presscast

>The parent poster wrote "poor people who have nothing more to hate on rich people about than that they have money", which sounds like well-founded animus to me.

Let me make sure I understand, because I fear we may be talking past each other.

Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus?

(I'm happy to discuss the rest of your post once we clear up this particular point; it seems fundamental.)

>It is relevant to the parent post because there's legitimate reason for the poor to have animus against the rich, and not vice versa

The parent poster is specifically referring to a specific type of unfounded animus. Namely: having no argument other than "they have more money than me" to justify said animus.

I'm not sure how this contradicts, or even has anything to do with the parent post. It seems like you're reading excessively far into a turn-of-phrase.

Sure. That's very much my point (or have I missed yours?)

"Natural" is used to mean "in the ontology of Man".

I think people are talking past each other when discussing "unnaturalness". Opponents of homosexuality often use the word "unnatural" in the sense of "not in humankind's nature". This is distinct from "unnatural" as "not occurring in nature".

The argument is more like "eating dirt is okay for earthworms, but it's unnatural for humans", so appeal to the behavior of other animals completely misses the point.

This is a profoundly metaphysical debate about the nature of a life well-lived and the nature of a healthy society. Whatever one thinks of it, that's the level on which it ought to be discussed.

I'm seriously thinking about refusing to take meetings on software I don't already have.

I strongly suspect it won't actually change anything, but so far I've been too chicken to actually try.

Yes (and yes!) ;)

Zoom is objectively a good software solution but being de facto forced to install yet another piece of software just to take business meetings has left a sour taste in my mouth.

It's objectively impressive that they managed to "force" me to install software. Hats off... but I plan on ditching them as soon as a viable alternative appears.

I have no real point here, other than this: I wonder if my sentiment is general, and whether or not this might bite them later down the road? Probably not.

I haven't been using Go modules, to the point where I only have a vague notion of what they do.

I haven't felt the need for them.

At what point do they become necessary? Which pain-points should I be on the lookout for?

>"Sorry, but you can't be trusted to make good choices about what you put in your body, so we will make laws that force you to make better choices"

Incidentally, it's quite common that people can't be trusted to make good choices about such things.

Forcing people to make good choices isn't a priori absurd. See: seatbelts.

In practice, it is true. They have a long line of candidates, and will prefer those with experience.

Source: am a reserve infantryman at 94th RI, 3rd Company. Regularly train with 2ème REP.

That's largely a thing of the past. You're more likely to be handed over to Interpol than anything else today.

Also, HN-ers beware -- the FFL doesn't take people without military experience, anymore.

Cool, thanks for this! I'm happily using Cap'n Proto in a side project, and so far have really enjoyed working with it. It's a really impressive piece of engineering.

If I could upvote this twice, I would. You've managed to put words on something I've been struggling to articulate.

Your point about using Go's type system (esp. interfaces) rings particularly true. When I finally figured out how to effectively use the type system, I suddenly found myself writing extremely malleable code. You can move data types and functions around quite freely, and this makes it easy to design & refactor without losing your place.

The flip side, as you say, is that extreme flexibility requires you to build your own skeleton.

BTW, are you github.com/thejerf? If so, I've contributed to Suture, and use it quite often, so thanks for that.

Right, but I'm asking if FlatBuffers' approach to encoding is similar to Cap'n Proto. It seems like the answer is "yes", but I might be missing something.

I use go daily and have come to really like it, however I van completely relate to your pain points. I think there's a lot of confusion over the "go is simple" meme. Go is simple, but it's not easy.

The price one pays for simplicity is the need to discover and master various design patterns; it requires a bit of planning beyond syntax and module exports. It took me quite a bit of time before I felt downright fluent in Go.

I did get there, and I really enjoy the language, but I wasn't immediately productive.

Are FlatBuffers essentially Capnproto without the RPC?

I think you may have completely missed the point being made.

I had to truncate the title due to character limitations. Full title is: The Repatriation of Foreign Fighters and Their Families: Options, Obligations, Morality and Long-Term Thinking

Abstract:

As Islamic State (IS) loses control of its so-called Caliphate, the question on what to do with foreign fighters and their families has become more pertinent. The announcement of the US withdrawal from Syria in December, as well as Trump’s tweets mid-February that the US would release 800 fighters captured in Syria if its allies would not take them back, has led to even more urgency. In this Perspective we will discuss the issue of the (possible) repatriation of foreign fighters and their families, especially from Syria, addressing several options, and taking into account legal, moral and (long-term) security perspectives.

>We didn’t exist before birth

At the risk of sounding all "woo-woo", this statement bears some qualification.

How do you define existence, here? Are you equating it with consciousness? Surely your constituent parts (atoms, molecules, particles, etc) existed before your consciousness, and continue to do so afterwards.

I think you'll also agree that the arrangement of matter and energy you call "your life" is regulated by natural processes.

In principle, it's possible for the thing you call "your life" to be a brief window within some larger process (a meta-life, if you will) of which you have no recollection.

I don't know if I believe any of this to be true, but metaphysically speaking, it's not at all obvious that we "didn't exist before birth".

In a former life I was a cognitive neuroscience researcher.

This reads like a piece written by someone who heard a neuroscientist take issue with the "brain as computer" metaphor, but didn't quite grasp what it was all about.

The "brain is not a computer" meme has to do with the fact that the brain does not process information in the same way as a digital computer. It is not saying that the brain is not a symbol-processing/computational system.

Ah, I do apologize then. I misinterpreted your post.

This is why European universities are _extremely_ worthwhile, especially if you're a US student.

You're feeding a troll.

What's the state of running linux natively on Mac these days?

>without an alarm I can sleep 12 hours.

This was the case for me until I started (a) going to bed shortly after dark and (b) leaving the blinds open.

An really incredible thing happened: I started feeling tired around dusk, and awake at dawn.

Note that it's best to avoid/limit screens and LED lights past dark.

> Oh wait, this is discussion, not an academic paper.

It's literally an academic discussion insofar as it's about the technicalities of an academic paper.

So yes, you really do need to support your arguments if you want them to be taken seriously.

>18 men and 18 women

This very much depends on statistical power. If the effect size is big enough, 36 participants can be plenty.

I suspect the effect sizes of sleep deprivation are probably quite large.

And this is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

While agree with your general sentiment, you ought to point out that this very much depends on the algorithm in question. Things like decision trees/forests are quite observable.