vrotaru

Just yesterday I've watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88-szpeNfrU

Long story short: keep the traditional getters and setters but have just a byte[] field to store the object state. For example If you need just the date (without the time) you can store it in 2 bytes, say 7 and 8, and in getDate() method you do

    public Date getDate() {
         int day = bytes[8] * 256 + bytes[9]
         return new Date(day * MILLIS_PER_DAY);
    }

Some of the improvements are amazing

Well the spam-bots will learn to generate cool stories, we may actually enjoy spam..

Has anyone trained RNN on YCombinator comments ?

Probably you have old ```.julia``` folder. Remove it and try again

It seems that you argue for subtyping for the sake of subtyping.

Up to you man. Peace.

Sidestepping much? We are, obviously, not speaking about a natural language here.

I think this is an example of an hierarchy without a purpose.

Pointless OO, what's not to love here..

   ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
   ...
   extends IndexOutOfBoundsException
   extends RuntimeException
   extends Exception
   extends Throwable

Not exactly an abomination, but I would not call it thing of beauty

And more mini-languages which are implemented in Ocaml, here:

https://github.com/andrejbauer/plzoo

Just in case you can explain it quickly. What happens if the people you know and trust let your down? (It that's a phrase)

The one who is last is holding the IOU is gonna support the loss ?

Actually the point Greanspun (not Greensburg) is trying is whether her brother confidence

     would have resulted in an A in a physics class at Caltech.

This is bad???

Sandberg confirms that “A is Average” at Harvard. Her brother David, a neurosurgeon whom Sandberg admires because currently “he splits child care duties with his wife fifty-fifty”, was also a Harvard undergrad. He takes “a class in European intellectual history”, skips all but two lectures and all but one book, gets tutored for three hours and receives an A for the semester (p32-33). The guy’s success is attributed to the general confidence of men. Sandberg does not consider how likely it is that her brother’s confidence would have resulted in an A in a physics class at Caltech.

As I understand it the Bitcoin is HTML and bitcoind is Netscape

It does not make a lot of sense, to disagree/disaprove of HTML, and hail a Netscape alternative.

> Things have real value.

That's dodging the question. And in a rather clumsy way. The "use value" of things depends heavily on epoch, person, even fashion and weather. So what is exactly "real" in real value?

> the present value of future cash flows

You don't say! Sorry but a) future cash flows is an estimation at best b) the present value of future cash flows depends heavily on the circumstances of the valuator.

On whether you have a debt to a mobster to pay, or an angry girlfriend to placate..

> That's not the inherent value.

Show me your inherent-value-meter, or shut up. Simple, eh?

First let me explain, what I was replaying to.

The OC argument to seems to be, bitcoin and beany babes are expression of the same idea and beanie babes flopped. Ergo bitcoin will fail.

Hence the question about greenbacks, which are now not worth a continental.

Yes, you can say that greenbacks are doing great, comparatively speaking, but than if greenbacks ~= dollars and beanie babies ~= bitcoins, than you are bound to say that.. beanie babies are at least moderately successful

Which if I understood the OC correctly it is exactly the opposite of what was implying.

Cheers

Now that's fanboyism at its worst. I mean, equating A with something X when it is not clear, how even remotely similar those are, but where X conveniently failed some time ago.

But to reply in kind, how are greenbacks these days?

The stock market is a place the stock is traded.

A bitcoin exchange is a place where the bitcoin is traded.

Obviously this is neither the only actual, nor potential use of bitcoin.

yes, but for one thing

a) no one cares b) it is not a hard limit, actually

and, maybe, a) has something to do with b)

There will be only 21 million bitcoins. Ever.

You're confusing money and wealth. And you saying it yourself, to quote "your wealth increases"

Yes, but this is not the same as making money. You're are not richer in relative terms, than you were. It's only stuff who has get cheaper around.. because people have learned how to produce stuff more efficiently, i.e. cheaper.

And you example with doubling population (in a few years no less) is cheating because.. because you have just added a lot poor people into example.. But, OK. Suppose those of two extra people a person A kids.. But what exactly logic are they not entitled to the whole value of their parent savings?

You do not "make" money, when you hide them under a mattress.

Assuming a stable money supply, when all is said and done, you own the same fraction of total purchasing power at the end that period as you had when it started.

You do not get richer, if that's what you mean by making money. You just keep what you had.

I know, how unfair!

> Any system in which people can end up with the same portion of an economy after sitting both their labor and their capital out on the sidelines for 100 years is fundamentally broken.

Assertions. Words. Some of those strong..

To be frank, I'm disappointed, but.. I'll manage that, no need to worry.

Well, I disagree, with the interpretation of events known as Great Depression as a deflationary spiral.

Yes, there was a deflationary event. As there were many before, and the last one before in 1920-1921, when the wholesale prices fall by a whopping 40%. But a deflationary event does not make a deflationary spiral.

There were also a lot silly activism both from the part of the Hoover and Roosevelt. The later speaking, beside other things about outright nationalization, and driving thus the busyness investment into ground..

So a lot happened than which make the Great Depression Great but deflationary spiral is not THE explanation.

> If I have shillings equal to 5% of GDP, and I put myself into cryosleep for 100 years, there is no reason I should expect my uninvested shillings to still have 5% of GDP. This is a child's view of an economy.

Can your elaborate? Actually it an argument against the idea that hoarding gives some kind rent. It doesn't.

But again, can you elaborate? If own 5% of land and go to a cryosleep for a hundred years, how much of that do you expect to own when you wake up?

What does exactly happen when an economy grows from 10 billion quatloos to 11 billion quatloos?

Until you tell me that, we are measuring woomdums in quatloos and while that can be kind of fun.. it not very rewarding.

If you speaking about physical output.. than the only way achieve this is to learn to produce woomdums cheaper.. Then there is no harm in selling them cheaper.

So do I want the money to grow to a degree that it will anihiliate the increase in productivity? Certainly not.

a) Now, that's a different assertion from the original one. (People will stop buying stuff). I'm glad we agree on this one. Ain't gonna happen.

b) Are saying the well-off never squander money on stupid things?

Is the last sentence some kind of "ad hominem"? Because, it would be a pity.

a) Time preference (I guess you have a phone, even if..)

b) Marginal utility of every extra unit of money decreases when a person holds more of them. Couple that with falling prices and you have the killer of deflationary spiral.

A nice theory, though. The deflationary spiral one. But just a theory. Never happened.

First you have missed the all things equal caveat, second people hoarding cash will not lead to a deflationary spiral, who give that idea?

It will lead to a new equilibrium. The greater the cash balances and lower the prices the greater the temptation to spend, and to break the spiral.

Well, that's exactly my point. In a system with a fixed money supply (all things equal) the only way to have price deflation is to have greater output, greater productivity.

Now tell me again, how this is awful?

EDIT: As for the rent seeking.. If you hold your money for a while, while the productivity soars, then after a while you can buy more stuff, but only because the stuff has become cheaper.

As a fraction of total buying power you are still were you were before. Do you really call it rent-seeking?

Price deflation or money deflation?

Price deflation is a good thing. I'm typing on something which is a "living" proof of these.

You are joking right?

But if you are serious, error is here: But I discover that prices have dropped by 4%

You do not simply drop prices, like that. Why did prices drop? (Price) deflation is just a descriptive name not a moving cause. (Price) deflation is not a knob which someone simple turns up and down.

Now depending on why exactly the prices did drop, and by how much you may be either in or out of luck.