axilmar

Holy moly, another Greek on ycombinator!!!! I am greek as well.

Perhaps the collapse happens when all the quantum fields are activated at a particular point in their coordinate system.

I.e. if we have 3 fields, with respective coordinates [0, 1, 2], [1, 2, 3] and [2, 3, 4], a particle emerges only when the 3rd point of field A, the 2nd point of field B and the 1st point of field C, all with value = 2, are activated.

If the quantum field activations happen periodically, but their periods do not match, or the fields have different granularity when they are activated, then we may get a wave-like outcome for particles, since the interactions of all the fields happen only when the fields are synchronized at specific points in their history.

EDIT:

Writing the above made me realize that the underlying fabrique of the universe may work like a neural net, where each possible point in the universe is actually a node in a neural net, and each node has multiple fields connected to each node, and values flowing into the fields excite the nodes based on a function, for example accumulation. When a limit is exceeded in a node, a particle is created, or a particle disappears (for black holes).

A neural net of such proportions could be called ...God (yeah, I said it, sorry...I don't believe in a God but the parallelism is interesting, at least to me, from a philosophical perspective).

While I understand that an interactive environment could be useful in a lot of cases, in other cases it might just be in the way...for example, when I am designing an API, usually I don't need any sort of visualization...on the other hand, if I want to explore data, then I do need visualization.

Also, his critique for my favorite language, C++, is unfair. C++ is born out of the necessity to take advantage of the hardware in the best way possible. And while it might be a mix of different ideas, it does work well in a lot of cases, and testament to that is the software we are using to communicate, the browsers, the web etc, the infrastructure of which is basically done almost exclusively in C++.

Furthermore, static typing helps in complex programs a lot. There are concrete examples around where static typing greatly helps solves complex problems. And complexity is not about algorithms only, it's also about change over time. A piece of code that does not have type annotations can become an ugly spaghetti mess really quickly, and that must be multiplied by ten each time a new developer is added to a team.

Very entertaining talk, by the way. At no point it was a drag. The presenter has a real talent for it.

I don't know if anyone disagrees with the following definition:

Consciousness is the perception of self, which is the result of an information model on self built by the brain from a) the external experiences of the entity, b) the internal experiences of the entity.

Personally I find the above definition 'good enough' for all purposes. Are there any disagreements on the above?

Greek here.

This is achieved while in lots of areas locals deny building of any sort of clean energy source, claiming it will mess up the natural beauty of the scenery, will mess up birds, etc.

Greece could have a lot more renewables if it wasn't for the idiotic 'resistance' of its residents.

It is very annoying. Thankfully, there is an option to turn these notifications off.

I couldn't agree more. I currently work on a web application that uses Spring Boot and Vaadin and it sucks a million miles. Spring sucks separately from Vaadin, which sucks another million miles.

The whole thing with beans and annotations is an abomination and whoever thought of it should be shot (not literally, for crying out loud!).

The design error is that the applications that bind to privileged ports should be privileged as well.

It is correct design to guard ports with privileges. Not every application should be able to write out to any port and read from any port.

The correct approach to security is to have apps granted access to ports manually, as is done with firewalls.

I actually was part of the discussion of programming language design on that site before over a decade ago, but the anti-OO and especially the anti-C & anti-C++ sentiment was so strong, I was forced to quit.

They openly ridiculed anyone that supported the non-functional programming languages over the functional ones.

> For months before and after the incident, aircrews flying in “exclusive use” training areas off the U.S. East Coast frequently observed unknown objects exhibiting highly anomalous flight characteristics. Despite the collision hazard posed by the UFOs, aviators lacked a formal mechanism to report the mysterious objects.

And despite the above, we still don't have high resolution videos/images of these things.

It is a nice app because it follows desktop app standards: a menu bar on top, floating windows, a document area, toolbars around it etc.

It may be a little slower than native desktop apps, but that is to be expected, since it relies upon an interpreted language.

Rust is undoubtedly a step forward in correctness, but boy, the article's code is so thick that for me, that I am a C++ programmer, is almost unreadable, especially for a quick reading...

I skipped all the code and only read the text. I got to the point where it mentions that the language prevented them from storing a pointer to a stack object in a heap object, and that's really great, but boy oh boy, the code presented, and the error messages, where very difficult for me to grok even after the first few times...

It seems to me that the more sophisticated the safety a language provides is the more complex its error messages/code are. It would be so nice if we could solve both problems at the same time...

This is not about GUIs, it's about OpenSSL. I.e. how complex it is.

Before discussing chaos in QM, I'd like someone more knowledgeable than me to explain a few things to me, if you don't mind, of course:

1) how do we know particles act as/are waves? the double slit experiments does not seem to be proof of that:

a) if we rotate the slits 90 degrees, then the interference pattern also rotates 90 degrees in the same direction...does that mean the wave also rotates 90 degrees? does this mean the wave is 3d? and if so, why is the interference pattern not a checkerboard?

b) if we enlarge the slits, the interference pattern goes away; the more we enlarge the slits, the more the interference pattern disappears. This means that in our original experiment, the slits were too small for the particle and the particle hits both slits simultaneously, and hence the interference pattern. Why should then the particle be a wave? putting a detector means to make the two slit equipment one slit effectively, making the interference pattern disappear. How can then one reach a conclusion that particles are waves?

