fsckboy

(i pick mackerel at random)

A female Atlantic mackerel typically lays between 200,000 and 450,000 eggs during a spawning season. However, larger, healthier individuals can sometimes produce up to a million eggs, often in multiple batches over several weeks.

it is the mackerel themselves who consider baby mackerel lives to be industrial in scale. they produce that many in anticipation of consumption. Each foodfish humans consume has already slaughtered untold thousands of other fish to grow themselves to size.

you keep trying to change the subject. Here's how the to understand the difference in our positions:

if security researchers find vulns in network software, should they be fixed, or should a hypothetical researcher PaulDavidThe2ndSmartestPersonInThisThread quash the discussion by saying "there is no evidence that these vulns are being exploited"?

fsckboy thinks they should be fixed

https://thegeorgiasun.com/government/your-vote/inside-the-fu...

https://thegeorgiasun.com/government/your-vote/inside-the-fu...

understand that politicians who would benefit from fraud would also control the investigation, making your "see no evil" monkey brain's position as questionable as the election system security is

what you are actually saying is that a certain class of people "know better" than what another class thinks they want.

If you look at financial markets and finance theory, there is no validity to the idea that people are long term blind and short term mistaken. markets discount the future, they are the best estimates of the future rather than somebody with no skin in the game magically "knowing better"

those are not questions I have, nor answers I feel that I am lacking, and it fits a familiar online debate technique of bogging down discussions when you don't like the direction they are going in, wasting the time of your interlocutor. are you really so unimaginative and out of touch that you don't know the answers to your questions?

legitimately elected politicians cheat left and right all over the place, and there is every reason to rhink illegimate election is just as attractive to them as the fruits of the power they seek, it's human nature, it's in the bible, it's in the koran, it's why we have laws. I would prefer a voting system that was guaranteed as secure as we can because the power to vote them out of office is our best hope.

you don't need to have "compelling evidence" to show that something is "open to abuse", you simply need to point out the threat vectors

as we know from all over the internet and from various financial frauds, rug pulls, insurance frauds, etc., if there is something to gain, there is no shortage of people who will abuse any system.

>We can't "move back", it's where we are.

vote by mail (and similar ballot harvesting, bulk ballot dropoffs with hazy chain-of-custody as from a nursing homes and immigrant communities) are new, based on paper, and open to abuse.

It's not where we were.

traditional absentee balloting was a small scale thing used by college students, military personnel, etc. and if it was messed up, it was not likely to change outcomes or a threat to counting accurately (no election is perfect)

>No, you cannot necessarily to choose whether to transact or not.

I didn't say you could, pay closer attention or you will not be able to understand arguments or learn anything.

What I said was, "as long as people engaged in a market make their own choices, then money is a direct measure of happiness on the margin."

however, your mistake does contain a germ of reinforcement to what I said: if you cannot choose to participate in a transaction, you will be less happy, i.e. allowing sellers to offer choices and buyers to make choices will increase happiness in every type of market.

before you make another mistake and go shooting off, I didnt say people will be happy, I said they will be happier, but happier is an unmitigated good.

>This idea of market participants' choices being entirely free rests on the efficient market fallacy

in an inefficient market, you can still choose to transact or not, and you will only do so if you feel you will benefit.

in an efficient market, the net benefit across society will be higher, but nothing in what I said requires an efficient market.

so you are simply wrong.

>some people look at business as making money for the sake of making money. However other people look at making money as a means to better society.

if the two sides you describe agree on those definitions as mutually exclusive but in union describing the universal set of people, then they are both wrong.

as long as people engaged in a market make their own choices, then money is a direct measure of happiness on the margin. you give somebody your money in exchange for something you want and would rather have: this creates happiness out of thin air.

if you think a better society is a happier society, then going into business to make money is the same as going into business to make society better.

(I'm personally more on your side of the argument than not, but need to point out literal details of the "standard" that is under dispute)

the article says if we transported back to the early 80's people would have said "it doesn't run Flight Simulator", so what that would have meant?

the original Flight Simulator for the IBM PC--first independently produced, then purchased by Microsoft--booted itself directly from the floppy; meaning, you had to reboot in order to run it; and it had its own "custom operating system" or really no operating system at all, something more like a kernel, or just an app.

yes modern "PC compatibles" do have some means of running that old software, but it won't work out of the box atm.

people who do not understand orthogonality also take poor measurements.

your (and many others') argument is basically a "there are no atheists in foxholes" "I know, better than you, what you think" argument.

to me, no idea what you are talking about, i find the iphone/Apple experience to be a huge pita, all the time. i love unix for the swiss army knife of general purpose tools, not the many different garden walls with no garden inside.

the reason fsckboy doesn't leave is that all his bitches expect it, otherwise, gone in 60 seconds.

>In 2017 I predicted that most programmers would lose their employer <-> employee bargaining power in the next 15-25 years. This was a pretty controversial take at the time, and I never wrote about it publicly, so it’s hard to claim too much credit for being right.

but that didn't happen either

the highest skilled programmers still make bank. the huge influx of more marginal "boot camp engineers" are in more precarious economic positions, but they weren't in the population of programmers that form the baseline for your comparison.

