NobleLie

Correct me if im wrong but the argument in the post is that currently, we do have unwilling and untrained world citizens, unable to compose useful programs/functions from baser functions and APIs. But he/she takes the utopian viewpoint; they can and will have a reason to learn. And those who dont will suffer or be at some minor or massive disadvantage. It was stated that at some point citizens of the world, on average didnt know basic maths. And on average, that changed or is at least changing...

So why not be hopeful that the modern laziness of the human who wishes to scroll through a twitter stream of Facebook feed slowly dissolves and is replaced by people who wish to make computation more useful to them? More personal to their needs, and more able to help them accomplish their goals of obtaining amd organizing knowledge and their life?

I agree with the premise, not that, currently, all of us are ready for such an implementation. It'll require a reboot of our education system, and what we think is important to teach in schools.

> Most people call a mechanic when their car starts spewing smoke. I think it's fair that most people would call a programmer when they need an application made.

The major difference between the mechanics world and programmers world is that one is 100% symbolic, the parts are (potentially) free, reusable, and non-degradable. Given someone knows functional math, and is provided with these free, reusable and non degradable parts, surely, itd be a much easier task than learning everything about cars and the ways they can fail.

This futuristic building block programming world still maintains professional programmers who create abstractions that are easily composed. After all, thats the hard part, right? (Beyond scaling and centralizing, which as the article points out, may be a problem caused by the need for centralization in the first place)

> I think it's utterly and completely unrealistic to expect the average person to know how to patch together APIs in order to deliver functionality.

I feel like you are making this sound harder than it really is. Again, its the easiest part of programming, and yes non programmers dont know how to do it, but is it any different (or difficult) than forcing or suggesting them to learn calculus (or pre-calculus) in high school?

Surely there is a mistake when you say such an android would exceed the size of the universe, right? Have you done any calculation or can you cite any source which remotely claims this? Im interested.

I agree wholeheartedly with the premise presented in this essay. And I hope that sometime in the future we collectively all realize the benefits and figure out the implementation.

Being nit picky but:

> I still can't get Gmail to do even simple tasks like schedule an email to be sent later or batch up all incoming emails containing a certain phrase into a weekly digest!

You can do the latter with labels in gmail.

> No microorganism gets to move for free. Newton’s third law, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, becomes something of a tautology, for there are no longer any actions.

I acknowledge this post was made by a scientific author catering to the masses who have little experience with physics but this is misleading and wrong.

Nothing gets to move for free (according to known laws and our mutual agreement of what it means to have a 'potential' energy) of course including microorganisms. He even contradicts himself by earlier stating that the tiny organisms do move miniscule distances on the order of angstroms, micrometers etc after they stop "swimming" ( applying a force to the water (abiding by newtons third law, and thus, swimming.) They do have both positive and negative accelerations.

Taking into account the micro fraction force and size of these tiny "things" compared to larger "things" this conclusion just makes a whole lot of intuitive sense, regardless of ones understanding of Reynolds number

Finally, to get a numerical grasp of how the physics is different for small Reynolds number, the average ecoli is 2 micrometers, and an angstrom is 0.0004 micrometers which I admit is interesting, since in one of his exemplary cases, the bacteria only travels 1/5,000 of its average length before stopping, whereas a human may travel maybe 1/2 body length before stopping, swimming at ~0.5 m/s.

I'm impressed; that's one useful and smooth looking interface you have there (just watched your demo)

Anything in particular about your service that one would be hard pressed to find in another KM system?

I'd say im pretty interested (in the frontend eng position) and will send you an email later (My name's Ben.)

I agree with your distinction between browser application and the web. Its very frustrating to be bombarded with tons of javascript that introduce nothing of value; usually advertisements and petty fanciness.

But that being said, ive been developing a heavy javascript SPA ( Single Page Application ) and have been writing javascript that is going to be very useful to (certain types of) users.

Im more than happy to download a large bundle of javascript (and css) if im getting an application (and preferably not on my phone)

And in defense of SPA's which dont even have web in them, good ones are a portal to a location on the web (a model type and id) loaded usually via json with html re-rendered on the client. And even better ones have history implemented. So they can feel very like the web...given js is enabled(!)

But of course I understand the "why reimplement what browsers already offer?" SPA's feel almost indistinguishable from a desktop app if done right...

What are your opinions on SPAs?

Thanks for adding this comment. Having good CSS practices is important, but if a module has styles that only it should ever see, why the abstraction to another file/location is beneficial is puzzling me. Bulkier CSS or bulkier templates? (And if those templates are rendered programmatically on the client like many single page applications there's no penalty due to js caching.)

Perhaps your body is telling you that the foods you previously decided to eat aren't working. Dont listen to the sibling poster to eat a burger and fries, thats non-sense (at least by my standards)

Us Americans (or if you arent American, the same applies to other first world countries) eat too much and they freak out when they hear someone else fasting. Now, your apparent depression does sound worrying to me, but you should be free to fast for a few days without the judgment of others.

