kjrfghslkdjfl

Well, and his writing. Anyone with an interest in distributed systems should read ZeroMQ "The Guide" even if they don't plan on using ZeroMQ.

It's not. If you're shorting, you're paying to borrow the stock.

> But, we knew we would be there an hour early because of where/when we were dropping our kid off for the evening. So I just said TELL them when will be there and TELL them we’ll be at the bar if anyone wants to have a drink beforehand.

I do this too. And it's not just better communication, it's better life. This way I'm not dependent on other people to have fun. I'm not waiting on coordination in order to start doing the thing I want. I'm doing the thing I want, and letting others know that they can join.

Could you point out specific examples of what is too regulated? I never understood this complaint. True, I also never bothered digging into it because I started out with the belief that it's just a talking point. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.

That's android only. He's talking about desktop.

I like it too though.

> But my main complaint about Julia is its general approach to memory management.

I'm not a full-blown hater, but I have problems with that as well. Specifically, you have no control about it whatsoever, you're just promised that "if you do things right, it'll be amazing". And it is! The problem is that any tiny minuscule mistake causes catastrophic failure of performance due to allocations. Since the good performance depends on type stability, and type stability propagates, any mistake anywhere will propagate everywhere. Think: if a variable becomes type unstable due to a programmer mistake, any function that consumes it generally might become type unstable as well, and any function that consumes the output of that function as well, etc. The upshot is that this forces you to think more carefully about your types and data structures. Programming in Julia extensively has made me a better programmer. I'm not a C++ expert, but I believe that in C++ these kind of mistakes always end up being localized.

If the author is reading...

Why specify compat in this manner? https://github.com/yolhan83/BloodFlowTrixi.jl/blob/03a78be28...

Normally you want to specify "up to which major version" or "up to which (major, minor) version" your lib is compatible with, while allowing that all minor or path respectively are automatically upgraded.

EDIT: To the person who said "Of all the languages, it often seems like Julia has the coolest libraries"

It's just a very good language for writing libraries. Which is a crazy thing to say, because you're think that being good for writing libraries is something that every language would want to get exactly right, but it appears not.

> It's an organization with an unpredictable return on investment

Yes, science has extremely unpredictable return on investment.

What's your suggestion? Don't try?

Fascism.

Answer is obvious. Because teenagers tend to be impressionable and unscrupulous.

I think she's obviously right.

The reason that cars make stupid mistakes that a human never would, is that cars are trained to classify 2D images (and act accordingly). Humans on the other hand have a 3D model of the world that understands what is and isn't possible, and are trained to map 2D images to that 3D space.

The world is 3D so obviously the latter approach works way better.

Same, and I hate "experimenting" cooking. I memorize simple recipes and do them a lot.

I don't wanna experiment cooking, I want to have eaten.

Wait I thought HN was not for politics??

Or is it that when the politics isn't US politics, HN readers can be more emotionally detached and treat it as "interesting"?

> I never understood the prejudice against poor English speakers. How else are you supposed to learn a language than to be immersed in the culture before you are fluent?

You don't need to be immersed in order to be fluent. I spoke English fluently years before ever coming to an English speaking country.

But that is, to me, one of)the points of this story. The constant dumbing down of everything under the sun in our society. You could demand that someone has to do their homework and learn to speak English, but instead we accept that the only way to do it is just by hanging around and acquire effortlessly it via osmosis. Why? Why is it acceptable that people don't have to make an effort?

My prejudice isn't against people who don't speak English fluently. It's against lazy people. Someone might be hard working and disciplined and just have no interest in moving abroad or learning English - there's nothing wrong with that.

"Presumption about reliability of computers"

Anyone else get the sense that these were laws written without any input whatsoever from people who actually have working experience in complex systems?

I'm convinced that no moral software engineer would ever suggest a conviction on the presumption that the system is correct. At minimum you'd have to investigate.

Better challenge: generate these puzzles in a way to have a unique solution.

Reminder that the efficiency of such a device has a hard bound given by the laws of thermodynamics which doesn't depend on implementation details.

Julia is a language that blew my mind. It convinced me that multiple dispatch is the way to do generic programming.

Feels like the phone capabilities didn't change much since 2018. What would be the android phone nowadays that we could write this article about?

FitoTrack.

That's all I have to say about this.

I'm quite confident in guessing that you've never had any first hand contact with experimental physics research.

If you did, you'd know that most people aren't there for "the income", but because they enjoy advancing physics.

Yes, sure, if there's a non-discovery, physicists will move on to the next best thing which is "... can we still learn something new about how the universe works?" They won't "just make some shit up".

Counter-point: non-discoveries do happen all the time, and we can look how they turned out. Nuclear fusion has been failing for decades, and scientists "making shit up" is extremely rare. In 40 years one team tried making shit up (cold fusion) and got wrecked by the scientific community.

> real reason is they want to make it themselves their way.

I have a different theory. I think the real reason is that writing code is easier than reading. Literally, it's psychologically more comfortable to write code than to read it.

So wordy. I still don't know what it is he had a view on.

> Three days prior to that, on March 22nd, I was sufficiently convinced that there was an unacknowledged geographically distributed coronavirus outbreak to pre-register that conclusion.

Is.... is it possible he's being intentionally nebulous to distract from his failing? Or do I just lack the reading comprehension abilities?

What did you expect from the title? That they used Einstein's equations to render the actors? Of course it's the black hole.

Currently, I use google maps "offline maps" for this. However, one thing it can't do is give you directions in offline mode. Meaning, I can have the map in offline mode but not ask it to find me a path from A to B.

Do you know of an OSM app that can do this is offline mode?

I'm disappointed to see that he didn't try the simplest and most obvious solution: deploy a telescopic boom that pushes the tower against the floor.

This is too reductionist. There's a lot of reasons why someone could turn down that bet, other than "he's just blathering". Maybe he's very confidently down on OpenAI but 10k is a lot of money for him, and is being offered a bet by someone who's a noise generator but who's very well off, for whom 10k means nothing. If you think these people don't exist, you should visit WSB.

I evaluate arguments on their own merit, not based on extraneous data like appeal to authority or what bets the author makes.

Every time you say "wait a second" you're using time without a calendar or a timezone. You're referring to a point in time as an offset (1 second) to "now" which is the point in time when you say it, and its the same point regardless of which timezone you're in, or whether there's a timezone change in between.

You might be right. I was trying to disentangle "time" from "calendar" by showing that just because someone doesn't know anything about calendars doesn't mean you can't coordinate with them to meet at a future point in time, and THEREFORE you should indeed use an offset to represent points in time and local timezone to represent points in a calendar as I originally claimed.

In retrospective I wish I'd chosen a less fantastical example, because of course people are gonna get distracted. "Aliens" was not the point. But now I can't be bothered anymore, losing interest fast.

I didn't say aliens would care about UTC, did I? I said that we would have to specify a point in time without resorting to calendars. I didn't say we would use offset to UTC, because aliens don't know UTC either. But presumably they can measure time, so we could e.g. measure a point in time as an offset to "now". We would also have to use units that they understand. Not seconds, but perhaps Cesium revolutions.

> And it seems a bit pedantic to separate it

I would say that the fact that you can't see a distinction between time and a calendar is precisely the reason you're confused. So I wouldn't consider it pedantic.