>The other day I was browsing my one-and-only social network — which is not a social network, but I’m tired of arguing with people online about it — HackerNews

dude, hate to break it to you but the fact that it's your "one and only" makes it more convincing it's your social network. if you used facebook, instagram, and tiktok for socializing, but HN for information, you would have another leg to stand on.

yes, HN is "the land of misfit toys", but if you come here regularly and participate in discussions with other other people on a variety of topics and you care about the interactions, that's socializing. The only reason you think it's not is that you find actual social interaction awkward, so you assume that if you like this it must not be social.

that sounds like one of the worst heuristics I've ever heard, worse than "em-dash=ai" (em-dash equals ai to the illiterate class, who don't know what they are talking about on any subject and who also don't use em-dashes, but literate people do use em-dashes and also know what they are talking about. this is called the Dunning-Em-Dash Effect, where "dunning" refers to the payback of intellectual deficit whereas the illiterate think it's a name)

American trains are largely freight travelling long rural distances. You didn't mention it, so I presume because you didn't take it into account, so your statistics sound to me like they don't mean anything comparable.

no, it's not hilarious, look at the comments here on HN, it's Europeans constantly lamenting, jabbing, complaining. Americans do not spend any time thinking that Canada and Europe are anything but friends; but other side of the border/pond, it's an obsession, born of insecurity and jealousy I would surmise but I'd be happy to be wrong.

Realpolitik does not actually dictate that. It says you pay attention to your interests but with a focus on what is actually achievable, and not focused on things like national/regional pride or unrealistic notions of utopian good.

the situation where europeans feel they are in conflict with their best ally and economic partner says they actually need to relearn the lessons of realpolitik.

>a) everyone knows what a pen and paper look like, b) it literally says the name of the app

c) Pages plays for the Dodgers

aaahhh! i get it, it's a sports autographs app!

>ASCII characters are not pixels: a deep dive into ASCII rendering

in general, ascii rendering is when ascii character codes are converted to pixels. if you wish to render other pixels onto a screen using characters, they are not ascii characters, they are roman or latin character glyphs, no ascii involved. that is all.

well, "linux is just the kernel" eyeroll.emoji so no, you don't, but it's easiest to use a distro, and among distros it's easiest not to use an obscure distro so you can use the package managers to install a variety of apps and tools, but the longterm mainstream distros seem to all be infected, even devuan which is barely mainstream. most "alternate" distros seem to be dedicated to even goofier ideas than the old school that i prefer.

i used fedora for the longest time but now they are not only forcing btrfs, but they won't let you partition either.

>PCs refuse to shut down after Microsoft patch

it was many patches ago when I refused to even start my PC after Microsoft's patches (when they made it so you couldn't reject their telemetry), at least not till I had linux installed (which I had anyhow been running all along via Xwindows, before the Microsoft-mind-virus-infected systemd, wayland, and btrfs crowds decided to ruin linux too.)

are the BSDs still safe?

>Maybe they don't know of or don't have access to...

Maybe they don't know of or don't have any access to any sense of boundaries, as if they skipped the infant stage of development where they should have learned that "mom" is another person with her own coequal set of needs. And anybody with the urge to push back on this notion, please cover the case where it might apply to you to.

no.

there are many math teachers teaching math to people who don't know the subject, basically all mathemeticians. and wikipedia has guidelines for how to serve the audience, the math articles ignore it.

I (got into and) went to MIT (and graduated several times) in engineering and also in finance. I am way beyond the average wikipedia reader in math knowledge. the mathematics wiki articles are imho worthless. the challenge is not how to write articles that are explanatory and reasonable, the challenge is all the gatekeeping of the wiki editors who make it the way it is, that is an unreasonable fight. I tried to make a change a couple of weeks ago to correct an error that was in an article. I got reverted by a person who wanted to collaborate on making the article more abstruse as a solution. "but the error" I said. It's still there.

i don't know how many upvotes you've gotten, but it's not enough. or to put it mathematically, megadittoes!

there are way worse calls to violence every day on reddit! except I guess fat-shaming is also violence

i want to hear the joke

presumably they already do that (since non cutting edge chip fab is likely to be more competitive and less expensive) so, given they are already doing that, this problem refers to the cutting edge allocations which are getting scare as exemplified at least by Nvidia's growth

the headline made me think somebody else came up with my idea. I wanted to a create a language whose name was langlang. to understand how to parse it, that would be the equivalent as a name to C, and the equivalent to clang would be langlanglang.

I considered the shorter name lang, but lang already has a meaning and I thought then in that world langlang might confuse people as to the actual name of the language, whereas since langlanglanglang is clearly needless overkill in a name, langlang and langlanglang would provide just the right amount readability and reinforcement as to the actual name of langlang.

>Let's not act like this is some case of out of context quotes. Here's the actual quote for people to decide for themselves:

you quote, but you did not include the context, so your attempt not to be out of context is a fail.