friend_and_foe

Wouldn't this almost always be the case? To me it's like saying "some stock holdings are not in profit." This is always the case of course unless the stock market across the board is at all time highs.

When I invest, and especially if I roll returns into investment, this means as a rule more money is invested than has been returned.

I'm just gonna drop this here

https://codeberg.org/mister_monster/YouTube2Peertube

In case anyone wants to help resolve this issue once and for all.

This to me is the only argument about this image that stands to any scrutiny.

I happen to believe, though, that any and all information you release to the public is de facto no longer under anyone's control. This is the natural state of things and cannot be stopped, so a global optimum can only be reached in acknowledging this fact. Instead we create legal and bureaucratic fictions to try to manage and eliminate it, which only serves to disrupt and not to protect at all. I view the status quo on this (from this image to copyright) as counterproductive.

Sounds exactly like the United States actually.

That's an interesting angle to see it from, it's not "look at what I was able to accomplish" anymore so much as "look at this expensive jewelry I was able to afford."

Being too cool for school is cool though. I'm personally very glad that information is no longer monopolized by institutions and that any self starter can learn anything they like without permission or expense. I'm too cool for school and I love it. Debt free for one thing, adn free to pursue whatever catches my interest at any time.

This sounds like justification for a culture of hazing.

Here's a much, much simpler explanation: believing in delusional nonsense correlates strongly with mental illness.

So, speed of reentry is directly a consequence of surface area (or energy expended by fuel to counter, in the case of the booster which does not use friction with the atmosphere to slow down) of one side. You'll produce the same amount of heat (and sound, light, but let's keep the model simple so we can understand better) no matter how fast you come in and no matter how wide your surface area is (assuming the same mass), it's just the thermal properties of the material and the surrounding environment dictate how quickly that heat dissipates, and the surface area determines how distributed the heat is, and the speed it's entering determines how quickly the heat is generated.

So to slow down more evenly and have less heat at the max point per square inch, you need wider surface area (or you need to expend fuel firing engines in the opposite direction of travel, what both parts do at the end to slow to 0, and a problem due to the rocket equation, fuel has mass and so increases the amount of kinetic energy you must dissipate), and that means more mass and more engineering and a bigger vehicle. The goal ultimately is of course optimizing all these variables.

OK, so imagine a world where traders don't just trade based on news and words, but based on price signals. They have bots sitting there waiting for some criteria only in the price of the target asset, and they're going to trade on that. Let's say you know about this and you know how to give them the signals they need to make their trades, so you do things to give those signals so you can profit on their activity.

This world is real and you live in it. Does giving a price signal to the market count as making a stock go up or down based on what you said?

Taken to it's natural conclusion, every decision every market participant makes affects the market, and every speculative participant uses these impacts as criteria for their decisions. To some degree, every single market participant, whether they want to or not, is doing both 1) impacting the market in some way, and 2) trying to find actions other people are taking that will impact the market that they can enter and benefit from. It's a big positive feedback loop. What you're talking about, taken to it's natural conclusion, is just banning trading.

Abnormally high like now? Have you read any history? Slavery and monarchy, that's what most of history looks like. What we live in is an abnormally low wealth disparity.

I'm alright with it.

I like lua. I learned to use it a little back when I'd mess with Conky, I haven't really done much with Luna otherwise but the syntax is cool.

But lisp is really nice. I'm a helix user, and I'm eagerly awaiting some improvement work on Nyxt browser, both of which are designed for plugins scripted with lisp, so it will pay off for me down the road.

I dunno, if you followed the falcon 9 test launches, each launch made progress and often surprised everyone. I expect that this system is bigger, more complicated and so that iterative success will be a little slower, but generally I think it will continue as it has been: each launch is an improvement over the previous one.

It's like a little microcosm of what the rest of us are dealing with.

How would that be bad?

Well, I disagree with the author on the cause. I think it's pretty simple, which is usually an indicator that an idea is not correct, but in this case I think it is.

Instead of delivering what the user wants, the entire industry has moved to making decisions on behalf of the user. This is across the board with the whole industry, from UI design changes, restricting choices deliberately, changing UX flows and expecting the user to just live with it, even what posts they can and cannot see on the internet. The mindset went from "deliver what the user wants" to "deliver what the user 'needs'", with the implication that we know what they need better than them, and the undertone that they'll take it and like it because they need us more than we need them.

And so you get degrading infrastructure, services and products. I believe it really is that simple.

> if you don't use our browser we will spy on you

Good god how more obvious could it be?

Anyone still using this software is a lost cause.

I think you underestimate the number of people who thought "they can't impeach a president for getting a blowjob" and actually meant it rather than using it as a tool of political expediency. Those people don't see this as justice. I think more people are principled than not.

That's the thing, I think he gets a pass on that. Probably doesn't get a pass on the lockdown or money printing, but no reasonable person blames the president for an illness. A war between foreign countries, lots of people have it in their heads that the president is very powerful and can start or stop stuff like that, true or not, but an illness...

I think you're missing a big factor here: both candidates have a track record as president. We haven't had that in a long time, often it's only the incumbent with a record, which we usually associate as in their favor. Part of that record, for both of them, isn't due to anything they did, but the times they ran things are associated with them. And of course part of it they're each responsible for.

