freestyle24147

Citation absolutely needed. You call this fair?

> the majority of podcasts are from a group of generic white guys

> ... when any two shadows, one from each light, intersect. that's because if it is in shadow from light A and in shadow from light B ...

They actually reference two light sources TWICE in their comment: ("any two shadows, one from each light", "from light A and in shadow from light B"). Hence the question of reading comprehension.

You'll have to define easy. If you go faster, that means you're outputting more wattage per second. You may get there faster, but you've used up the new capacity that your body has developed so you're back to what are likely similar levels of discomfort.

By your definition, Usain Bolt running the fastest 100m time ever set by a human is having an easier time than me because I do it slower.

What most people mean by easier is that it "feels" easier: this would be accomplished by aiming to take the same amount of time even in the face of capacity increasing.

I have no idea. Likely just a combination of complete hyperbole and extrapolating a few poor decisions when young.

Can anyone explain how this is still a valid question in 2024 with all of the resources we have at our disposal? Google, Youtube, books, ChatGPT.

Please provide even one link to an image or book or anything that proves what you're saying is true. The fact that this is the top comment is troubling, since your question is answered throughout the article. The thing you're claiming (basically that imagery like this can be found all over the place) is so easy to prove, one wonders why you haven't done it here or in any of your other comments.

Were these skill "trees" the output of an LLM or something? Of the domains I have a lot of familiarity with, the ordering (if it can even be assumed the easy ones are at the bottom and the hard ones at the top) make little sense.

I think if I were a newbie in any of these subjects and followed the "trees" as presented I would be quickly discouraged and lost.

It made me laugh. Maybe they pulled random people from the hallway who had never seen the original Doom (or any FPS), or maybe only selected people who wore glasses and forgot them at their desk.

You don't care that your government conspired to hide information that, by your own opinion, didn't have much utility one way or the other?

If I were one to use the word "cringe", a fifty year old willfully using the words "kinda cringe" would absolutely be cringe.

No, they don't need to be adjusted. The linked website has already adjusted for CPI. There's even an option to turn on/off adjusting, and it's on by default. I didn't cite because this is using the same data / website as the original claim.

And we don't constantly have to label mundane things as legendary

Definitely a bit of cherry picking. Just 2 years later in 1983 the damages were $36 billion, but that wouldn't make quite as scary of a statement for the website.

[flagged]

If someone is having trouble understanding the absolute most basic part of classical mechanics (masses undergoing acceleration) something tells me they're not going to understand Calculus no matter what lens you view it through. It's not even about the equations, it's simply using it as a backstory for the motivation of the mathematics.

> If you can find an application the student is interested in, then by all means, use that approach. For a general purpose textbook, though, it hinders learning for many students who don't care for the particular choice of application the book decided to use.

This seems absurd. Just because some people will find a particular application less interesting, I don't think the answer is to throw out ALL applications and turn it into a generic boring slog through which no one will be able to see when and how it's useful.

Do you know what kinds of cars exist where you don't have to inspect the UI before you begin driving to make sure critical features haven't moved?

All of them except Tesla.

This doesn't even remotely address anything anyone has said regarding your claim about playing a game with the "mouse's firmware". At least you're now aware of how ridiculous it sounds, but clearly you don't care so long as you believe you could win this in some imaginary court case.

This is about as "true" as fully replacing a Honda Civic's engine with something that has 10x the horsepower, and then advertising that you managed to get 10x the horsepower out of the Civic using the Civic's engine.

Your argument is more one of philosophy / law / BS than something anyone would take as true.

> For example: I would assume that most important results are replicated.

The example you provide is solely your assumption? Seems pretty odd to provide a baseless assumption as an "example".

I'm not disappointed. This is a classic case of someone who knows nothing about a topic making confident statements that will undoubtedly spread. People who do this should absolutely be ridiculed to discourage spreading total nonsense.

And to be clear we're not talking about some esoteric subject -- this is the most basic part of how your salary is taxed by the US government.

Seriously. Who votes this to the top of HN? Is this a joke?

Absolutely true. The article is a BS spewing BS.

It's pretty easy to post a link to a codebase and say "this is unreadable".

What do you find unreadable about it? What would you do differently now that there have been 30 years of software development between then and now?