username91

Had never encountered this. It's very refreshing. Thank you!

Nice! I can feel less guilty about not trying to finish mine. :j

Made something really similar to apple's recently unveiled "universal control," but from Windows -> Mac. Lets me have the mouse wander off the side of the screen if "pushed hard" and it "pops out" on the mac. It has some issues with modifiers sticking and it's hard-coded to my network IPs and screen resolutions, PLUS it requires an unrelated tool I made to actually build the thing; it's on my "open source someday" list but it's not very other-programmer-friendly.

Made lots of other things but that's probably my fave and the strongest one for productivity.

Ah, cool! I can see that, thanks. :)

In that case I'd probably rephrase my original objection to say the "next guest" has nowhere to go, except when the they depend on the "next next" (etc.) guest finding a room in a "full" hotel - but I can see how that situation "never" comes up since they can pass the burden along infinitely.

I just feel like someday at the end of time, this poor unassuming new guest is gonna get cheated out of a room..

Thanks for chiming in.

I have trouble with that, though - if there's a "first guest", then I don't see there can't be a "last guest".. "room 1" and "room n" (as the article labels them) are equally arbitrary if there are infinitely many.

Room n+1's guest, similarly, has nowhere to go; the hotel is full. It has countably infinitely many rooms, and all of them are occupied.

I can only see a shift of guests being possible if you momentarily ignore the initial constraints.

I find this hard to follow. The "first" guest (who was in room 1, in the article) moves over one room. The "last" guest (showed as being in 'room n') has no room to go to; the hotel is full.

position:relative on everything if you wanted it to be visible. var undefined; Fun times.

I highly recommend playing https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/ through - maybe in the background - it's a great way to experience the entire mission and enjoy the interaction between the three astronauts.

My first machine was a 100mhz Pentium; Winamp used about 25% CPU to play MP3s - I did it all the time while coding and hanging out on IRC. Can't think why your friend's machine would struggle with the same setup. Maybe older versions of Winamp were underoptimized.

I used Sonique for a while because it looked amazing - slightly poorer performance, but felt worth it. Later on, Sonique "optimized" for later Pentium releases and it became much too slow on the P100, so I switched back to Winamp.

Also, it still boots. :)

I dropped off most of the WWW similarly a few years back. I was exhausted and the last thing I had the energy for was composing a post to several platforms and imagining all the incoming replies.

Love compact mode; use it all the time. I guess there's always userChrome.css

fwiw, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1693028#c67 requests the inverse - asks people with non-technical feedback to keep-out of bugzilla and instead comment in places like this.

That's a good attitude to keep in mind; thanks!

Seeing what other people are working on via HN dulls my desire to work on similar things, so it's a nice way to kill ambition and melt into complacency.

Interesting. I'm still mulling over some of your points, but overall what you're saying makes sense to me.

I appreciate you sharing your story - I'm sorry you had to deal with that experience.

Sorry for the lack of post history: I made an account to jump in.

You asked..

> how do you explain the very large number of people who spends tons of time and energy trying to get good at maths but fails to even grasp simple concepts like calculus?

One answer, as vector_spaces said, is that the learning environment can completely change the outcome of this effort. You agreed:

> Circumstances matter

It's true that talent being a factor doesn't contradict that, but given how homogenous early-life learning environments are, it's -extremely- difficult to tell whether a person "failed" because of lack of talent, vs. lack of the right environment to experiment and learn.

Basically, because a "wrong environment" fail looks like a "lack of talent" fail, I believe a lot of talented people don't find out that they have the talent in the first place, as they believe that an attempt in the wrong environment is as good as any attempt, and never try again - particularly if they've been chastised and humiliated -during- that learning process, as vector_spaces was.

In any case, the reason I wanted to jump in was because of your original statement:

>I don't think this is because people told them anything

I would just ask that you reconsider that position, based especially on your agreement that "circumstances matter." Thanks for reading.

[edit: linebreaks]