marcelluspye

I'm not sure I understand your question? The point is to stop changing times twice a year. If you do that, you have to pick one of two GMT offsets: the one you were using in the summer or winter. Picking either one solves the problem.

They showed the current methods couldn't bring it to 2. There could be another approach which gets it lower.

I don't think the poster was claiming Trump invented this phenomenon, but it is undeniably more visible because of recent political events. Being pro-environment has been a political stance for decades, so there's no longer away of not making it political.

Those are also the types of people who don't need this article to prod them into applying for grad school.

It's nice that the green name is there for easy screening, but eventually, that goes away. HN is still small enough that this kind of spam is easy to detect, but it may not always be that way. Botting/this type of spam on reddit has gotten increasingly sophisticated over the years, and some of the things the people implementing that stuff have learned there would work pretty well on HN too.

>It seems a bit like becoming president

I think this is why it is hard. Look at the people who ran for president in 2016. A lot of people want to be president, but most voters see, among a large pool, at most one person they think would fit the bill (and I think in the last election, a lot of people thought no one did). It's really hard to make a choice in such a situation. In the case of presidential elections, it's simply a matter of procedure that one person has to be selected on a specific day. Looking for a CEO? I'm sure the temptation to keep shopping when none of the candidates look ideal is very appealing.

I took a philosophy class with a professor who had taught it about that many times. Talked to a guy who had taken it before me, he said that the prof has literally word-for-word memorized certain parts of the lectures because he's figured out and internalized the wording he thinks is best. Mathematicians can certainly do the same.

Then they've just given some new upstart room to enter the market by hosting the denied person.

It's funny to call an industry that didn't even exist 20 years ago an oligopoly. The industry leader of 20 years from now may not even exist yet.

>“He had formulas that enabled him to pull off his magic,” Pitt said. “And I didn’t have the formulas.”

The more I do pure mathematics, the more I realize just how important these kinds of insights are. Very often, solving a theoretical problem involves two key ingredients:

1. Rewriting your problem in a particular way, so that it is amenable to a certain suite of methods/looks like known results.

2. Apply a key bit of knowledge gleaned from intuition. This is unrelated to the formal way the problem was written down.

Sometimes, showing your intuition is true formally actually takes a lot of work. And for some proofs, looking at the problem a particular way makes the solution obvious on its own, with no need for a step 2. And other times, like this, all the technical tools in the world are no match for just knowing the right piece of information.

It would paint a more complete picture of who they are. Better yet, a personal diary or collection of letters (an autobiography gives too much room for the author to lie).

>couldn’t physically count to a million.

This is only because they/you haven't tried.

Source: counted to a million once.

I don't know if you've read the news, but a lot of those migrants being made into ``propaganda" are families with kids.

It's not though; it's Reddit's community. They give moderators the ability to do whatever they want with subreddits, but can (and not often enough do) get involved when particular subreddits bring them bad publicity. So many of Reddit's moderation policies were created when the founders expected Reddit to be used very differently, and are sometimes absurdly simplistic.

>Agents and editors do not hold onto manuscripts to pillage for ideas (and if they did they would do so with a proven commodity like James Patterson and not an untested debut author.)

I would guess that big name authors would have the reputation to fight back against that kind of thing. Whereas no one is going to believe the little guy.

I'm willing to accept that there's some complexity in the regulation of substances people use for medicinal purposes, whether they come out of the ground or a lab. The DEA is an abhorrent institution, though. And while it's clear the writers of the article swing one way about it, the DEA and FDA seem to be acting like they want any excuse to ban the stuff.

When they start locking people up for selling Kratom, and then a year later big pharma comes out with "Kratolizine" at 50x the price, I won't be surprised.

Andy is the principal author of the posts on https://www.folklore.org/ , which is all about the development of the mac. Definitely worth going through in an afternoon, if you're interested in that era.

Hi Scott,

Do you think some understanding of the implications of quantum computers is important for laypeople, and what do you think is the best way to communicate this kind of information? You can see the eyes of `regular people' glaze over mid-sentence if you use the word quantum, and associate any quantum-anything to magic. In the era of clickbait and fake news, this makes misinformation all the more prevalent, especially when it comes to pop-sci/`mainstream' coverage.

tl;dr a) How much of a problem is it that people will believe anything with the word `quantum' in it? and b) What do you think is the best way to remedy this?

Didn't razer do this some time ago?

I think this kind of thing is pretty cool, but ultimately, a touchpad below my keyboard is akin to the ones on the dashboard of many modern cars (though a lot less dangerous) in that I don't want to look there.

FWIW, ebay says it forbids the sale of human remains. If you do find real skulls on there, you should probably report them.

https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-ite...

Old people vote, old people don't care about these issues. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

This website is so ugly and hard-to-use I honestly thought it was a parody (I still kind of do). Font looks okay, though.

Source?

Earlier this week there was a post on this site about the definition of death vs brain death. That article pointed out that many doctors oppose any questioning of the idea of brain death = death for at least partly economic reasons: taking care of braindead patients uses up greatly needed resources. (in fact, the article mentioned that the proposal of such a definition was based on medical care facilities growing full of braindead people)

I wonder, if the idea were more mainstream, if life extension funding on a large scale would be opposed by similar arguments: 'we as a society can't afford to have everyone live a lot longer, so we should put our resources towards other medical pursuits.'

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16262046

I have a similar position on child creation, but I've decided that if I do want kids (don't at the moment, but seems likely) and can afford to, that I'll look strongly into adoption. Seems like a pretty good solution all-around to me.

>pass it down to their heirs.

AFAIK, (and I'm a pretty ignorant fellow) debt in America isn't passed down, the creditors just take what they're owed out of a dead person's estate before its divied up by a will. So there could be a big "pop" if a bunch of people with lots of student loan debt and no assets die.

I believe what they were implying was that such a bubble can only "pop" if a bunch of the debt is discharged at once, which in this case means a bunch of people who still owe student loans on their deathbed die with more debt than assets. The commenter suggested trying to figure out when this would happen, and making sure one is ahead of it.

I think you misread what I wrote. I meant that society has not been made worse by "death to the jews" being considered hate speech, i.e. we're (weakly) better off having 'banned' such phrases.

"This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics."

He literally did say that. Maybe that's not what he meant, and the gist of what he was saying was correct, but he said what he said. But go ahead and vilify the people who took issue with what reads essentially like a utilitarian apology for homophobia.

And society is not worse off for the lack of that discourse.

>call someone computer scientist because they write code

You're the only one doing this. The article omits any justification for the terms, sure. And it could be a baseless claim. But I don't really see any reason to assume that's the case.