terryf

The jack is back! Now I wish I hadn't bought the pixel 3 when it came out! Glad to see the voice of reason prevailing.

Having slept in quite cold temperatures in cars during longer trips quite a lot of times, just having the car idle over-night has always been enough to keep the cabin warm enough to not even need a blanket. Not talking about luxury cars with huge engines either. It also uses very little fuel. After 8 hours, you can see that the fuel gauge has moved, but only very slightly. I'm pretty sure a ICE car with a full tank can idle for several days before running out of fuel.

Because they haven't cached out? If you don't cash out, then the point is something other than just getting the money. The amount seems excessive for someone that is just a researcher, so a state actor that is trying to destabilise the whole system makes a bit of sense.

That was a fun read - I'd hazard a guess that the load from memory is not cached and will get started, then the compare is speculatively executed, but then the conditional jump and whatever follows won't fit into the cpu pipeline and will cause it to wait for the fetch to complete.

One thing you might try is to add a superfluous fetch of the same memory location a few hundred instructions before to get it going before you hit the jump, so it's cached already by that time.

Well, the virtual p-ap creation happens everywhere, all the time. Why aren't there a large number of photons happening everywhere all the time?

Right, but the charges of particle-antiparticle pairs do cancel out, so there is no net energy produced.

Quick thought experiment: two particle-antiparticle pairs get created:

p1-ap1, p2-ap2

In regular space, after a very short amount of time p1 annihilates with ap1 and p2 with ap2. Net result is zero additional matter and energy, otherwise we'd just be creating random matter and/or energy everywhere.

If the same happens at the event horizon of a black hole and let's assume purely by chance, p1 and ap2 fall in and p2 and ap1 do not. After a short while, p1 and ap2 annihilate inside and p2 and ap1 outside. The result should be effectively the same as in the previous case, thus zero net energy and/or matter on either side. Thus, also no radiation and mass loss.

It'd be nice if an actual physicist chimed in at this point and told me where I went wrong :)

Ok, to be fair I'm not a physicist but it would seem to me that if you get a stream of mixed particles and anti-particles, they would annihilate, thus not producing a mass difference.

It's more complex than that. If it was that simple, it would emit particles and antiparticles randomly which would not lead to losing mass.

Not any more and the hungryness doesn't seem to be related to moods too much.

It is probably traits - I'm one of those people that can eat almost endlessly (and yes, am not skinny). The problem is that I don't really feel full, no matter what or how much I eat.

If I just continue, then I do get the uncomfortable feeling of my stomach being overly filled even to the point it actually hurts, but still, I don't feel "fulfilled" and have the desire to keep eating.

I'm trying to control it of course, but my life is basically spent almost continuously with the feeling that I could eat some more right now. It's not always hunger as such, although that comes by quite easily as well. It's a continuous drain emotionally.

Yes. That's why a good language makes this explicit in the type.

For example in Scala, this example would be that user is of type Option[User] and the name property would also be Option[String] for example.

Then to safely get the name would be:

user.flatMap(_.name)

and the resulting type would be Option[String]

Which would then carry on the info that you don't know for certain that you know the name.

Right. But how much? I'm not from the US, but I know that the expectation is to tip. And I do. However, every time I leave some place I have this vague feeling of unease and guilt - technically I could have afforded to tip more. Was it enough? Did I offend them by accidentally calculating 15% instead of 20% ? Is the norm actually 30% in that place?

It'd just be so much easier if it was already included in the price.

I recommend http://inoreader.com/ - I'm not affiliated with it in any way, however I am a very happy user of it.

Things would be a lot simpler if it were faster though :)

Consider a modern cpu running at 3ghz. It can retire some instructions on every cycle. Light can travel one mm in that time. That means the part of the core that decodes the incoming stream of insns is effectively outside the lightcone of the part that retires instructions.

I'm quite the person to say that it is useless to me.

I also am quite free to have the opinion that a lot of content is simply a waste of time. I also propose the question of how much actual enjoyment it produces and the quality of said enjoyment. You are free to think otherwise :)

I'm not saying it's navigational inefficiency - it's giving me useless stuff that's really hard to stay away from. I don't want a platform that gives me a free shot of opium every now and then just to get me to stay there.

Being addictive is not a net positive!

