crimsonalucard

It's ok. I expected this. Consider this a criticism of HN. Maybe one day I'll email you and give you a reason. But I can always just make a new account.

Basically I tried using the flag multiple times when I'm insulted and you have failed repeatedly to remedy the situation and there were even times you basically unflagged the people who have been offensive. I'm left in a situation where I invested a lot of time into writing comments and I have to just take it and I have no mechanism to protect myself because every response I make is an opening for them to subtract my karma.

It's emotionally taxing to invest time into writing comments here and emotionally taxing to read insulting criticism and just sit there and take the insult when you've basically been ignoring my flags.

The fact that you selectively moderate everything has led me to realize that it's not worth it to invest time to write my opinions on HN. What's outrageous is that I've been here 9 years and I just decided it's not worth it to let this bad actor insult me and sit here while you basically ignore the whole situation.

The only reason you responded is because I decided to defend my self and this amped up the situation two fold. Other than that his rude responses would have been completely ignored even if I flagged his posts.

>I'm sad to ban someone who's been here for 9 years and made many positive contributions,

This is just not true. You aren't even aware of what positive contributions I have made to HN. I've just been here for a while.

Why am I even writing this. It's not like you care enough to change.

Every country on earth is deeply intertwined with China from an economic perspective. Especially the US.

Sounds like SAP does custom App building. Do they use a custom underlying database technology as well?

Would it be equivalent to contracting some software system to a a company that would build the system using SQL?

>“Well, I have news for you: some things are just hard. There’s no way of getting around it.”

If you think this, but I have a way to make something 10x easier that you can't or don't know how to do then I can sell my idea to you as a service for a monthly subscription fee.

Why would you use ERP instead of a regular SQL database?

edit Got a lot of vote downs. This was a genuine question from someone completely ignorant on what ERP is. Not trying to say that SQL is better, but I'm asking this because I'm ignorant of what ERP is and the description makes it appear as if it's a database.

What's the difference? would be better wording I guess.

I'm totally sincere. But don't let that influence you. Be rational.

When something seems ambiguous you need to shed your biases and follow the logic and evidence. Read what I wrote in my response and both dispute and reason about the logic and evidence behind it. If you find the logic to be correct then we're good, if you find it to be incorrect then both of our premises are logically flawed.

The foundations of peoples' beliefs are not tied to logic or truth, it is tied to time, effort, character and way of life.

Any change in belief that will influence their way of life will raise psychological shields. People will very readily change their logic to maintain a belief if that meant preserving other other aspects of their lives that they have put time and effort into.

This book is written for people who already understand the true nature of science and religion. I highly doubt it can convert people, I have yet to find a technique or even a book that has the ability to do so. It's just the way people are...

Whenever you see someone convert from religion to science most of the time the underlying foundations of it had nothing to do with logical realization and more to do with some form of minor or major trauma.

If you experienced a conversion to science from religion and you yourself describe the experience as a "logical realization" I would argue that you probably weren't that invested in the religion in the first place OR that there was some associated trauma that coincided with the "logical realization."

Might as well recommend the Holy Bible or the Koran. Also good books with good stories.

>This is locking down for the sake of locking down, not an evidence-first safety driven approach. That is something I cannot support.

It is 100% evidence based. Reduction of gatherings = reduction in transmission. There's no way around this. People may be more likely to get covid from costco, but reducing interaction to only costco is still reduction of transmission.

This idolization of Elon Musk and contrarian logic that really doesn't even make common sense is getting on my nerves.

It's like one of those people who said that face masks weren't protecting people from covid using faulty but overconfident logic.

Uh hello? A face mask blocks light and slows down

Got a "network error."

You don't think Nuclear weapons and a president named Trump is a security concern for the rest of the world?

You're here worrying about semiconductor foundries? Why? Your phone already has enough processing power to guide a nuclear bomb into the white house. It's already a concern and it's already too late. Taiwan and the rest of the world has computing technology well past a "security concern."

Of course anyone who's not white and American if they have any form of computing technology that's better than the America makes it a security risk. Are you actually afraid or are you so arrogant that you believe that only America should have the latest and greatest technologies?

Makes sense because only a country with a wise and mature president like trump and citizens genius enough to vote for him are privileged enough to have "technology."

I'm tired of these racist bigoted opinions from blind white people who don't understand of the world. Grow up. Stop being racist.

That's EOD here.