But on actually eating something: Are you a fruit person? Try buying a container of raspberries, blueberries or strawberries (or whatever fruit you like) Ideally, also pick up something green (I like steamed broccoli sprinkled with garlic powder) Or have some oatmeal and throw any of those berries and a banana in (perhaps with some seeds/nuts - I quite enjoy hemp seeds in my oatmeal lately)

These foods are delicious to me and provide actual nutrition. Sometimes I fast for an extended period of time (skip a few meals to a couple of days,) but if these foods are lying around I tend to enjoy them greatly.

Also try peaking at the sun during sunrise. Great way to start the day in my anecdotal opinion. (And there is a lot of scientific evidence that sun helps with "blue" moods)

Yes!! Love ya. Seriously, thanks.

Thanks, these all look interesting but weren't the original source I was looking for. I'm adding them to my reading list regardless

u/brettkromkamp found it. Always bet on text!

Sure.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/525/2/594/fulltext/39505...

As much as I was hesitant to question many things taught to me as truth in my physics, electrodynamics and quantum mechanics courses, I did. And was surprised. Some of it just doesn't corroborate with physical observations. I'm obviously not saying it's all wrong; that's stupendous foolish. But you should be more open to it instead of typing three words of dismissal.

"One can acquire certainty only by amputating inquiry"

Society of Mind, Marvin Minsky

EU theory contains a lot of supposed explanations. I do it injustice (as do themselves) by labelling it as one all encompassing theory. It becomes easier to dismiss as a whole since not every single thing presented under the umbrella might be truthful.

That being said, here's one that you might benefit from thinking about. The modern explanation of redshift from astronomical bodies seems just plain wrong. Why? There are large currents of plasma which are observed to connect two objects whose measured redshift (according to mainstream astrophysics) would put them at different sections of the universe.

Since we use redshift to make assumptions about the nature of spacetime, the big bang and an accelerating, expanding universe; the latter invoking necessary dark matter and dark energy (a purely theoretical, abstract idea by scientists which might never be found experimentally) this point deserves more credence than other points which fall under EU.

Thanks for the link. Checking it out now.

Anyway, after around 5 to 10 hours of investigative reading on EU, it seems quite worthy to think about/ follow up on.

At the minimum it's become quite apparent that the Astronomical Standard Model has plenty of spots which are expressed as truth, when there are real problems with observation. I'm not even claiming EU is going to better, but staunch supporters do highlight some interesting inconsistencies and seemingly misguided judgements of modern astronomers. That's not to say their own pet theories are bound to be better though.

Electric Universe Theory has non-mainstream coherent and sensible explanations for these type of phenomena. Any HN users well versed in it's explanations? Been reading up on it lately and I'd like to discuss.

Coincidentally, I was just looking into your question; this should answer your concern.

"Since every user has their own unique random salt, two users who happen to have the same password get different salted hashes. [If] the dictionary attack is foiled, the attacker cannot compute the hashes of every word in a dictionary once and then check every hash in the table for matches anymore. Rather, the attacker is going to have to re-hash the entire dictionary anew for every salt. A determined attacker who has compromised the server will have to mount an entire new dictionary attack against every user's salted hash, rather than being able to quickly scan the list for known hashes." [0]

[0]: http://www.developerfusion.com/article/4679/you-want-salt-wi...

Fascinating story. Thanks for sharing, though I hope you understand my general doubt. But you'd expect that since I'm so far away from these strange occurrences.

Getting back to the point of this thread: when you pray, are you praying to something external, or are you praying to an internal divided, yet more divine, disconnected self?

One interpretation that you seem to overlook in favor of an external demonic possession: he has sociopathic tendencies (perhaps spying on you) and was attempting to manipulate you into thinking he is/was possessed. Maybe you even got wasted with Jim once and let out some secrets. Anyway, I If true, he succeeded in defending his criminal behavior by outsourcing his internal evil on bogus societal constructs such as religion or demonic possession. I see why you got downvoted though; the OP makes a yet another more plausible case of splitting of the self, or growth of a more evil, maniacal self.

I've heard of both of these theories (cleanse and consolidation) but it's kind of strange how the first sentence of the abstract is "The purpose of sleep remains mysterious." If the researchers have any confidence in their work, why are they using this language? Why not "sleep is not as mysterious" or "sleep is no longer mysterious"?

It's logical sentiments that have faded to the unconscious. If the society you are within has the same elements in their unconsciousness, information bandwidth to convey a message is reduced for all parties, with An unknown amount of subtle complexities (within messages) still successfully conveyed.

