squibbles

It is unfortunate we do not strive to make "work" as enjoyable and as addictive as some games, while also allowing employees to share significantly in the wealth they help generate. It feels like many video games show us how much potential is hidden away inside people.

A series of charts plotted by Wolfram Alpha (for US data) shows that debt seems to go up, steadily, forever. [1] The steady rise of debt seems to be a phenomenon independent of specific events. Perhaps this is simply a long-term effect of interdependency.

[1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=chart+of+debt+to+gdp

I have seen many people fail to realize (and sometimes to understand at all) that taking measurements of large numbers of people is always fraught with errors of all sorts. No matter how hard you try, it is like the universe always pushes back to make sure the data are imperfect. Sometimes those imperfections are acceptably small, and other times the imperfections are uncomfortably large.

In my opinion, anyone involved in such large-scale data collection and analysis should acknowledge the inevitability of error and provide disclaimers about potential sources of error.

Apple has kind of herded me into zsh for work in the terminal. So far it has been pleasant, with interesting plugins, but it's periodic updates are a little annoying. Despite remaining in zsh while in a terminal, I still find myself writing only bash scripts when a script it needed.

For reference, Judea Pearl won the ACM Turing award in 2011 "[f]or fundamental contributions to artificial intelligence through the development of a calculus for probabilistic and causal reasoning."[1]

[1] https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/pearl_2658896.cfm

In the US, the judicial branch is the arbiter of truth. And yet, even judges write opinions.

The world is a messy place and it is only hubris that makes us think we can organize it neatly.

This post was quite a surprise. I have an old copy of Paradise Lost (illustrated by Gustave Dore) on a bookshelf next to me. (Digitized version here: http://digital.auraria.edu/AA00006467/00001) The cover of my copy is green instead of gold.

For me, personally -- I cannot think of a sufficient justification to put a production database in a container. A good database server is designed for performance, reliability, scalability, security, etc., without containers. Putting a production database inside a container introduces a world of unnecessary edge cases and complexity.

Definitely a good one: "Experiences with running PostgreSQL on Kubernetes - Gravitational - blog post 2018"

For anyone who thinks running a database in a container environment is a neat idea, think again. I am guilty of using containers for temporary test databases, but the thought of running production databases in containers sends shivers down my spine.

I mostly want to point out that, when discussing ancient history, objective data are only one facet contributing to the interpretation of past events. Most people prefer simple, straightforward answers or interpretations (i.e., the "correct" answer), but the world and greater universe is filled with complexities and subtleties that should not necessarily be overlooked when seeking understanding.

I still cringe when I think back to some C projects from long ago, where the dependency chains of headers and libraries where unfathomably byzantine.

On a related note, lately I have been looking into some biochemistry topics and their relation to computer science. It seems that cyclic dependencies are possibly a requirement for life, which makes faithful simulations of biochemical processes an interesting challenge.

> There was a brilliant programmer at Digitek who had completely novel and now unknown ideas for software development; he never published anything, but you could read and analyze his source code.

Does anyone know about whom Knuth was referring? Did this have anything to do with the work on the PL/I compiler?

The Motorola 6809E[1] and the MC6883[2]. The 6809E was a 0.89MHz CPU (with external clock) used in the TRS-80 Color Computer[3] sold by Radio Shack. The MC6883 was the Synchronous Address Multiplexer (SAM) used to drive the display.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6809

[2] https://colorcomputerarchive.com/repo/Documents/Datasheets/M...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Color_Computer

> The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups.

While this may solve immediate problems (such as the planning of unlawful or otherwise socially harmful events), we should consider the long-term impacts of de-platforming. Does censorship, even if justified, fuel anger and distrust, potentially increasing social conflict in the long-term?

Is it possible to bring fringe groups back into the fold of peaceful civil discourse, or are we simply throwing up our hands and declaring that some percentage of the population must always have their speech regulated? (I suppose this question applies for both social groups and for individuals.)

>The whole article is a bad-faith farce, and should be treated as such. Ignore it. > >There are real points to be made about how the behavior of these companies might impact discourse, whether they have too much power, and more. However, this bad faith argument is a distraction from meaningful discourse.

