132 karma · joined October 9, 2021
Apple could have an almost complete social graph. If Y Smith is the common acquaintance between you and your friend, then it would be the best second suggestion if you want to share something in that part of your social graph.
So why does he not heed the advice for the article itself?
I think this is the core sentence of the article:
>My wife volunteered in a couple more demonstrations, and I knew she wasn’t in league with the mentalist. (Or, perhaps she was, which would explain our eventual divorce.)
He still doesn't know and he has spent all his life to find out.
>I probably acquired close to a thousand books on mentalism, and several hundred videos.
I don't know if it compiles in the browser or on a server.
There is one: pricing carbons out of the energy market.
If there is e.g. so much progress in carbon fibers that all construction is done with carbon, then all available carbon will be used for that and nobody will waste it to create energy.
Cement will cease to be used because there is not enough rough sand available. If carbon fibers replace that usage, emissions will be stopped.
It's actually stupid to store CO2 in saline storage because in 20 years or so, we will pay good money to get it back.
It should be possible to calculate the price of carbon in 100 years when each of the 10 billion global citizens demands their share of carbon. Offering investment opportunities now in a venture that stores carbon e.g. in the arctics like people store aluminum in the Mexican desert, should provide the funds to create extraction technologies and facilities to make carbon emissions a non-issue.
*edit: Looking at wikipedia, this doesn't make sense. There are 54tonnes available per person.
Maybe humanity has to grow to 1000 billion people to question carbon emissions.
>Proven sources of natural gas are about 175×1012 cubic metres (containing about 105 gigatonnes of carbon), but studies estimate another 900×1012 cubic metres of "unconventional" deposits such as shale gas, representing about 540 gigatonnes of carbon
IBM is struggling with cloud computing. Adding SUN, they would have tried to turn it into a SPARK offer and burned much more resources.
Both SUN and IBM couldn't continue as before. How could IBM have used SUN to create something better?
At SUN's scale, there was no way forward for their OS or their chips. They were too late in open sourcing their OS, which could have created the market for their chips. Oracle did what SUN's management should have done years before.
In my opinion, Steve Jobs chose to build consumer products because that brings the scale to produce chips. It's in IBM's name to serve businesses, not consumers. The cultural change to create the foundation for SUN's hardware business is almost impossible to pull off.
I would like to argue that the world is a better place because Oracle is maintaining Java, something that SUN didn't fully achieve.
Instead of browsers and Javascript, we could have a jvm everywhere. We are building the full stack with technologies like react and virtual DOMs anyway. It's too late for that, but it's in Oracle's own interest to make Java shine.
Github on the other hand doesn't make sense at all. People participate voluntarily. Which infringement did the lawyers bring up?
This is still such a nice idea. Have you considered relaunching it with gitlab and sourcehut?
*edit: You have pitched your project differently: "Show HN: Give and Get more GitHub stars" [1]
That's ranking manipulation. No social network can tolerate that. I would restart the project and keep the ranking on my site. People will still benefit because their projects get known. Additionally, they will receive genuine stars from the people who discovered and liked their projects.
Study conspiracy theories with compassion
He puts his statement shortly after into perspective, but it's dangerous to state that empathy is exhausting in general. It is only exhausting if somebody doesn't have the means to help.
>If you and I are the only people on earth and you’re in pain and I can help you and make your pain go away, and I feel empathy toward you and so I make your life better, empathy has done something good. But the real world is nowhere near as simple
All antivirus software developers should open-source their traversal software and thus guarantee that no harm can be done. The scanning doesn't need write access and doesn't need network access.
With some luck, some of their bets would have turned into winners.
If you have a one-time password, worse case is that some man in the middle gets that password.
If you engage in a proof of private key ownership for your login, a man in the middle can use that exchange to log into another server that has the same public key.
Their slogan:
>try Neeva, 100% ad-free search engine, Totally private
Their founders:
>Neeva was founded by Sridhar Ramaswamy (ex-SVP of Ads at Google) and Vivek Raghunathan (ex-VP of Monetization at YouTube). They met in the early days of search ads at Google, and came up with the idea for Neeva over hikes and coffee.
They have founded a company that explicitly doesn't need the knowledge that they had acquired in their job.
This comes very close to:
>Fisher feared that we were losing our ability to conceptualize a tomorrow that was radically different from our present.
On the other hand, HN's 'What to Submit' [1]:
>anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Has hn become too much a thing that it has become its own information bubble?
It's not the organization, just the division.
News is responsible for the very good image that Buzzfeed has. Why do they give it up when they can finance it?
Even if you succeed in securing an island of quality content: How big is your audience? I don't remember the exact quote but somebody said that television is the way it is because that's what people want.
Yahoo should have chosen to become a media company. Now they would have all the knowledge to mix search results in a way that is rewarded by the market. It's the academics of the early internet who want the best results. Everybody else wants to be entertained.
There is already a search engine for feedback: Whaleslide.com [1] seems to let users curate content with collections. However, I haven't seen a link to a collection on their results pages.
[1] https://whaleslide.com/info/collections
*edit:
also: https://ninfex.com
>There is no crawler, our index is built solely by users submitting interesting and useful links. There is no complex search algorithm.
That could already be the root of the problem. The properties don't come out of nothing. They must already be in the parts.
The mind is already in the genes and in each cell. We just lack the tools to notice the entire thing in the parts.
When it comes to 'let it out', it should be traced back even further to the Iliad. At least according to this [1] video by Lindybeige, the Iliad is all about forgiving, after having exhausted every other option, aka after letting it all out.
Having said that, the article seems to make a negation error. The opposite of not expressing feelings is not expressing all feelings but expressing some feelings.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aofPdMbXzUQ The Iliad - what is it really about?
>This course is an introduction to the theory that tries to explain how minds are made from collections of simpler processes.
Whereas, at least in parts, the brain seems to work 'reductively': [1]
>In fish...
>"Contrary to expectation, the synaptic strengths in the pallium remained about the same regardless of whether the fish learned anything. Instead, in the fish that learned, the synapses were pruned from some areas of the pallium — producing an effect “like cutting a bonsai tree,” Fraser said — and replanted in others."
Could it be that we need other forms of thinking than mere 'analytical thinking' to come up with a full understanding of the human mind?
[1] Scientists watch a memory form in the brain of a living fish https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30572633
>Showgirls was a critical failure upon release, panned for its acting (particularly Berkley's), characters, dance numbers, directing, plot, screenplay and sex scenes and is consistently ranked as one of the worst films ever made. Despite this, Showgirls has become regarded as a cult film and has been subject to critical re-evaluation, with some notable directors and critics considering it a serious satire worthy of praise.
Makes me wonder: How big is the hidden cost of destroying rain forests and other habitats? Every species that we lose is the loss of genetically encoded knowledge that could be very useful at some point.
Could we protect the environment by making investment fonds eligible to the profits from genetic knowledge on the territory they own?