4,607 karma · joined July 7, 2014
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
You can't use logic to get someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.
The US national debt has gone up by 2 trillion under the current administration. They are spending money they don't have at a faster rate than any time in history.
Whatever else you can say about the cuts to science, you can't say they're due to "competing demands." They're not cutting in order to fund better research, they're cutting (in the most counterproductive way) to send a message to scientists that politically inconvenient research is not welcome.
Sure it's about politics, but it's also about tech. The intersection of politics and tech is a fascinating area, of great interest to many folks on HN, and probably within HN's charter.
I think that merely touching on politics should not be grounds for flagging a submission, even when the specifics are highly controversial (as in this case).
Capitalism provides a set of incentives that shape how people make decisions. Anyone can be selfish, but selfishness in capitalist society has a particular shape. To ignore the external incentives when looking at human behavior is horribly naive and shortsighted, but is frequently done by capitalism-apologists who seek to disregard any criticism of their favorite incentive system.
> Moreover, I don't consider Windows to be part of the modern era,
Why are you lying about what I said when everyone can see it?
Huh? Have you forgotten Clippy, the first AI agent?
/s
That's exactly why I never get tested for sexually-transmitted diseases. I mean, I'd rather not know, right??
/s
Windows is not a platform for serious people.
I am not sure what GP is objecting to.
For example, we could tap the federal Strategic Actor Reserve, or import actors from actor-rich countries such as France and Belgium.
So, no, WinDbg has nothing to do with debug.com.
So, no, WinDbg has nothing to do with debug.com.
I think that GP comment is not intending to throw shade at ARM SOCs (many of which are quite nice, including those from Apple an Qualcomm), but specifically the Microsoft products built on them.
> The Pope does not have the authority-power to transform error into truth,
The problem with your argument is that it is "left as an exercise for the reader" to determine what is actually true. If that were the case, then the Pope, as the representative of God on Earth, serves no purpose: everyone can individually determine what is true and what is an error. That does not agree historically with the role of the papacy.
If everyone has a right to their own interpretation of doctrine, what does the Pope do, and why should anyone listen to him?
Your position that absolute faith in the word of the pope is a fallacy is itself a self-supporting fallacy, which you hold only because you don't believe in the correctness of the pope.
> he taught was not somehow “intermittently true”
Yes, it was. God would not allow a Pope who spoke in error.
Why is your article making claims that, while true, give a distorted view of 1950s tax policy? It's certainly possible that an organization called the "Tax Institute" has an agenda they are trying to push.
[1] https://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/effective-progressive-ta...
Did someone claim otherwise?
> The actor model doesn’t eliminate race conditions by itself.
Sure, and the actor model was never marketed as "a tool to eliminate race conditions." That's not what it's for.
You have to use your tools correctly. One benefit of the actor model is that the tool eliminates large categories of race conditions (but not all of them). One benefit of garbage collection is that the tool eliminates large categories of memory errors (but not all of them). The same can be said of anything, from high-level languages, to debuggers, to linters, the IDEs, etc. Just because a tool is not a "silver bullet" does not mean that it does not deliver a strong advantage for the programmer.