pliesfan97

My window management hack that I’m surprised I’ve not seen mentioned is that in macOS you can map each numpad key to a separate desktop. You essentially get a desktop control pad free with your keyboard, since I don’t know any SWE who uses needs their numpad.

My wish is that macOS would let you group desktops together in a way that solved both of these problems:

- Switching desktops across multiple monitors at once

- Merging and splitting desktops when going from multiple monitors to one monitor

Multiple desktops are critical to my workflow and how I mentally organize my digital workspace. I wish there was more customization or more powerful features around it.

Randall Williams is your brother? He’s one of my favorites from the Meateater crew. Thanks for sharing his dissertation, I’ve been meaning to check it out at some point.

Wouldn’t the argument then be that it shouldn’t matter to her if her house goes down a bit in value since it wasn’t liquid wealth anyways?

So it’s a win-win in a way - either you’re rich enough to pay the mortgage on an expensive property in which case lowering property values in expensive locations is a bit redistributive or it won’t affect you really in which case who cares?

Is there somewhere I can read the original/translated confessions in full? The piece really sold me on them but didn’t seem to link to anything.

Won’t you need to retry more than 300,000 times for 100,000 original processes? Unless of course the retry somehow has a 100% success rate.

The article makes a good point though.

Did you read the article? I’m curious what points you actually refute. The author made specific arguments about the development of art and style, not the amount of culture produced.

New York despite all its flaws (or probably because of them) seems to actually be the producer of the most cutting edge art in the US, but it doesn’t amount to all that much.

I’m also not sure about the Russia point. War and censorship is not new for Russia.

I still wonder what Paul Stamets was alluding to about crimini mushrooms and cancer risk on his episode of the Joe Rogan podcast where he seemed unable to talk freely

Non-paywalled version: https://web.archive.org/web/20231010212049/https://www.nytim...

It’s quite sad to read him talk in 2005 about how online content was so authentic and not PR spam :/

I wonder if there will be another new type of media technology that will go through this same evolution, or if “authentic” content will gather somewhere else.

I think this comes down to a philosophical difference in how we approach truth in the face of uncertainty. The truth here is clearly uncertain (and probably unknowable) at this point. I approach uncertain situations with a Bayesian perspective, meaning I have a certain preconceived understanding of the dynamics at play and I allow facts to shift that conception to ultimately form a conclusion consisting of how likely I believe each scenario.

In this case, history dictates that my Bayesian priors should be strongly shifted towards at least some "conspiracy" at play considering the how other leaders have been killed in the past by some conspiracy. History also dictates specifically that the CIA is capable of similar conspiracies (although this would probably be the biggest/most dramatic). The facts paint a pretty clear picture of how the assassination actually happened, but an entirely unclear picture of the motivations. Other tidbits of information strengthen and weaken these prior understandings (in my opinion they strengthen overall), but since they are only vague tidbits, the shift in understanding is small.

I believe you call this "unsubstantiated" because you do not allow history to form a prior understanding of the dynamics at play. You also seem reticent to allow for fuzzy truths or uncertainties to exist. This is entirely incongruous to the way I, and many other folks on HN, perceive the world, hence the disagreement. There fundamentally is a bottomless pit of possibilities of what happened, but this is the method in which I and many other narrow down that pit to vague likelihoods.

I personally believe it's somewhat possible that there was some CIA involvement in JFK's assassination. I did not watch the entire video, but the part that addresses potential CIA involvement seems to have 2 main flaws IMO:

1. It only addresses the Vietnam War as a potential motive and "debunks" this motive. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are countless other potential motives, especially surrounding Cuba and the CIA's involvement there (Bay of Pigs, etc). The parts of the video I watched (including part 2) did not seem to address this at all. Eliminating one motive does not by any means eliminate the possibility of CIA involvement.

2. The video's creator seems to assume that CIA's involvement would consist of "hiring" Oswald to perform the assassination and that Oswald would have full awareness of the plans, etc. This is not the only scheme in which a conspiracy may have taken place, and in fact seems like a highly unlikely and unsophisticated scheme. It seems much more likely that Oswald was "used" rather than "hired" and that he was either convinced or coerced to shoot Kennedy. This is how murderous intelligence organizations do their dirty work (the CIA is known to have killed people) - via coercion, power, politics, propaganda, and not via direct orders or contracts. Assuming my theory is correct (of which I do not have certainty), Oswald likely had his own motives to wanting to shoot Kennedy, but it required a conspiracy to actually get him to carry through with it. This model of the relationships and dynamics involved seems entirely foreign to the video's creator and is completely unaddressed.

In general, discourse around the JFK assassination and potential conspiracies focuses way too much on the shooting itself - ballistic physics, positions of possible shooters, analysis of film. This is a complete distraction from the more important question which is around Lee Harvey Oswald's incredibly suspicious relationships and contacts with known CIA people.