acomar

It's really not. It seems limited because of what people have decided are strategies that win and so the strategies that people try. However, this is not, entirely, what macro refers to. Try playing a game of starcraft. Try to keep up with worker construction, base management, unit construction, and basic map presence. It's harder than you think, even at the top levels of the game.

Not really. Stopping MarineKing from sending tons of APM is only part of the challenge. His choices for what to do in any given frame (yes, frame) are also just better than basically every player on the ladder. If you remove his keyboard, you'll find that he still wins most games against folks who don't know the game.

Quick google search found me this[0] which seems like a decent replacement. I'm only guessing on the specific feature set you find useful, however.

[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/s3google-tran...

No. It's obvious and unambiguous from the inside. It's not necessarily so from the outside. We deal with these kinds of things in the courts, all the time, but that's an obviously untenable proposition for Craigslist.

The name alone is enough for you to accuse her channel of being soft-core porn? Come on. Reading her Wikipedia page, I see nothing objectionable and a lot that's admirable. It sounds like the channel subverts the traditional appearance and role of women.

> she is notable for her strong advocacy of women in STEM, transhumanism, open source, and body modifications,[1][2] variously challenging both gender and tech stereotypes with her flamboyant public persona[3][2][4] which turns objectification on its head.[5]

You can't prove it deductively. But you can build inductive evidence for the existence of things outside of yourself.

That's not what they're saying. The point is that it's easier to say something about the past with the benefit of hindsight than to say something about on-going action. How would you prove that positive selection for these traits exists right now? What kind of evidence would that take?

It can generate the instance for you for particular typeclasses with an extension. See DeriveGeneric and DeriveAnyClass. The penalty applies when you're unwilling to use these extensions or when you create a type with the `data` keyword.

You're running these containers in an orchestrator, right? That should give you API access to the running container, allowing you to get shell. E.g. with kubernetes, `kubectl exec` will get you into the container.

But the sibling comment about using a Dockerfile to install/start sshd works if you're running these containers on a remote host without any kind of access to the running container.

This is supposed to run inside of a container. Why would you want sshd inside of a container?

> The idea that you can have morals and ethics without sometimes acting on them is also sort of incoherent.

This depends on your ethical system and your reasons for believing it immoral. For example, if the circumstances change enough to move something from immoral to merely neutral, some ethical systems will then allow you to do it. A utilitarian example: you might generally find something immoral (because it causes harm) but in the presence of somebody who gets great pleasure from it, you find it allowable (actually, it becomes a moral duty to the utilitarian, but you get the gist).

That wasn't a platitude. That was a suggestion that the smart place to end the conversation was there. If you'd like to continue it, we can, it's just not easy over text.

The short answer to this question is that they're individually insignificant and Atlus-like in aggregate.

The long answer to this question is, in fact, extremely long.

Same way we define authorship -- material contribution.

Confidence and self-assertiveness, emotional stability, perseverance and drive. There is absolutely a positive form of masculinity that gets obscured by all the crap.

> I swear HN seems knowledgeable on all subjects except those I am deeply familiar with...

I started discounting what I read here about when I realized that.

> The author is mistaken. There are only two functions necessary for a monad: >>= and return

Probably because monads are frequently described as triples -- two functions and a functor. The author seems to have reduced that to three functions (presumably fmap) without realizing that it isn't sufficient.

Unfortunately, not all monads are list-like (though there are a lot that are). The most notorious example is probably Cont[1], the monad of delimited continuations. State, ST, and IO all struggle to be interpreted as lists as well.

[1]: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2008/12/mother-of-all-monads.html

There are degrees of accuracy in simulation. I expect the effect of distant galaxies to be an extremely low-order impact and so I might reasonably exclude them.

> Is this just a sort of shorthand - assigning a kind of design _intention_ to Nature as a simpler way of expressing this?

Yes, and it's a fairly common, if misleading, shorthand. It's easy to communicate and so gets spread quickly and easily but it always takes careful reading to work out if the author is perpetuating a misconception around intelligent design or merely using an easily digestible metaphor. I suspect the author is doing the latter from a cursory reading, but I might be wrong.

> I think a lot of people in this thread are hating on NYTimes today for this headline because of the inaccurate WhatsApp encryption news stories of recent.

More because we're all getting blown up with "Signal is broken" messages and have to answer them one by one because of misleading/disingenuous headlines. Yes, 'bypass' is technically correct but the implication of the headline is that the problem lies with the named apps. This is not true and actively problematic.

I've had friends and family reaching out to me all morning saying "Signal is broken, see the NYT." This headline is incredibly misinformed and misleading and I hope they issue a correction quickly.

Why did the defendant's lawyer allow this? I don't understand how this could possibly help the defense.

I mean, I can tear down Eich's actions the same way to justify what OKC did. That's entirely besides the point however, and my previous point still stands. Even if I buy your premise that OKC's actions are unethical, their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's! I happen to think Eich's action was unethical for a number of reasons, but I'm not arguing against his right to make it.

EDIT: Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech? You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.

You can fix the account in the URL by changing the authuser parameter. You'll need to remember the order you signed into accounts and enter the right number, but at least it's a workaround. The account is controllable from the URL for all Google services. It's horrible UX but it's there.

Why is it a free speech issue for Eich to make a donation but not for OKC to choose not to associate with his organization? I fail to see the distinction, especially since the right to free association is closely linked to free speech. This argument has never made any sense to me. Eich's actions were protected from retaliation by the government; if you argue that the same must hold true for private individuals and organizations then you're really saying some speech needs to be more protected than others. How do we draw those lines?

It's not malicious, it's a form of apathy and I totally get the gp's reaction: all these women are saying their experience is X but my (presumably male) experience is Y so why not Y is dismissive. It's not intentionally malicious but it is casually apathetic to the issue being raised.

Most discrimination is not malicious. It's a whole bunch of small acts of apathy.

> Why does functional programming have to be about math?

You've misunderstood the GP's point. It's not that FP is about math, it's that you want to emphasize mathematical functions -- functions that don't rely on inputs other than their parameters and return values in a consistent co-domain. This is just good style to improve testability and minimize sources of potential bugs.

The frequency is what's changing. How far does light travel in 1/10,000,000,000 of a second?

"wook"? I tried googling for it but all I found was "dirty hippy".