dpark

Protecting kids is well within the scope of the government.

This “it’s the parents job” is also reductionist. It is, but somehow we still have made it illegal for minors to buy hard liquor and pornography from physical stores in the United States and few argue that restriction is wrong.

> Is it technically possible to implement the way he suggests? Yes.

I actually don’t think it is. Fundamentally this kind of certificate is going to be revocable. It’s untenable politically to hand out irrevocable attestations that can be handed off to minors. If you allow that, the system has failed to prevent minors from accessing adult materials, and if you don’t then the system has failed to preserve privacy.

> To me the author seems either naive or straight up malicious.

I think just naive.

Depending on where you live this may be untrue. In Washington state I hand them my id and they scan the code on the back. There is every possibility that they store it and notify the state that I bought a bottle of rum.

The offline version proposed doesn’t even work. If the government issues untraceable “I’m an adult” cards there’s nothing stopping someone from acquiring one and immediately selling it to a minor. There’s also realistically nothing stopping someone from acquiring multiple and selling them to minors. “Oops, I lost my adult card again. I need a new one.” The solution is of course to make them revocable which means traceable.

The same applies online/digitally except that you can very likely distribute the same ID to many minors without getting a new one allocated.

I’m in the “we should protect kids online” camp, but I am not sure there’s a real way to do it without compromising privacy for everyone.

> SpaceX charges what the market will bear, and because they have no good competitor their profit margins can be very large.

Is your premise that SpaceX will ship nuclear waste at or below cost? Because the 74 million is a publicly available price. And when SpaceX ships stuff for the government the prices go up, not down.

> Anyway, the number is from fairly old Musk interviews.

Yes, Musk is famously honest and accurate with his claims.

> At least I didn't trot out a string of obvious errors like you did.

What obvious errors are those? You don’t seem to like that I’m using publicly available pricing.

> When people do that, it's a strong tell they're engaging in broken thinking. What you did, I think, is believe something, then try to rationalize it. When your thinking reached a justification you liked you just stopped thinking

Pot, meet kettle. You are basing your entire premise on a speculative future that doesn’t exist. You should have just proposed sending it up the space elevator.

None of this idea makes sense from a financial, physical, or risk stand point. “This stuff is too dangerous to store in a hole, let’s launch it into space in 3000 rockets, and then we’ll push it away from earth with another thousand solar electric rockets, and then we’ll use solar energy to evaporate it all! What could go wrong?”

Honestly if you’re betting on a hypothetical future where all this is effectively free, why not just bet on a future where reprocessing uranium drops in price as well?

It was a metaphor for how absurd the statement was. But if you try to ship a 1kg package across the country it will likely cost way more than $10.

Freight cost is certainly way lower.

> A full launch on F9 (with recovered S1) is estimated to cost $15M

Estimated by who? SpaceX charges 74 million for this. Nothing credible I can find indicates that SpaceX is running an amazing 80% profit margin on Falcon 9 launches.

> And here's the problem: you started from an emotional reaction and are trying to rationalize that.

No, your premise is “just launch the trash into space” and you’re hand waving away the complexity, costs, and danger.

I think the onus is on you to explain why costs would drop by >3 orders of magnitude (>4 accounting for the 10x launch armor). It’s something like $1500/lb on a fully loaded Falcon Heavy and all indications are that SpaceX isn’t making money at that price.

Plus even if this were free, “shoot 180k tons of nuclear waste into space” seems like a terrible idea in general. It’s one of those ideas that make sense only until you think about the ramifications. What happens when inevitably one of the 3 thousand Falcon heavy rockets explodes and the armor fails and we spread nuclear waste over 3 states?

Why would launch costs be low? $10/kg is fantasy land. UPS won’t ship a kilogram across the country for $10.

And who wants spent nuclear fuel in low earth orbit? This is a far worse location for spent fuel than buried in a bunker. This is a worse location than Times Square.

Unless you live in Sci Fi future where space travel is magically free, this is a pretty bad deal since sending a pound of spent nuclear fuel out of earth orbit takes 50+ pounds of fuel. Sending all the spent nuclear waste into space would be something like 10 million tons of fuel.

I agree that it was done by many organizations before “agile” but that’s true of all agile practices. Agile is a philosophy and a collection of tools. None of the tools are new though.

The real question isn’t whether LIQUID should be BLURRY but whether intentionally choosing a BLURRY user interface design is STUPID.

Apple spent millions convincing everyone they needed Retina displays and then churned out an update that made them all blurry.

It’s absolutely an agile idea. The core of agile development is the ability to iterate quickly. Shift left for certain things enables the cycle to shorten and accelerate iteration.

