white-flame

The equation wasn't "rent < hoa + mortgage payment", it was "rent < hoa + mortgage interest". There is zero equity involved in the latter equation.

One shift in owning vs streaming media is that so much is accessible now.

In the past, you had what you purchased, what was in stock at the video rental place, and what you could VCR-program or catch live on maybe a couple dozen TV channels. Nowadays, bajillions of TV shows and movies are instantly available, such that people don't even have time to watch everything interesting that's available.

I would venture to say that more shows & movies are being created now than in the past, and a lot of them are quite good (probably more quality from series than movies, though).

The value of any individual piece of decent quality media has gone down, given the oversupply. However, there will always be individual pieces of media that are held in importance to a viewer, and those will want to be preserved in some form. Many with a naive assumption that their favorite piece will always be instantly streamable (legally) will certainly have a cold reckoning at some point.

Devices that are more efficient tend to be more complex, so that's another tradeoff to consider.

This still reinforces that they do act as "moral police" and are practicing selectively enforcement by mandate. That is not a reasonable communications policy for anything of any scale or importance.

Facebook should not be tampering with and editorializing private communications or the public square, which they have become.

This is really nice looking, and I can only imagine it'd be even more amazing in VR.

Real-time results updating is kind of heavenly, though.

I completely understand. But I would posit that that comment is valid as a technically specific point with intent to put people's emotional responses into perspective.

I think it's obvious that everyone is offensive to some non-zero count of people. Even if that is challenged, there is strong precedence that your current words can be read as ruinously offensive under currently-unknown future social sensitivities, which could retroactively punish you (assuming a continued extrapolation of punishable offensiveness from the current state).

In that, the nature of "being offensive" in and of itself is specifically not a valid distinguisher as it's always true. It's only when the level of offensiveness reaches some agreeable flash point where society acts in agreement that something is "too offensive" (as opposed to simply a binary "offensive"). But since everybody is "offensive" to some non-zero amount as a binary predicate, that word by itself becomes purely selective enforcement with everybody guilty by default.

The statement of "Something is always offensive" is well founded and speaking to a real problem, but yes it is unfortunate that its wording is very similar to defensive, reactionary, relativistic dismissal. In practice, "being offensive" is not actually that which is railed against; it is "agreeably too offensive" (or simply "antagonistic" which is a separate concept) that is the actual pursued distinguisher, while the former phrase is overly broad to a fault and is used in that way to cause real damages.

--

Having said all that, I wholeheartedly agree that all of the above can come across as stuffy, pedantic, and disconnected; and that people obviously tend to use "offensive" to mean "agreeably too offensive". HOWEVER, all of this is critically important when dealing with situations that have high stakes real world implications, especially when specifically codified terms of service, policy, or legislation are involved where the "letter of the law" rules.

Nowhere in any of this is anybody saying "banning shouldn't ever happen". The only point presented is that banning is by nature a judgment call and the goalposts change over time.

The primary implication is that the corpus of banned content includes generally agreeably banned content, arguably banned content, and a record of historical shifts in bannability.

You do seem to agree that the severity & background behind offensiveness is complex and subjective. Banning is binary, and so it never maps fully accurately to such complexity, especially when similarly complex/subjective humans and weak AI systems are involved.

Obviously, the list of banned content will contain a complex spectrum of offensiveness, including some really blatant stuff but also some where the banning is very questionable or inconsistent with respect to that which was not banned. It is the latter which is most interesting to preserve and study, but cannot be mechanically separated from the former, citing the original problem of who to ban in the first place.

The problem is that private enterprise is becoming the centralized controller of both personal and "public square" communications, being a ubiquitously editorializing middle man of common case and important speech.

This is completely different than, and carries higher stakes than the role that telecoms, hosting companies, and publishers have played in the past.

Notice that the OP's love language of "Quiet stability" is not listed there.

It's sorely undermentioned and often told that it's "wrong" in common western culture, even though tons of people (especially men) within it have that love language. That arbitrarily enshrined list of 5 is absolutely not representative of everybody.

Rotavator

"Metrics are a great servant, but a terrible master."

Wikipedia and the like are fine when each contribution is usually quite independent.

AI pursuit often involves a singular potential breakthrough idea that's larger than one person can work on in isolation, for any reasonable time frame. Certainly a group of people with low living expenses might be able to run a team of 3-4 people with this sort of budget, but it sounds like it's intended for individual researchers.

Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. For example, Microsoft has certainly changed core issues across the last decade or so. There's nothing special about Apple itself that would prevent such a shift either, given any future leadership change.

You do need a Google account to get to the pre-application page, just FYI.

(So I'm out. Also, reading about "unconventional" researchers being sought out is kind of disappointing compared to this likely unintentional requirement.)

Let me state this absolutely directly, for all other responses as well:

I'm talking about me and my life, and my family, and my friends. In various desperate situations, without money or time or car, working multiple jobs, and things in life going bad on top. Some made reasonable decisions about life, others not thinking and just muddling through, and others just checking out. Nobody's "meal planning", you grab whatever's cheap at the store (and that'll be grains, vegetables, and some meat) and make a pile of it at home to feed from or take along to work, so you don't have to cook often or go out much.

I don't know why everybody jumps to "You don't understand the people you're talking about!" Lots of people (even here on HN) have been there, or know people who have been there. There are tons of ways that life plays out, and having horrible situations is not some guarantee that your life is cemented into a perpetual downhill and that any other thinking is "out of touch".

