I watched a grand designs episode where the parents (well, inflicted by the wife) Munchausen by proxied these allergies onto their kids. They were obsessive about having an allergy free house and spent hundreds of thousands building one with, basically a lesser version of what you explained up there.
Revisiting several years later, the children had integrated with society (amazing that they weren’t homeschooled) and lo and behold - allergy free.
The provocative host coaxed out of the parents that they believed that the house did bugger all in terms of helping their children.
I wonder how the kids are doing now without their namby mother
If you're an engineer, contribute to technologies that take power away from those who lord over you. Which in this case would be distributed, censorship-resistant communication technologies. There's a lot of work to be done, not only in hard engineering, but also in things like UI and marketing, as widespread adoption is the best way to maximise the chance of success. For all its flaws, cryptocurrency (in particular anonymous ones like Monero) is a demonstration that this is possible: no government desires for its citizens to have a means to transact large sums anonymously online, yet Monero still exists. And as governments impose more restrictions on the internet, there'll be more and more demand for means to bypass those restrictions.
By all means work on better privacy technology but censorship isn't a technology problem. It is a human problem. We cannot work around ignorance forever. We have to engage the system to affect real change.
Over the last few years, it's become ever more apparent to me that technology can't fix what's broken. Even as we invent more ways to bypass censorship it becomes more so that people have less to say that I might want to hear with those technologies. And it's not just an ideological thing either, because best I can tell there's plenty of that stuff for whichever way you lean. What I mean is that people write less, there's less for me to read. But they have plenty of hustlely Youtube videos of the sort I have no inclination to watch. Less journalism, but plenty of opinions/editorials (I have enough opinions of my own, thanks). Less music... the whole recording industry seems to have imploded.
We're not in danger of censorship so much as we're in danger of there no longer being anything for them to censor away from me. I don't think it's just me either, I know some of you are seeing the same things I am.
Sure. I'm absolutely certain that there has always been music... so much 15th century Bulgarian folk music that it could fill a record store, for instance. But just because that music existed doesn't mean I have access to it or even awareness of it unless I am an academic researcher that pours years of my life into it. Your indy music stuff is just like that... but I have no desire to spend the next 10 years learning to dig it out of remote corners of the world just to listen to it.
It's permanently and sociologically walled off from me in ways that I don't care to overcome. If I was interested in music discovery in 1980, how many record stores would I have had access to that I could walk into and just browse? How many of those are still around today? While radio was still pretty bad in 1980, it wasn't 12-stations-of-ClearChannel bad... I've heard those same 300 songs on an endless loop since I was a child.
They represent their constituents - you are one of those. If the majority of their constituents support the legislation they're doing their job. Could you post their full response to you? Pretty shocking if they accused you of being a terrorist pedophile and worth making people aware of which MP this was!
However you really need to name your MP. These political public figures need named and shamed for using binary fallacious logic like that. And barring listening to constituents, get rid of them.
It looks the way it does because we like to see patterns even where there are none. E.g. you see a number 696969 and this seems more significant than 482649 for whatever reason
Prime numbers are a pattern; take the natural numbers - starting after 2, exclude every number that isn't 2, starting after 3, exclude every number that isn't 3, etc.
It repeats like this predictably. Even though it changes, the way in which it changes is also predictable. Their repetition and predictability make prime numbers a pattern.
Out of the fundamental pattern of prime numbers, higher-level patterns also appear, and studying these patterns is a whole branch of math. You can find all kinds of visualizations of these patterns, including ones linked in this thread.
It's not that you're seeing a pattern that's not there, it's that you're seeing a pattern that gradually becomes infinitely complex.
Prime numbers have extremely well understood patterns and this is what he's seeing. There's a weird and persistent myth that there's 'no patterns in prime numbers' but of course factors repeat at known intervals and prime numbers are the inverse of numbers with factors. So if you can accept that numbers with factors have a pattern to them (which should be obvious, they repeat at known intervals by definition) you should be able to accept prime numbers, the inverse of numbers with factors, have patterns too since they are just the gaps in the pattern of numbers with factors.
These patterns were documented and well understood starting in BC times by Erasthosenes and learning them as part of prime number theory is a 101 course in tertiary maths education. So it's really really weird for anyone to say "there's no patterns". There are and they are extremely well understood and known.
