developer learning about the schema.

if I recall ok, I think there's also something about data de-duplication in a normalized database. without this normalization, you could get a lot of repetition, which would actually require to update the same data in multiple places or find some other way to deal with different data about the same entity (some sort of de-synchronization is more likely without normalized schemas).

in any case, I'll grant you that normalization should never be 'the' goal for a database.

because a normalized database repeats less things and is much easier to understand than a messy one.

oh, and also, the entire point is that neither is "inherently better"... both have pros and cons

I'd say it's the liver (or some other part of the gut-brain i.e. autonomic nervous system) that is lazy.

If you've ever tried a caloric deficit you know something within does not like it and will complain constantly so long as it's happening.

The brain must actively supress this which is tyring.

If anything the brain is not lazy, it just tries to be efficient. Oh, and the heart is all the opposite. it won't ever give up until it really biophysicall cannot go on.

by this point, being able to eat (like in crimes of the future), or at the least, resist eating plastics and other toxic ubiquitous substances (PFAS) seems like the most viable strategy.

you're absolutely correct. a colleague working on getting all the certifications he can get was telling me how his boss explained that is what the consultancy actually sells.

this seems to always happens, is this the commoditization of skills?

All work is done with some kind of a redundancy: no particular individual's skills are permitted to really move the scale/balance. All work is done by teams; only the whole team matters such that the individuals are replaceable across all teams.

Any team member can fuckup, drop the ball, get hit by a bus such that the work carries on unimpeded.

https://bjlkeng.github.io/posts/lossless-compression-with-la... ?

yes. I think most of us who programmed in the trenches are familiar with forgetting what we've done...

the difference is that nothing I've ever worked on will ever be public or useful beyond a small private business which doesn't even exist anymore.

you need to consider that many rich and powerful people are not in any way bound to "America" the country.

At most they have some (among many other) assets in america.

yes there is, it's the oldest justification in the book. for some reason it's not well seen but it's there and has been for a long time.

it's justification of might and power. summed up in "might makes right".

there's also something of this in the reasoning behind the phrase "history is written by the winners".

this is only an instance of power being wielded by the powerful.

the choice taken, because it's both easier and worse, is to put a marketplace of apps as an interface to the very large amount of things that a computer can do.

I'm saying that in the future (given this trend), in order to get "the computer" to do anything at all, the interface won't be a CLI or a programming language, but a giant searchable marketplace where you can buy (pay for) each specific action that you want your computer to do.

this sounds a bit ridiculous now, but it's not. it's a super appstore. it's the API economy taken to an extreme level. its all the functionality of your computer as a service with a small transactional fee for every meaningful action.

instead of teaching more people to program (and making an effort to keep computing simple), we have been collectively making computers easier to use and harder to understand.

It's only a matter of time before opening browser developer tools requires a cyrptographically signed government issued authorization (to give a crude example of my worry); of course this could be promised to keep children safe (or whatever convenient political excuse).

More realistically, I don't think it would work to straight up enforce this; instead I suppose making it unfeasible or otherwise really annoying to open browser dev tools is the way to do it. I have reasonable suspicions that this is the main driving impulse behind WASM.

they probably don't.

it does not make it as easy/simple to remove or otherwise modify the links.

I meant: meaningfull (lossy) compression

probably not cuz I'd imagine they want lossless compression (given as they don't understand the data well enough to do meaningfull (lossless) compression)

if money is fungible, how come it can be dirty xor clean?

sounds like you want more better faster for less cheaper and quicker.

But let's not confuse "in spite of" with "because of"

I think in part the problem is that he is an owner working with an agency, i.e. they're all employees all the way to the top.

like this agency said, "we usually work with larger clients", i.e. we expect that all interactions across companies involve people for whom it's just their job.

BUT, they got (what seems like) the actual business owner on one side, not some dissinterested executive.

what about the centralization aspects of nuclear power?

there's no way nuclear can be decentralized, even with relatively tiny reactors, the waste management requires too much discipline.

If the Japanese couldn't avoid a disaster, and considering discipline would come easy to them, I don't think nuclear can ever be truly safe and distributed.

solar and wind are more resistant to centralization.

fear of stagnation... ?

but ultimately, the "executives" making the decisions of what software to develop, which bugs to hunt, and so on, are all basing their decisions on data, reports, and many sorts of 'metrics'.

Additionally, I suppose in a company as big as Google, all this decision making is backed by written communications.

All this written stuff is subject to legal scrutiny. All must abide by 'approved' rules, guidelines, etc..

Squinting a little bit (maybe some may need to squint harder) it's clear that in the end everything is being done according to a computational (written) process.

this is essentially what 'skynet' (from the terminator) or the matrix actually means. if every human involved is following data and written guidelines, the decisions are being made by a computer program running across many hundreds of humans pushing "paper" around.

why assume that the review would be done by a human?

I'd wager the "reviewer" it's merely a more computationally expensive process

what if my data is on my hardware as well as on the cloud hardware?

whose data is it anyways?

I've seen this website before but I forgot about it...

> Many people manage to pay of their student loans and don't have to live in debt if they don't want to.

yikes... this strikes me as quite similar to this line of reasoning: "poor people are poor because they just don't want to work"