The problem is that journals become a way to fill a CV and justify tenure and grants rather than a way to disseminate information.

If your goal is to share information, you want quality articles in multiple places so that people can get to them. If your goal is to use journal publishing count as a professional metric, then double publishing becomes unethical.

The modern equivalent would be to declare it unethical to share an article on both Reddit and HN.

Yeah, but 318 should probably suffice.

> If you're not used to it, it looks like you've over-engineered and ended up with Generics soup

Yes, it looks exactly like that. You’ve built not just an interface for UserStore you probably didn’t need, but a generalized Store abstraction that you definitely didn’t need.

> but paradoxically, you're committing yourself the least to any concrete implementation

This isn’t paradoxical at all. You’ve avoided committing yourself to a concrete implementation by implementing layers of goop you don’t need and likely never will. And because you did all this abstraction without real needs to ground it, you almost certainly did it wrong even if you do eventually need it.

You are gonna need a user store, so you should have built that first.

Thanks. Appreciate the clarification.

> to know that there is not exact value we can give to the area of a thing

Pi has an exact value. It is irrational, not inexact.

This is increasingly irrelevant and inaccurate rambling I’m engaging with. I’m out. Take care.

> Pi is an infinite number.

Your own link confirms this is not true. Irrational is not the same thing as infinite.

> You seem to be avoiding the question of how we can know the exact area of a circle knowing that pi is infinite.

I’m not avoiding it. I’m saying it’s a meaningless question. 16 digits of pi will be more precise than essentially anything we can measure. Just 3 digits of pi will probably be more precise than you can measure at home.

If you need perfection, you stick with symbolic math. If you need to convert to absolute physical units, your ability to measure will be your limit, not the irrationality of pi.

> Very fact that this well-known scientific truth is hard to accept those people is telling.

It’s not hard to accept. It’s not interesting. There are no physical problems related to this fact. And no interesting philosophical problems.

Your problem isn’t that you lack the knowledge but that you are overconfident in your ignorance. You lack the curiosity to ask why no one is impressed or convinced by your beliefs, instead assuming everyone else is missing the deep insights you believe you possess.

This is why you can cite someone’s article about everything being quantum waves as support for your personal beliefs while also confidently stating that the article’s author is completely wrong for believing in quantum waves. Because you are not looking for information. You are looking for confirmation. You are rendered blind by your hubris.

Hard pass. The exact area of a circle is pi*r^2. We can calculate decimals of pi arbitrarily far, certainly further than our ability to measure. “Exact area” means we use symbolic math, not that we quibble about significant digits.

Why are you linking that page? Are you stating that you are Vlatko Vedral?

> loudness doesn't have a standard

It literally does. Audio players were implementing ReplayGain support 25 years ago.

> ad platforms would have to have multiple audio streams limited to the different loudness settings

This is trivial to solve. You have a standardized volume and a scale factor for each service. Or you use ReplayGain or similar for the same.

> it's not a hard problem in the least

No, it’s really not.

Either you understand this stuff at a level so much deeper than me that I can’t comprehend what you’re getting at or you are way out of your depth because none of this makes any sense to me.

Waves aren’t physical but everything is waves? We can’t measure standing waves but have to “guess” with calculus and differential equations?

This is not what I heard from folks who worked directly with mythos. I was told that the vulnerabilities it generated were largely real and meaningful.

I am not sure there’s any breakthrough here, but this article is about a different QM interpretation (as opposed to Copenhagen or Many Worlds). Interesting but seems irrelevant to the discussion here of particles and fields.

> I am no mathematician, but the math needs to start with that fundamental principle.

This is a weird sort of hubris. “I’m not qualified to do this job but I can certainly tell you how it needs to be done.”

> And if everything is a wave there are no discrete quantities beyond our definition of what constitutes the end, or borders, of the wave.

This is not true in multiple ways. First, it’s known that these particles exhibit quantum behavior. This is measured and confirmed over and over. Many measures are in fact quantized.

Second, existing as a wave does not mean no discrete quantities. Even in everyday materials we observe situations like standing waves that are effectively quantized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

Where are you getting 37? The standard model has 17 fields.

If you pick and choose which properties to select as unique fields, maybe you can get the number 37, but at that point why not 118 fields?

> failed catastrophically rather than degrading gracefully

You mean like returning 529s and operating with reduced QoS?

I would imagine 360 patches removed way more than 360 uses of strncpy. But yeah, it’s not a given that each of these patches addressed a bug. (Also not a given that there were only 360 bugs fixed.)

You are making it weirder still by trying to defend your bias by saying it’s a problem with society. You are the one who called soccer a male sport. And now for some reason you are trotting out tropes about female soccer players being lesbians. Why?