t6jvcereio

Computer simulations are not nothing either.

I'm reading Stephen Kotkin's book "Stalin - paradoxes of power". I just read the section set the mid to late 1920s. Guess what? One of the many dirty tricks the communist party used on its population to keep power was the idea of "capitalist encirclement" (compare to "NATO encroachment"), alongside the undermining of foreign nations by supporting communist parties with the goal of overthrowing governments (compare to supporting the Tucker Carlsons of the world).

None of this is new, these people (Russia establishment) cannot be trusted ever.

Now, cue someone saying "whatabout the Americans". To them I say - I'm happy to discuss the Americans, in a thread about them. This thread is about how the Russian government is dishonest and an enemy of freedom and liberal societies.

This is what I'm talking about? You don't say "I don't think I should pay for something i didn't consume", it's your fault. No?

> What would be a good argument against the point that we wouldn't bother teaching fractions if calculators had always existed?

Well perhaps the fact that we wouldn't know how to divide 1 unit into 3 equal parts?

And if you're going to respond that an approximation is always good enough "in engineering", how would you estimate the amount of error you're introducing if you don't know what fractions are?

> Math education is worse than religion

Another more recent religion is that of people who defend that you should only learn the narrow set of things that have immediate application in the work place (these people also forget that there's many different work places with different demands. These people normally have dumb jobs). If you learn only things that have evidence application, nothing new will ever be invented. Math education has a lot of problems, but learning fractions isn't one of them.

Learning LESS is never the answer. I'm being very honest with you when I say that someone arguing we shouldn't learn fractions might be the absolute dumbest thing I've ever read on HN.

Oh my. I'd rather tell myself that you're trolling, than lose my last scraps of faith in humanity.

Of course you want to know how they make money. Everyone does.

If you're paying for something you're not consuming, you have no one to blame but yourself.

If "technocrat" means expertise driven, I'll take that, please. Better than taking the input of people like you.

Why are all your comments about Europe though? You sound like you've been radicalized. Get off YouTube and stop watching Alex Jones, I'm saying this for you own mental health.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but sounds quite dull. Technocrats? You sound like a lunatic.

I don't know anything about Carrie Wood. The firm where I work (same niche as Jane street) makes so much money they don't know what to do with it (spoiler: they distribute it as huge bonuses).

You're starting to sound like one of those "the market is efficient you can't make money trading" morons.

"admit"? What am I admitting?

Could someone who knows about computers comment: how much of this text is specific to Linux, how much is specific to C, and how much is true for all computers?

Why are we teaching sums and multiplications? After all, computers can do that these days. /s

The complaint that we're teaching something that we never see in engineering, like homogeneous equations is preposterous. It's like saying why teach fractions when in engineering you always see reals. If you want more advanced differencing equations, you can do a more advanced course or self study more advanced material. I have a guy in my company who has a PhD in a very niche topic in differential equations and he can actually solve real world differential equations.

.... I'm not an economist, but isn't this counter productive? By making it cheaper people will consume it more. No?

Bingo. One way memes propagate is for one faction to claim that the other faction is saying crazy things. People love getting outraged.

Did you just wake up? All these firms make shit loads.

Surely one could make the argument that "I only took the plea deal because the prosecution produced evidence X which I knew was fake but I couldn't prove it"?

I believe this is the case

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-woods-260

Does anyone understand why one FBI is helping a senator?

Regarding the first two paragraphs.

If you came to these conclusions on your own, I applaud your critical thinking. The next steps however would be to search the literature, realize these aren't new ideas but instead have been discussed and solved, and learn them.

> Why Zimbu? Suppose you want to write a new program, something like a text editor. What language would you write it in?

    It has to be as fast as possible, so interpreted languages are out.
    You don't want to micro manage memory, so C is out.
    You don't want to require programmers to have a degree, so C++ is out.
    You want fast startup and not depend on a big runtime, so Java is out.
    It has to run on most systems, anything with a C compiler, so D is out.
    You want to have fun making something new.

What a nice collection of horrible arguments.

As a juliastan, I think that if you have no need to move away from python, you shouldn't.

Had it ever occurred to you - if this was a real issue how would anyone ever get any work done? The answer is modules.

module X struct etc... end end #module

Change without reloading.

I'll save you a click. Fired for berating and bullying her staff. No surprises.

Oh fields. Got it.

I get that, but my question is: if a type is mutable and I instantiate with const, will the exact same optimizations available?

Thanks for the clarification

Love Julia

> Mutable struct fields may now be annotated as const to prevent changing them after construction, providing for greater clarity and optimization ability of these objects

So will these be exactly like non-mutable structs?

> What are the right reasons? Most people work for money.

The right reasons for co-founding are to grow equity in the short to medium term. Obviously. To some degree you must be aware of this, and your confusion that there is such thing as "too much" for a co-founder comes across as disingenuous. These are the right reasons in the sense that align the co-founders interests with the investors. Contrast this with a co-founder who co-founds so he can draw as much investment money as possible for his salary.

They don't get respect because they have a shitty attitude. No one owes you respect

String theory is a hoax because "there's no experimental evidence". How about we build bigger and better experiments? No, colliders are just hand outs to the industry and a waste of money /s

It's more than a whiff, it's a disgusting stench.