By alone I mean who in the world will help you if you're a psychopathic killer who enjoys torturing animals and people? Who is the last person on the face of the earth who will not give up on you?

Your parents, that is if you have parents that love you this way. Many don't but many do.

Every single one of your other relationships relies on effort by you to maintain. If you violate certain societal norms all bets are off. All relationships are basically just mutual trade agreements except for the parent - child bond. It's a cynical world view but it's real, there are lines everywhere that you have to make efforts not to cross because you're aware that if those lines are crossed people will abandon you.

>We see how regular parents behave towards their children just fine, thankyouverymuch. We have eyes in our heads.

And so do all regular people thank you very much. My grandparents abused my parents. I know all about it. I've been told every story. Do not think you have privileged knowledge just because you've been abused? Do I think I have privileged knowledge just because I haven't? No. I don't. But I can honestly say that I don't know first hand what it's like to be abused just like you don't know first hand what it's like to have a parent love you unconditionally.

One of my parents ran away from home for being abused. He had to live on the streets until he was 17 before he was able to make something of himself and become self sufficient.

>You, however, as your reply shows, are congenitally unable to consider that some parents maltreat their children and that these parents look to the outside world like well-adjusted people.

Did you read any of the posts I wrote? I am literally only talking about parents who LOVE their children. NEVER did I say that child abuse doesn't exist. These are completely different things. I even went further to emphasize this point multiple times.

>That's EOD here.

You know what my grandparents said to my dad before they beat him? "End of discussion."

I'm not even slightly kidding here, this is literally the what he said and the attitude he had... my way or the highway. Additionally, this was in Asia, you think there's child protection services back then in Asia? A kid was owned by their parents and beating kids was a part of culture. Beating kids until they're unconscious was probably illegal but given the culture almost always overlooked 99.99% of the time.

Watch where you take your arguments because the hatred, lack of open mindedness, lack of emotional control, lack if willingness to discuss things and lack of empathy for people who disagree with you is a precursor to abuse.

Read my other comments. I'm not disagreeing with you or the other poster. There's a possible misunderstanding in what I'm saying here.

We're all blind in certain sense. I'm thinking people like you who were possibly abused cannot see the other side of the coin. Can you imagine a bond so strong that for parents with abusive/toxic children there is no choice.

If my child was a psychopathic killer, I have to love him and support him until the bitter end. I have many choices in life such as the choice of committing a crime or refraining from committing a crime. The choice of risking my own life to save another or watching someone else die.

For my child, I do not have a choice.

If a parent-child bond exists, I think it's the strongest bond in all human relationships. Many mothers describe it as taking a piece of your soul and letting it walk around outside of your body. It doesn't exist in all cases but when it does exist there's nothing else like it.

But obviously not every parent and child will have this bond, I'm sorry if you or anyone reading this didn't.

>It seems like you're having trouble either understanding or believing how bad some mothers actually are. What about the ones that leave their baby in a dumpster? If that kid grows up does it have an obligation to try and maintain a relationship with its mother?

Your assumption is incorrect. Where in any of my posts did I say that people are under obligation to maintain a relationship with parents? I absolutely NEVER said this.

This is what I said and I quote verbatim:

"I think it's absolutely worth it to try and establish contact and maintain a relationship if you feel that the relationship problems are superficial and underneath it all your parents do love you."

This was the situation I was in. This is the situation the person in the NYTimes article is describing. I'm just keeping on topic here.

Look there are definitely horrible parents out there. I'm fortunate to not have had parents that would beat the shit out of me or torture me. I'm just keeping in line with the topic of the NYTimes article. If you don't feel "your parents love you" then absolutely do not open up a relationship.

Basically bad relationships with parents who still ultimately love you is the theme that the article and I am targeting.

If you don't have that underlying relationship with your parent then don't try to reconnect. You be the judge, I'm not trying to ask people to reconnect with parents who are psychopathic. I'm asking people to reconnect with parents who mean well and actually do love you but have ultimately made grave mistakes in the past.

Never did I say every parent and every situation is like this. I am saying for THIS situation and the situation described in the article it is appropriate.

Maybe what you say is true. Tell me about your situation.

I know that when someones parents are toxic and abusive they need to be cut off.

However, for many parents when the situation is reversed they do not have a choice. The love is too great and the parents have to stick with the child until the very very end.

If you murdered someone, a good number of parents will never abandon you. They will give up everything to help you including their own lives.