This idea (amongst many other gems) comes from a great short book I just finished on cybernetics (old, old book) The Human Use of Human Beings (1950) by Norbert Weiner

But I'm more on your side, only because I think we should be able to elaborate on the elements that faded to the unconscious, since if we cannot, we will not be able to apply the subtle rules in novel ways

> The humanities have been hacking human minds for millennia. They've become so good at it it's possible to hack the beliefs of entire populations so subtly those populations don't notice they're being... modified.

I had to chime in here and congratulate you on your fine explanation of the concept Plato deemed the Noble Lie. I don't want to assume you know of its but I'll go ahead and do so anyway, since you seem the type.

For others, it's truly fascinating : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

Humans so readily eat them for breakfast, lunch, dinner and in our dreams.

Not to say I am such a grand detective at the age of 23, but I feel as if the building software has taught me (and will continue to teach me,) many valuable logical lessons, which help me to methodically deconstruct things beyond programming (stories, my beliefs, other people's beliefs.) This would make sense since usual we build software by translating those things (stories and beliefs) into the fractal complexity necessary to achieve a real solution.

I can't think of any better substitution than teaching logic through programming since I happen to agree with one of the parents in that pure logic in philosophy is slightly harder to pin down concretely for younger minds. They are also less apt to pick up on and find existential value in philosophy.

In other words, I'm completely for programming literacy in middle, and high school. Especially for it's ineffectiveness with logic, but also to since they are just beginning to realize the complex programs in their very own mind (built by themselves... or others.) I'd want them (and everyone) to know how to deconstruct and find roots, reasons, and rationale.

1 hour for one person does not equal 1 hour for another

Time spent on certain activities is more beneficial than time spent on others. The best example is the difference between a proactive team/committee member versus a lazy one who is there to, well, put in their time.

Some people are more inept, less intellectual and emotionally equipped than others.

Basically, there is a problem of equivalence in your proposed system that I don't think is possible to resolve. But of course, there's also the inevitable advantages offered by such concrete rules for ascension. There are no shortcuts...at the minimum you need to "show up" for, most probably, an inordinate amount of time to be any one of importance in the political sphere.

The ramifications of that might be numerous and worth examining from a theoretical standpoint. Money is stripped of its influence in such a concrete system. That's the biggest positive I can pin down... perhaps your point in the OP?

It seems as if you are inspired by grinding a la video games, which is such a simplistic system compared to leveling up in "life."

> Rather than artificially fixing the supply of labor at an arbitrary level and penalizing people for their honest work until some give up, it's better to "buy out" the laziest among us. Sure they won't be contributing to society, but at least they won't prevent others from receiving fair compensation which is exactly what happens in the otherwise inevitable race to the bottom.

I feel like you are missing the point that the "bottom" (lazy? I would most likely disagree...lazy + unfortunate genes / birth status / location perhaps) has a much better, easier, fairer chance (in obvious unison with a reduction of unemployment,) given organizations reduce the time worked per day, thus opening up opportunities for currently employed (more leisure time) and the unemployed (the jobless)

That's not to say this model has severe flaws. It's more utopian than what are we faced in capitalist societies now, but goes against business profit maximization, which I'll simplify in a useful manner: organizations like to hire as few people as possible and use as much of their leisure time as possible in order to reduce benefits expected by most workers increasingly expensive benefits that they've come to expect in long term cushy jobs.

The recent uptick in free lance jobs is rough for this very reason. It's less risky to sell most your leisure time to large companies.

That's my personal diagnosis. As for my solution...the the non risk averse must continue(create) their own entrepreneurship endeavors and as the older generation dies out, destroy the [8-9]-[5-6] scourge imbued unto us by unionized industrialists of the past and craft new culture. Keep companies running smoothly with more employees working less time. Any opinions/counterpoints would be appreciated. I'd perhaps be considered an idealist with high expectations of the future.

P.S Long time lurking/reading here on HN and finally beginning to post. Always appreciate the comment threads more than any other web site.

Didn't know this was a misquote. Thanks. Still, it fits great in this thread's context obviously.

Although I like and appreciate the point of it, this time one enjoys "wasting" shouldn't have initially been labelled wasted if it was actually enjoyed. Maybe I'm picking on the words too much.

Perhaps this quote is intended to invoke a sense of strange loopiness. It's a proper defense to those who might feel guilty for being the type of idle that Russel describes. Once understanding it, one must wash away any notion (or criticism from society) that they are wasting time.

Agree with you 100%.

It's also quite frustrating that to revert back to the default bookmark manager, one needs to mess around with settings in a way I'm not sure the average user knows how to access (about:flags in the address bar)

I have high expectations with managing my links, articles, bookmarks though, and I doubt any system that tries to auto organize will work for me...

It's interesting you use the word "worry". I've come to think that the act of organizing is crucial to memory consolidation and furthering ones mental models.

For this reason I've completely lost faith in folder structures for optimally organizing my digital life...tags and graphs/connections highly preferred (closest systems that emulate our internal information/knowledge repository)