Despite all the rhetoric, Trump has a pretty good track record to the average american. Wars ending, dollar a gallon gas. In contrast, Biden doesn't look too good. Wars starting, groceries going up weekly. We can say what is who's fault and what is out of their control and whatever, that is just noise to all but decided voters. I think that this case will sway some away, sway some for that don't like what they see as political weaponization of the justice system, and all in all it stays in Trumps favor.

I don't think so. I think more people are going to see this as a politically motivated kangaroo show trial than not. It takes some votes away, but it gives him others, at best I think it chsnges the calculus by roughly 0.

He's eligible to be on the ballot even if he were convicted of murder.

Friendly reminder that if a you agree to a terms of service for a hardware device you don't own it.

It's one thing for software to be a service. Hardware? No thanks. I will never, ever "buy "something still controlled by the manufacturer after I take it home, and I discourage everyone from doing so.

Institutional education is very one dimensional, there's only one direction, up.

I've got 2 anecdotes to counter yours.

I knew a guy who served in the Iraqi military after the fall of Saddam. He did not serve under Saddam, he was not pro Saddam. He told me that under Saddam, you could walk down the street at 1AM with ten thousand dollars cash in your hand waving it in the air and nobody would try to take it from you. Religiously motivated attacks simply did not happen. The flip side of that, if you got involved in politics or messed with his business, you disappeared.

Another friend of mine, a Zulu man from south Africa, told me he missed apartheid. I was awestruck when he told me this. He said he couldn't go into certain parts of cities without a work permit and couldn't own certain land in certain regions, he had limited freedom, but that the streets were clean and there was much less corruption and crime.

(Note: This isn't a one off either, there's actually currently an anti corruption ovement that is mostly black in ZA with elements of pro apartheid sentiment, it's truly bizarre.)

These were both very much outgroup people, probably happy with the change in the status quo, only to with hindsight feel like they lost something. I'm with you, I'm opposed to autocracy, authoritarianism, and I'd rather live in a messy society where everyone is free, but often there are tangible benefits in systems like this. Dictators and authoritarians know this, they know that when times are tough people want security, and they use it to great effect, and it works.

The idea that it's the purpose of college to prepare someone for a career is misled. I say this as someone who loathes institutionalized education, didn't go to college, and won't send my kids. It's your job to prepare yourself for a career. It's college's job to teach you what you pay them to teach you.

If they're going to college and getting a degree that isn't going to pay off, that's the fault of the schooling they've had up until that point, for not teaching them a damn thing about cost and benefit, and for pumping it into their heads that college is a ticket to an easy life, that you'll be a burger flipper til 65 without it and that sort of thing.

I agree with the author that helping people take out loans to learn something they should've learned in 8th grade and pretending it's higher education is extremely unethical, but if someone's going to college when they can't afford it and don't need it, the blame lies with the people that educated them about the world up until the point they made that decision, not with the college. Doubly so since those people were responsible for teaching them I'm the 8th grade.

I'd be very interested in a package up of mega man 2 with all levels from all games. For those of you that never played any mega man games, all games from mega man 2 onwards until the X games were basically the same game with new levels and bosses.

You ask a very interesting question, that to me speaks to the future of education gets to the bottom of education entirely.

Right now, education focuses on getting people through the system so they can attain a credential. It teaches us, primarily, how to get one over on the system, how to look for loopholes and shortcuts. It creates a culture of corruption, of looking for approval from institutions in order to move up in life.

What does a world where anyone can learn anything they like for free very easily look like? Well undoubtedly it looks like a place where a lot of people don't learn much, because they have no interest in learning. But it also looks like a place where people who are interested in learning can and do learn endlessly if they like, the opportunity for anyone to get educated to a degree reserved for elites that most of us could only dream of even two decades ago is upon us. Writing the paper won't be about proving you wrote the paper to some authority figure, because it's no longer proof that you wrote it. Writing the paper will become about helping yourself understand something you want to understand.

So to your question, what is the future of proving that I know something, the future is you can't prove you know something, there's nobody to prove it to and you know things because you want to know things, because you recognize the value on knowing them beyond "this piece of paper qualifies me for a job." The future is the truth that we have been pretending isn't true for a century: that no matter what you try to do, those that want to learn will learn and those that don't won't, and their lives will be what they are on their own merit and of their own volition.

If you want to call yourself educated, the only person you need to be proving that to is yourself. We have entered a world of information post scarcity, which necessarily comes with post scarcity of noise, distraction and disinformation. The competition to understand things and the benefit that comes with understanding things will get stiffer, but access to that competition will become egalitarian. There will be a great divide among people: those that follow the noise of the day and those that continue to learn freely of their own volition.

Melting ice floating on water does not change the volume of the water at all. Melting will have no impact on sea level at all if the ice is already floating. It does have an impact on albedo.

Shelves and on land glaciers are structurally held up. It's when they enter a floating state that sea level rises, and this is the only time ice can cause a sea level rise. If parts of the shelf are cracked, or otherwise the water is supporting them, then they're already floating and so breaking of the parts that are floating will also have no impact.

What's conservative about this? "Catastrophic" "doomsday glacier" doesn't sound very conservative to me.

The entire film "An Inconvenient Truth" was too aggressive, and did more damage to trust in climate science than any other publication on the topic.