I disagree that the article distracts from meaningful discourse. To the contrary, the article has elicited a great deal of meaningful discourse (in these HN threads) that helps us examine the role of social media in modern society.

I do not mean to either encourage or discourage the taking of any kind of nutritional supplements, but I strongly caution anyone from looking to lists like the one on LessWrong for specific advice on health issues.

> 23. (~This is not medical advice~). Don’t waste money on multivitamins, they don’t work. Vitamin D supplementation does seem to work, which is important because deficiency is common.

From The Physicians’ Health Study II - PHS II (https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/clinical-trials/201...):

"The results of the PHS II trial in middle-aged to elderly male physicians demonstrate that daily intake of a multivitamin results in a small, but statistically significant decrease in all cancers over 11 years of follow-up, especially nonprostate cancer, with numerically lower cancer-related mortality."

It is usually unwise for anyone to take any sort of medical advice from postings on the internet. This includes advice that claims it is not really advice. What you put into your body is your own personal decision, and if you want to better understand the implications, discuss it with a qualified medical professional.

Speaking from many, many years of experience:

Cash is king. Nothing is more important than cash flow. A runway is not a development budget -- it is a loan in the form of opportunity cost. Always look for income at all times. And never, ever borrow money for the project.

Regarding people, keep active contacts with other people. Do not shelter behind closed doors. The world moves quickly, and if your team withdraws into its own bubble for 12 months, when you emerge you will find the world to be very different.

Regarding tech, Unity will work better than Unreal because a small team needs to reduce technical overhead as much as possible.

Regarding gameplay, favor simplicity over complexity.

Regarding art, maintain a cohesive and unique style across all elements of design.

Regarding players, start looking for them from day 1. It takes a long time and a lot of work to build a following. And remember, the players are not your customers -- they are your new boss.

My words were meant as a light-hearted message of hope, with an allusion to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; not a philosophical argument to reject self-improvement.

"...an irrational, flawed monkey..."

Remember -- "If it doesn't have a tail it's not a monkey."

Embrace the inner ape. Instead of looking at our limitations, look at how well we have done. We have microwave ovens, digital watches, and even ice cream. Reflecting on what it takes to go from swinging in the trees to where we are today, I think we have done pretty well for ourselves, all things considered.

I disagree that conservatism is a major flaw of human thinking, or even a flaw at all. I would argue that conservatism is one of the core principals of science. Although the quantity and quality of data sufficient to change one's views could be (and frequently is) debated, a healthy amount of stability and skepticism is required for science to be efficacious.

A similar argument could be made for conservatism's relationship with social structures. Rapidly changing social structures leads to unpredictable futures, which can lead to economic insecurity at the individual level.

For those that may not have noticed, the article provides a link to a good document by Kennth Hodges with a list of prices for medieval items. http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html

If a fourteenth century charcoal burner was 3 pence a day (3d), then his daily wage could buy:

- 6 chickens

- half a goose

- one shoe (half a pair)

- 2 gallons of medium ale

- about a gallon of very cheap wine

- 1 spade and shovel

The Social Dilemma is a film currently showing on Netflix. The film focuses on how large tech companies exploit society for profit. If you can see the film, I highly recommend it. If you do not know what the inner workings of tech-fueled psychological operations are like, then the film will enlighten you. If you already know about the inner workings of these technologies, then you will be impressed with how well the film explains things to lay persons.

The linked article is a lengthy review of The Social Dilemma. The review contains a recap of some of the film and presents what I believe are valid criticisms of the film. The final line in the review is a good summary of the criticisms: "But as far as the film is concerned, your role in resolving this dilemma is to sit patiently on the couch and stare at the screen until a remorseful tech insider tells you what to do."

Something important to keep in mind after watching the film -- always follow the money. People who made significant amounts of money contributing to the social problems we face today are now free to make more money telling us how to address the problem. As the review points out, "When there are dangerous fires blazing everywhere it matters whether the voices that get heard are apologetic arsonists or firefighters."

