sushisource

OK, then rebase and squash after making a bunch of commits. I can see why someone might like staging, but clearly it can be built on top of other git functions.

So, sorry, staging being "fundamental complexity" sounds petty BS to me. You like it, and that's fine, but it's in no way fundamental. I've used git for a long, long time, tried staging a few times and have never reached for it again.

Why are your first two links just about buildings looking the same? I was thinking they'd spectrum visualizations per your lead-in which would be really fascinating to see...

Assuming that's actually true, what an amazing picture it paints of him just being a complete fucking dick. It's not like the money he was making from that mattered at all... he did it just for shits and giggles. What an unbelievable asshole.

I think you're making the point. Correct according to... what... lol? The preconceived notion that it should be?

I don't even necessarily disagree, but, "No, it totally is right" isn't exactly an argument.

OTOH, the top comment is a criticism. So, probably not all is lost :)

Probably sometimes, intuitively it's pretty damn obvious not all the time, and based on what evidence? What a huge sweeping claim to just drop in one sentence.

Why is it that OSX gets so many of these nice little apps that seem pretty easy to make multiplatform but they just... aren't?

I think people probably immediately think about how they react to their spouse or other very close relationships, and I suspect (haven't looked it up) that people are actually pretty good at detecting lies in those situations because we have so much experience with how that person acts.

Detecting the lies of strangers? Yeah... good luck.

How is that the assumption? There only needs to be one such place on the whole planet (or, shit, shoot it into space). I'm not saying it's easy (in fact, that was kinda my point), but it's absolutely possible and I didn't assume anything about individual groups needing their own storage.

I just don't really see how this is true. Isn't the basic idea to just dig a really deep hole somewhere geologically stable and dump it in? My impression isn't that the problem isn't solvable, but simply that no one has actually made the appropriate investment yet.

That sounds like the same catch-22 as the rest of this. We've thrown up our hands and gone "Not worth it" and then our lack of investment in proper storage is somehow a blocker.

Obviously this isn't the strongest argument in the world, but, if the whole field is so bullshit why has anyone bothered putting effort into post-quantum encryption? What's the point if quantum computers will never materialize?

> status is not interesting ... I personally don't care

> I seek demonstrating my cleverness

Uh, what? Status seeking maybe means material success by default, but I think you'll find there are many, many people who care more about the approval of others than material success. That's you.

Technology was also a hell of a lot less complicated until recently.

Eh, I don't think it's here to stay. The political correctness pendulum swings back and forth every 10-20 years it seems to me, the last time it was on the watch-what-you-say spectrum felt like the mid-90s.

That said, this feels way, way more extreme than it was then. I'm maybe less worried that it's here to stay than I am worried that the swings are getting more and more extreme

It's not too bad for them. Turns out the average consumer really doesn't give much of a hoot about the decentralization aspect.

> You could switch to Proof of Work

Wait, you mean "move away from" ?

Go isn't the same as the human mind, though. That said, I think you could argue it's just a matter of time until we have enough power to do such things. But, you could also argue that such manipulation may simply not be possible, brains perhaps are not deterministic machines.

That's a cop out. Literally all of our laws exist because some portion of the population are shitheads who can't be trusted. Who cares if the thing we're banning is intrinsically bad or not. Phrasing it in Latin doesn't make it any more compelling either.

We also ban nuclear and biological weapons for good reason. Does it really matter that they are harder to obtain? (Tip: They won't be in the long run, there was a time when guns were hard to make too).

It's a good point, but, to be fair to parent commenter, they may have meant something different.

I think they may be referring to the phenomenon of walking away and having the solution "come to you" while doing something else. It took me a while to appreciate this, but simply walking away is often the fastest way for me to solve a hard problem. There I am, lying in bed, or cooking, or whatever, and BOOM the solution is presented to me - just like the divine inspiration described by so many. Of course, now we (hopefully) know that it's probably less a matter of intervention and more a matter of brain chemistry, but true regardless.

> Finally, the idea of "banning" guns -- which every basically qualified engineer or physicist should be capable to building from readily available materials and tools -- makes them even more interesting. If for no other reason than to illuminate preposterous and insulting nature of the idea.

This makes no sense. Assaulting someone is illegal, but anyone can do it. It's still illegal.

What?

This is definitely not entirely true of x11. I have mixed DPI (which, admittedly, does work for shit, but can be hacked around by using a wrapper script to launch things with different DPIs) and mixed refresh rates. The mixed refresh rates work perfectly, zero issues (as configured via nvidia drivers, admittedly annoying for other reasons).

That said I would use wayland if nvidia wasn't busy fucking everything up.

> Perhaps I'm alone in this but I don't think most people confuse, "It is best practice to avoid character requirements in validating passwords," with "this is the objectively best way to validate passwords."

Unfortunately you have been quite lucky. The phenomenon of blindly following whatever some blog post said is all too real.

By most people I genuinely mean "most people" I sincerely doubt more than 50% of people in the US have heard of ETH, much less globally.

So, yeah, sticking by that statement.

It requires some way to fund it, but that needn't necessarily be ETH. It also well could be, and they have first mover advantage. But, and it's a big but, I think the most important thing people who know much about crypto forget is:

Other people are not like you. Most people have still never even heard of Etherium. Most people won't touch something like that without explicit approval from a government. Which, obviously, is somewhat contrary to the point.

I think the real long term (20+ years) winners in this space will gracefully marry the old world with the new, until society has gotten used to these concepts and we can slowly deprecate some of the centralization.

Yeah, it's crazy to me how common it is to just let basic dev environment polish languish.

In a small enough place, I usually will just fix whatever is slowest and most annoying about it myself.

At bigger places... good luck. Sometimes you can get away with hacking together some scripts that do things for your personal setup, but if there isn't buy in to fix the problem you're often out of luck.

I've thought about this a fair amount and come to the conclusion that HN readers as a group just cannot wrap their heads around why the majority of consumers are so enamored by thin stuff - but they are, and that's why these companies keep doing this.

It seems wildly stupid, and it is in some objective sense, but people make bad purchasing decisions. See: Cars in the united states continuing to get bigger and bigger.

My question for you is why not advertise this loudly? Or, maybe you did and no one cared? Because presumably it's a bit more costly per unit to do it this way, and very few people are ever going to understand and care.

Not that I think you made the wrong choice, I think it's a good one, but I'm just curious how many consumers you thought would actually understand it, or how that information would be distributed

> - I use and have fun with written content generated by transformers (GPT3)

> - I listen to and enjoy music and audio generated by autoencoders (Jukebox, Magenta project, many others)

Really, you've "replaced" normal music and books with these? Somehow I doubt that.

What an incredibly boneheaded comment. The kind that makes me worry about the future of HN.

Not only are you asking someone to literally kill an animal, something many people are de-facto not going to be comfortable with, you're knowingly recommending something I'm almost certain you know deep down isn't reasonable because it'd be a heinous overreaction, and it'd result in a mountain of paperwork and legal troubles for the commenter you replied to.

Ridiculous.

Totally lost me at

> “IQ” is pseudoscience—no one is intelligent. There is no such thing as intelligence—just inverted stupidity.

Yeah, IQ isn't a great metric. No, the entire concept isn't bullshit.