2) how do we know that entanglement is the result of 'spooky action at a distance' and not the result of creating two entangled particles? couldn't it be that the particles are created with correlated spins and no communication ever occurs between them?

Why am I asking these simple questions and not contribute to the discussion meaningfully, you might ask? well, it seems QM has all the markings of an strange theory, that works for some cases, does not work for some others, and it requires magic for some others. Those things make me think that the basics of QM may be invalid, so I am really questioning those basics.

I am sure I am 100% wrong, so please do illuminate me on the questions above; I've tried to ask before, and in different sites, the worst responses being 'go away lame person! how you dare questioning are beautiful intellect!!!', and the best responses being lots and lots of math that don't really answer my basic questions. I am just looking for simple straightforward answers.

To have so many problems with dangling pointers, Google must be doing something wrong with its C++ coding.

It's amazing to me that they spend so much time trying to circumvent these issues instead of solving the core problems with their development methodology.

And before someone saying 'but C++ code at Google is too large', I'd like to point out that in other industries there is a lot more C++ code but they don't have such issues...e.g. automobiles, where the code in a car might reach the likes of 100 million LOC, mostly in C and C++.

One side of the issue is gun availability.

The other side is that the American culture has a toxic side which can drive lonely young men to perform despicable acts.

Imagine being a lonely young boy, growing up getting bullied all the time, being told you amount to nothing, and it's your fault, and at the same time, while everyone around you is deep into corruption and sin, they preach to you that you should be sinless and pure!

I am not American, but I can sense the contradiction from miles away. And if it goes on for too long, especially when one is young, it can turn a person into a mass murderer.

Sadly, mental health issues stemming from society's ills is not really discussed anywhere and in depth. The focus is only on gun laws, gun ownership and gun availability. I am not saying that it is not an important aspect of the problem, but it cannot really be solved by just stricter gun control...even if guns were not really available, the people with mental health issues would use bombs or use other means to kill. But then the focus would be on terrorism, and the mental health problem will still not be discussed, because it's such a difficult topic...

Now all we need is an open source c++ GUI library that allows us to write cross platform code with ease.

In the 80s/90s, I pirated a lot of software for Amiga/PC, because it was either unavailable or expensive for me.

Nowadays I don't bother pirating anything, for two reasons:

a) I don't feel comfortable any more to steal money from others, b) there is nothing out there to make me want it so badly. Everything looks so mediocre...

After reading the topic about Monkey Island, and then this topic, my mind drifted to an adventure game that combines the two...:-)

The problem in the case mentioned in the article was not with the writer that left the glass by the sink, it's with the other person that was bothered with something so minor...usually these minor things are excuses that cover deeper problems.

Above all, marriage is a series of compromises: you give up something for something else. You can't have it all.

Personally, I put up with my wife's problematic-for-me but not-for-her small habits, because we have a family and the well being of us and our children is priority. Loving the other person includes giving them room to breath, and chasing them after their small habits is suffocating...

Besides the cost, it makes sense to consume the other countries' oil before consuming your own. Oil will end some day...

> What’s going on is that without some kind of direct experience to use as a touchstone, people don’t have the context that gives them a place in their minds to put the things you are telling them.

It's one of the reasons schooling doesn't work as it should: for a lot of things taught, children don't have a direct experience of, and therefore they have difficulties understanding those things.

There is a way to overcome those difficulties though: teach by a real-life metaphor as an example. I have tried it myself, in many cases, where the thing I had to explain was difficult to understand due to lack of direct experience. A real life metaphor usually did the trick.

> we're all going to get along, because space-faring races don't have grudges/ulterior motives/conflicting goals

Star Trek never said that.

It said that Earth and some other planets within the Federation reached a level of evolution that didn't leave much room for grudges/ulterior motives/conflicting goals.

Outside of the Federation, it was chaos as usual.

How do we know it's the best argument?

It's too late to replace all of text protocols with binary ones and redo everything in C like languages.

Why shouldn't we kill sentient beings for the pleasure of our taste buds?

Regarding Rust's compilation slowness, wouldn't a Rust interpreter be a good solution for developing code? A Rust interpreter would drastically cut down slow compilation times, and then when the final product is needed, the Rust compiler would kick in.

Wouldn't the money spent for such an operation be better spent in asteroid defense? it would be a lot cheaper as well.

There is some middle ground between data-oriented design and OOP: just organize your objects in such a way that:

a) objects of the same type occupy continuous blocks in memory,

b) messages are passed to objects of the same type, then to objects of another type etc.

In this way, you don't lose the advantages of encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism etc but you also don't sacrifice cache coherence much.

OOP does not enforce a 'random' memory access order, you can very will organize your objects in such a way that speed is not sacrificed much.

Instead of using special tags to convey meaning, couldn't we just use special attributes? say, a div tag with an 'aria-role' attribute set to menu would indicate a menu, a div tag with an 'aria-role' attribute set to 'checkbox' would indicate a checkbox etc.

That would make creation of visual elements more versatile, keep the number of hacks to minimum (like the hidden input trick for checkboxes), and also make ARIA possible.