It's just a lot harder, and sucks a lot more. But it becomes the new normal in your life. You do what you need to do, and you'd better figure out what you need to do, because tomorrow is staked on it. Plus, any little progress is still progress; even if you're not a millionaire at the end, at least it's not as bad as it was last year, and work to continue that at any scale for the next.

I don't think you read my rant at all. Times like that suck, and you have to work hard. Stating "I have to work hard!" is just a tautology in that situation. "Managing their situation" is even in the little baby steps, not some silver bullet to turn it into a cakewalk.

I don't know what exactly you're projecting on me (or how I'm somehow different than "them", giving "them" more of a voice), but I was certainly talking about being in the miserable times, with no available money or time, not casting down edicts from an ivory tower of disconnected comfort.

Then I truly and seriously feel sorry for them if they consider managing their situation to be a laughable absurdity.

But be careful not to project that as the expected case, and ignore the reality of others' lives (yes, like mine and family & friends around me, if it's even necessary to state). That's dangerous tribalism that normalizes failure.

They're ready to grab if you sensibly prepare a bunch of food ahead of time, once or twice a week. Nobody who's strapped for time starts from scratch every meal, and our American fridges are plenty large.

Besides, if I may rant a bit: If you have no money, then time, effort, knowledge, and social currency is what you have to spend to get by. Either you're going to spend those things, or spend money you don't have which will make your immediate future immediately worse. This is a situation that sucks to be in, and the only way to have any sense of even partially managing this is discipline. Many of us have grown up in and/or lived through these sorts of situations as adults, and you simply do what you have to and try to be smart about it. Obviously you need to put in time and effort, and do the dishes. But you can buffer things a bit to match your schedule, or establish specific routines, and any little lessening or organization of crunch is a huge affirming step. If you step back for a bit you also see that maintaining your health (including having mental and physical energy) is super important when you have no money and are working hard, and so making food at home hits multiple critically important facets. It does not matter that it takes effort, what matters is that you put forth effort commensurate to what you're facing.

And to position this back to the initial contentious point, it reaffirms my position that it is not an issue of healthy groceries being somehow priced higher, but rather that of stressful life situations that people turn to convenience food (with the time sink of shopping/shorter-prep/cleanup or driving/ordering/waiting at restaurants still intact).

Yes, when I eat fast food, it's always from the value menu. But if you're strapped for cash, $3 per meal on a consistent basis still adds up, compared to <$1 meals prepared at home and ready to grab from the fridge.

Certainly convenience & taste is a factor in these decisions as well, but if the primary pain point is raw cost for your baseline consumption because you have no money to spare, you really should be kitchen-based.

Of course, all of this assumes that one is being financially sensitive, and not just impulse spending without realizing how much is trickling out. Too many people I know who struggle with their meager finances (even if they make similar or more than I do) are entirely too flippant and just go for the $10 combo meal, not realizing how often they're "treating themselves" and how it's adding up against their monthly balance.

I intended all that be lumped under "high stress".

> People is overweight because they can not afford healthy food. Fruits and other healthier food is more expensive than junk food.

While I agree with the sentiment of your post, the meme quoted above needs to stop. Two bags of Doritos cost as much as a package of raw chicken that can feed a family, not to mention mass quantities of rice, beans, or even potatoes. Fruits and vegetables are very often <1 USD per pound. A single fast food combo meal can hit $10 USD, which can be groceries for one person for a week.

The problem with bad diets emerge from high stress, transportation issues, and lack of food education; not price tags.

And that's another facet of the penal system's practical bias against the poor.

It certainly is in Arizona (called on-peak and off-peak), where air conditioner usage is high during the day.

I have no idea how any of that is unique to Lisp or lambda calculus. If you want a tree or graph structure in another language, you'll have random access of nodes in memory, too.

If you want to manually optimize such a linked data structure on top of an array of node structs using offsets, or hash tables, or whatever, you can do that in Lisp or any other language as well.

Any form of non-serialized memory access will penalize you in today's memory heirarchies, no matter the language. Care can be taken in any language to have cache-aligned data structures and preprocessing to attempt to linearize the most common access patterns, usually with preallocated arrays. But generally that level of fine-grained microoptimization isn't needed, and basic data structure best practices are language-agnostic.

> The mechanical skills of wielding a pencil or mixing paint are almost trivial; the hard part is being able to see what's actually there.

Cool, now draw a picture of a hand wielding a pencil. :-)

I agree, but it should also describe what Scheme continuations are, compared to the delimited function object continuations that are used in practice elsewhere.

However, the notion is technically subsumed within the notion of a "simplified" language, as Scheme continuations are a low level operation quite often used to construct what other languages have out of the box.

Cons-based tree data structures have little to do with data processing in Lisp. Specifically, it is a compile time feature (which is available at runtime, too) that source code is contained in these structures in a sort of AST gives it its metaprogramming capabilities.

The runtime data crunching, GC, and optimization techniques aren't substantially different from other modern dynamic (or semi-dynamic) languages, though Lisp tends to have more features (dynamic bindings, complex numbers, in-language macros, etc). Cons cells at runtime are usually used as plain linked lists, as any dynamic list/array would be in other languages.

None of that is relevant to active classroom learning when the teacher needs the class's attention (except the pictures, but I agree with peer posts about that). Those are fine during study & homework, though.