I see the real problem to be that capitalism tends to give power to individuals with unbridled hubris and greed. The hubris of some people (in any field, though here we are talking about the tech industry) is stunning. In my opinion, extra layers of technology do not solve problems -- extra layers of complexity mitigate symptoms and create new problems, while decreasing the stability of the overall system. We should not hire arsonists to run fire departments.

I didn't mean to imply that theorists don't produce valuable work, or that theory does not necessarily lead to practice. The distinction I intended is that some people prefer to work off of an underlying model, while others are content so long as they get the results they desire.

For example, contrast symbolic processing with artificial neural nets. Symbolic processing has a very solid philosophical basis and it can be used to solve many meaningful problems. Some problems, however, are so complex or nuanced that there are insufficient computing resources to implement a solution based on symbolic processing. Artificial neural networks can be used to address those complex problems, yet we lack the theory (at this time) to really understand the full limits or capabilities of complex artificial neural networks.

My reference to Wolfram was about his proposal to cast everything as automata. Even though that does not seem practical for all or even most problems, it provides a certain comfort, much like lambda calculus provides. Beyond the comfort of a solid philosophical grounding, automata also give us a way to approach many problems (such as simulation) in a principled manner.

Put another way, some people like to understand first, and use that understanding to discover results. Other people want the results first, and then seek to understand based on the results they found.

> I never had to shift a bit in a C array in my life!

I have done (and continue to do) quite a bit of work involving bit shifting, along with various other bitwise operations. Is it really that unusual? Should I feel guilty?

Humor aside, I am genuinely curious to what extent other people are familiar or experienced with low-level bitwise operations.

I think if you remove consciousness from the equation, identifying causality would be a reasonable response to why. However, there is an underlying assumption that causality actually exists. In that case, I think the existence of causality would have to be taken as axiomatic.

I find this dialog to be reminiscent of the controversy surrounding Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. Perhaps one could frame it as the theorists versus the pragmatists.

> The regulations also only apply to employees, and not independent contractors, problematic considering that by 2020, 40% of the US workforce will be made up of these so-called “contingent workers”.

And that is a big problem. There is enormous financial pressure for an executive or business owner to minimize labor costs, which are the biggest expense. (I know this because I have been there.)

On the one hand, one can stand for employee rights and fair compensation. On the other hand, the global economy has made labor expenses exceptionally painful.

That statement really intrigued me. Since I like goats, I had to know how to do this.

Use ImageInstanceQ[image, object], where image is the image and object is "caprine animal". [0] [1]

[0] https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/ImageInstanceQ.ht...

[1] https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/71631/upgoat-or...

I don't think the mass media is a reliable or accurate source for learning about or promulgating scientific findings. Most medical research is fraught with ambiguity and mixed messages, simply because of the phenotypic variance found in humans (and other organisms). (See more about phenotypic variance here: [0]) Generally speaking, different organisms will respond differently to the same environmental stimuli. This is why drug trials require large sample sizes and extended periods of time to assess efficacy and safety.

With regard to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), there is nothing that could be considered definitive about its efficacy or safety for all people when used as an off-label treatment for COVID-19. While there is evidence that (in some people) is does not reduce the viral load ("Neither HCQ nor the combination of HCQ and AZTH showed a significant effect on viral load in any of the analysed tissues." [1]), there is evidence that HCQ "... can significantly decrease the production of cytokines and, in particular, pro-inflammatory factors" [2] and HCQ has "... potential, but controversial, characteristics to combat pathological inflammation associated with COVID-19." [3]

Of course, raw research does not give a definitive answer about efficacy and safety for all people, but it does suggest that HCQ may be one possible treatment (perhaps preventative, perhaps in vitro) for inflammation, which is one of the serious complications of COVID-19. It will likely be years before the mechanisms of COVID-19 are well understood. In fact, it is likely that some other urgent calamity will come along and compete for research funds currently used for COVID-19 research, which could significantly extend the time it takes to understand the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

[0] https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/adaptation-and-phe...

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2558-4

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-020-2721-8

US politics has always been interesting. There have been numerous energetic elections, contentious presidents, assassinations, and even a civil war. I suspect what we are seeing has nothing to do with politics, specifically, but rather is an artifact of global communications and modern information systems. Advances in technology give increasingly greater power to individuals.