"As demonstrated by engagement" - isn't really true. It's more "As demonstrated by count of time spent in the app". I believe that is true. But it's also a worse experience. Those two really seem to contradict each other, however, it's really quite nuanced.

I'd like to see mostly what my friends are up to. Instead of that, on Facebook at least, I mostly see viral videos from whatever groups I happen to be in. It is true that a lot of the time, those suck me into watching them. Technically that counts as "time spend in the app", but I also see that I'm wasting a lot of my time on crappy pointless videos and because of that I've actually not opened the app at all from time to time. In general, my attitude towards it has also changed - it used to be "ooh, exciting, let's see what's happened", now it's more like "meh, maybe this time there is something interesting, let's check, although probably not". Jaded is probably the correct description.

If people would be fully rational, then you would be correct. However, they are not (and shouldn't be imho, but that's another discussion).

Basically, it's about the ability or potential of going anywhere. I bought a car that technically has the ability to go off-road. The reality is that I probably never will. But it sure feels good to know that I could. Paid extra for it and all. Completely irrational, but makes me happy.

That's the reason that people worry about range and refueling time. It's not rational, it's just humane. We aspire to do more , see more and go further. Not all of us do, but it's a very human emotion. That's not a bad thing.

Certainly, I've been very lucky. No argument there.

But the only thing I'm saying is to not over romanticise the past. The life of a 14 century peasant was not good compared to mine.

I also realise that a lot of the comforts I enjoy are because lots of people spent time in boring offices before me. The article sounds quite dismissive of that.

I'm forever grateful and do my part to help. Nobody owes me a good life.

I never argued that. I do believe that things are much better now than in the 14th century though. That's the comment I replied to.

We should always strive to improve, but the article had the tone of "oh look how bad everything is" while implying that it hasn't always been like that. Things are far better now in almost any quantifiable measure than they have ever been in human history. Not enough people talk about that.

ooh. much better put than my longer rant in sibling comment.

Technically, you're probably right.

Realistically I also like to live in a nice house, do have to (well, by choice obviously) take care of three kids and like to enjoy a luxury here and there.

That takes money. I have tried multiple times to build my own companies, but sadly haven't been successful in that.

So that's for the travel argument.

As for the headache medication argument - I have that only because thousands of people have spent a lot of time in offices and labs developing those drugs and treatments.

Personally, my work mostly revolves around making wind turbines more efficient at producing energy by helping with data analysis. I also like to think that's my small way of offsetting the environmental damage I do by travelling. It's probably not enough, but still. something. So yeah, I'd say spending time at the office correlates quite nicely.

I work my ass off. Lot more hours than would be technically necessary. High tech as well.

I've also gone hiking in the mountains in California. Been on the beach in Italy. Walked around in the center of Munich.

As a 14th century peasant I probably never even knew those places existed.

I can also get pain medication if I have a headache. I can go to a doctor to fix my broken bones if I happen to get one. Oh, and the likelihood of dying of a random infection or chicken pox is exceedingly low.

Is is worth spending more time in a nice, warm, comfortable office to be able to do all of those things? Hell yes. Is it all shits and giggles all the time? Of course not.

If you calculate it out, then the long tail gets much more money in my scenario.

The main problem with Spotify is their payment structure to artists. When I pay their monthly fee, I want that money to go to the artists that I listen to. There would be a simple way to do this - take the money I pay, minus the Spotify cut to provide the service and then proportionally divide it among the artists that I listen to.

Do they do that? Oh no! Instead, they aggregate together all the music listened to and all the money paid them, take off their cut and then divide the total amount proportionately to artists.

Effectively this means that I'm paying for music that I don't listen to. I hate the fact that some of my money is going to Justin Bieber.

I live in a country with 1.3 million people total. So, not really :)

Yeah, totally. The other mindblowing thing is that since photons are moving at the speed of light, thus time for them pretty much stands still.

Thus, if a photon was created at the moment of the big bang and happens to "bump" into something else today then from the standpoint of the photon, it only "lived" for an instant.

(based on my level of physics understanding, so please do correct me if I'm wrong, thanks)

Thanks, I'll try that.

Didn't work that way for me - last time I was filling up, I did pay a bit more before than fit into the tank and checked the bank account later - got charged for the full amount.

Yes, absolutely you can go inside and pay, the annoying part there is that you have to guess how big the tank on the rental car is, especially when returning it full.

First world problems, yes :)