Here's a simple pattern; All prime numbers above 2 are odd. Well duh right? Otherwise they'd be a multiple of 2, not prime.
Well let's extend this. All prime numbers above 6 are of the form 6n + 1 or 6n +5. Otherwise they'd be a multiple of 2 or 3.
Once more; All prime numbers above 30 are of the form 30n + one of [1,7,11,13,17,19,23,29]. Anything else would be a multiple of 2,3 or 5. You can extend this forever. Note each time we do this we're reducing how many numbers could possibly be prime. From 1/2 to 2/6 to 8/30 numbers possibly being prime. Keep going with this and you'll converge to the prime counting function.
Basically whenever you have a composite number there's well understood periodic gaps in primality. People understand this more intuitively for base 10 where anything ending in 0,2,4,6,8 is a multiple of 2 and anything ending in 0,5 is a multiple of 5 hence you only get primes ending in 1,3,7,9 when writing in base 10 but this idea works for any composite number. This leads to the extremely well known and well understood patterns you get when you graph primes in various ways.
For one I do not want to run my startup at the mercy of VC funded tech. Node.js is open source and maintained by a foundation, it will not "run out of funds" or be abandoned if there is no profitability in the near future.
Yeah, but it's not a big bet. Deno can do it, Bun can do it, if they die a tragic VC-fueled death then somebody else (maybe Node) can do it. Using Bun to me is just like using a microwave oven in 1980 — there weren't a lot of microwavable convenience foods yet, but you could sure heat up some leftovers more conveniently and quickly.
Command c command v works fine for me because I don’t “optimise” my experience.
It’s a fun game to do I guess but if you become “more productive” by having a slightly quicker mechanism to find a file through 9 different chords on your terminal only interface - you likely aren’t solving problems that are worthwhile.
I've heard this opinion worded slightly different many, many times over the years. I just can't agree with it. You're going to spend thousands of hours infront of a computer, it makes sense to invest time in being "efficient".
You reach a point of diminishing returns with everything. You can only gain so much knowledge/intelligence/experience before every increase in that becomes extremely difficult. Trying to become "smarter" when you are already "smart" is much harder than getting easy efficiency wins.
There are people that take it to the extreme of course, where they spend all their time on extremely tiny efficiency wins instead of learning how to program, but that's the same problem in reverse.
It's a pretty old concept, the first time I've seen it given a proper name was "aggregation of marginal gains" [0].
Yes. Yes they are weird buffers in that you have to spend some (minor) effort remembering what exactly is in the "clipboard", "selection", and the difference of invoking them between apps (e.g. having to Ctrl+Shift+V in the terminal).
Oh, and the fact that selection buffer gets overwritten if you switch between apps with active selections.
Oh, usually there's also a cherry on top in that everyone's darling, vim, doesn't even interact with any of those and has its own buffers aka registers.
I'm sure if there was a way to track how many time you make and undo mistakes in copy-pasting the wrong thing from the wrong buffer, your assumptions would be seriously challenged.
> I'm sure if there was a way to track how many time you make and undo mistakes in copy-pasting the wrong thing from the wrong buffer, your assumptions would be seriously challenged.
> Oh, and the fact that selection buffer gets overwritten if you switch between apps with active selections.
> Does it fix the issue with the multiple buffers and minor annoyances?
The stuff you mentioned so far is all about you not configuring your setup:
- buffers: You configure your clipboard manager to use a single buffer.
- vim: configure to use global clipboard if that's your preference
- X11: dont use legacy software
> No. It just adds a different friction point.
You think using software that implements functionality you deem missing "adds friction", and yet you still want said missing functionality and complain about it is missing.
Not really. If I have a service where I need one click to perform an action and store data. It has to be a GET. You can’t post from a url… purist dogma for the sake of purist dogma
I watched a grand designs episode where the parents (well, inflicted by the wife) Munchausen by proxied these allergies onto their kids. They were obsessive about having an allergy free house and spent hundreds of thousands building one with, basically a lesser version of what you explained up there.
Revisiting several years later, the children had integrated with society (amazing that they weren’t homeschooled) and lo and behold - allergy free.
The provocative host coaxed out of the parents that they believed that the house did bugger all in terms of helping their children.
I wonder how the kids are doing now without their namby mother