Do you have a friend or someone other than your parents who will stick with you no matter what? Tell me about it.

I'm sorry. Just telling the truth.

I mostly posted because I feel a lot of people have bad relationships with parents that actually do love them but for various other reasons (psychological problems, poverty, stress, drugs etc... ) ended up just having a bad relationship with their parents.

I think it's absolutely worth it to try and establish contact and maintain a relationship if you feel that the relationship problems are superficial and underneath it all your parents do love you.

In that article, the mother lost contact with both of her children. It is not a trivial situation to be in when both children don't want contact. She must have done many things that were really serious and really horrible. But her last email she wrote that she loves both of them no matter what, and I think that is real.

What I am saying is that as imperfect as people are as much damage and toxicity they have done, if you sense that underneath it all there's genuine love then it's absolutely worth maintaining that relationship because you're never going to get someone to love you like this again. If true love even exists, it can only exist from parent to child.

I'm in total agreement with you. If your parents are toxic, dump them for sure. Not every parent is like my description, I'm just describing a generality that describes the majority.

Despite this, I truly believe the statement below:

If you don't have parents that will stick with you while you're still in prison for 30 years, then you don't have anyone on the face of this earth who will do this for you. You are alone.

It's definitely not every parent nor is it even almost every parent.

I would say it's the majority though, as in over 50% for sure.

Of course there are exceptions. But the general rule stands.

I say the above from anecdotal experience from my parents and other parents I know, and from quotations I hear from people actually living in prison.

I guess drugs throw off all the priorities, because in the end the actual mechanism that triggers love is in itself a chemical/drug as well.

You know they say that if you go to prison the longer you stay... more and more people start abandoning you just because of time. I'm talking about over a period of 10-20 years. Eventually contact is lost because everyone moves on.

First your girlfriend stops visiting, then your wife, then your kids.

They say the one connection that stays constant are your parents. If you're in jail for 20 years your parents will love you till the day you die and that love never fades. No one will ever love you as much as your parents.

The connection is one way unfortunately. Children will never love their parents as much as their parents love them.

As bad as your relationship is with your parents. Once they're gone, you're pretty much alone.

>Libraries aren't everything, but they should be preferred.

The story is much much more complicated than this. Every single one of you is using a framework everyday, that is unless you program in assembly language.

All Programming languages are highly opinionated frameworks on top of assembly languages.

When you know this, then you know that you can't just say something simplistic like libraries are "preferred."

If all programming languages are frameworks on top of assembly language then frameworks are not only preferred they are Required for humans to make sense of complexity.

When you write a framework like django within the framework of python you are putting a framework within a framework. It's similar to writing a compiler that compiles some PL into python. You are building layers and layers of interfaces between your logic.

For every extra layer you add, two things, in general, happen:

     1. Complexity decreases
     2. Restriction increases

So when someone writes an article like this, what they are actually saying is this:

    "The complexity and restriction balance in the current framework/programming language 
     strikes the right balance so in my opinion (keyword)
     writing another framework on top of the current framework will
     increase the restriction to the point where the trade off is not worth it."

When writing a library as opposed to a framework, what people are essentially doing is augmenting the capabilities of the current framework without creating an extra layer of abstraction. Another good way to think about it is that frameworks are equivalent to extra layers of abstraction and therefore the benefits and downsides of adding more layers of abstraction are equivalent to adding more frameworks. So it's really not as simple to say that "Libraries are preferred."

The story actually gets even more complicated then this. I spoke previously as if there is a trade off between Complexity and Restriction. While a decrease in complexity is always good, an increase in restriction is not always bad.

Take for example ELM. ELM is a language (or framework) that compiles to javascript and HTML. It is more restrictive then javascript due to type checking. Yes type checking is a framework that decreases freedom and increases restriction. But people think type checking is a good thing. Why? Well, the ELM type checker/framework is so powerful that it restricts you from ever writing a run time error. You absolutely do not have the freedom to write code that has certain bugs in ELM while in javascript you absolutely have the freedom to pollute your code with thousands of obscure bugs.

Restriction can be good, really good. In fact restriction outside of testing is our greatest tool and weapon for combating the problem of bugs occurring as a result of too much complexity.

In short, I don't like this article because it doesn't illustrate the full story. It kind of biases against frameworks. The author did not think deeply enough, he thinks of frameworks in terms of things like rails or django, but he does not think of what a framework is from a more general perspective.

Keep in mind, react or how react is used is basically a framework as well. Nobody uses it as a library, they prefer the component abstraction to take over the entire notion of the DOM.

My company recently decided to switch over to microservices. It was a long an arduous process but we chose not to compromise.

Basically for the greatest amount of modularity, we divided all 400 functions in our monolithic application into 400 individual servers because obviously functions aren't modularizing everything enough. You really need to put more and more wrappers around all of your functions. First put a framework around your function, than put an http api layer around it, then wrap a server app around it, then put an entire container around it and boom! More wrappers == Less technical debt. To illustrate how this works see example below:

   wrapper(
     wrapper(
       wrapper(
         wrapper(
           f(x)
         )
       )
     )
   )

See that? Obviously for every additional wrapper you add around your original function your technical debt becomes less. This is why it makes sense to make to not just use functions to modularize your data but to wrap all your functions in containers and then put those containers in containers.

Now all 400 of our engineers each as an individual manages one entire function within one entire container. It's amazing, they don't have to think about two things anymore, they can just concentrate on one thing.

While I'm not sure what has improved yet, everything feels better. Our company is following industry trends and buzzwords. Technical debt actually went up but that's just our fault for building it wrong.

Some engineer asked me why couldn't we just load balance our original monolith and scale it horizontally. I fired that engineer.

Another engineer came to me and told me that for some function:

   func some_func(a: int, b: int) -> int: {
      return a + b
   }

It's probably better to do 1. instead of 2.

   1. Call the function: some_func(2,3)

   2. Make a request: request.get("http://www.pointlessapi.com/api/morecomplexity/someextratechnicaldebt/randomletters/asdfskeidk/some_func?a=2&a=3") 
   and parse the json:

   {
     "metadata": {
         "date": "1/1/2020"
         "request_id": "123323432",
         "other_pointless_crap": ...
         "more_usless_info": ...
         "function_name (why?)": "some_func"
     }
     "actual_data": 5
   }

I fired that engineer too. Obviously 2. is better than 1. Also why am I using JSON? Not enough wrappers! You have to wrap that http call in additional wrappers like GraphQL or GRPC!!! (See wrapper logic above).

Have you guys heard of a new trend called Sololithic architecture? Basically the new philosophy states that all of 400 of our microservices should be placed in 400 containers and run under a cluster of 399 computers under kubernetes!

I may not understand where technical debt comes from and I also may not understand how all these architectures will fix the problem of technical debt forever... I know that industry trends and buzzwords are more intelligent than me and monoliths are bad bad bad and obviously the source of all technical debt! Just cut everything into little pieces and technical debt becomes ZERO.

Right? The technical definition of Technical debt is not enough cutting of your logic into tiny pieces and not enough wrappers around your modules so all you need to do is cut everything up and put wrappers around it and problem solved! Makes sense!

Yes, a good story teller weaves the details and themes into the plotline so the pacing never gets interrupted and the delivery feels natural.

Kojima interrupts the entire game with a character monologue about some tragic past or some modern geopolitical issue. Makes sense for every single boss to launch into 30 minutes talking about all this stuff right before a gun fight.

Kojima's games are not known for good story telling. All of them are down right bad. People who like it tend to not mind cringey and over the top melodramatic dialogue...

If you want to play a deep game with an immersive and engrossing story play planescape torment.

Gamecube is well emulated. So you can play Twin Snakes on the PC.

Honestly though, it doesn't hold up well, and even as revolutionary as it was for it's time the dialogue was still often cringy.

No way man. He makes great games but he adds a lot of cinematics with cringey dialogue and an overt the top story to all of his games.

The man isn't perfect. I feel a game like red dead redemption 2 is more closer to that perfect game we're looking for. It hits all the the marks in terms of story and systems based gameplay.

Even at the time it came out, mgs1, was cringeworthy.

Definitely revolutionary for it's time, but the amount of dialogue and cinematic flair did not match up with over the top dialogue.

It's just kind of not immersive to have a 30 minute conversation and in depth look into every bosses tragic past before getting into a boss fight.

Good writers/Game designers introduce all of the above in a more natural way.

I also feel a lot of it is just culture. Japanese cinematics tend to be like that maybe? I feel subtitles without dubbing tends to hide a lot of the cringeyness of the whole situation. For example the original FF7 actually works well because it's all text.

Actually no it can't. That be like extrapolating all expressions of language are fundamentally similar.

I wasn't just talking about functional. Prolog is a different paradigm all together.