beaned

If you're going to kill yourself anyway, why not just acquiesce? (To Russia.) This question may be stupid depending on the reader but I'm asking sincerely.

One is transparent and the other feels like a lie.

Not in principle, but in practice.

Children have never been more affordable than they are now. People's wants and expectations have changed.

It's one of those things American pseudo intellectuals do because they think it's more correct and want to sound superior. Maybe they heard a professor say it that way or read it in a book. Anything but actually process why the a/an distinction exists.

My point is that it's based on pronunciation. I didn't mean to offend you.

They do, but only because it's been adopted from British media and literature. You might even say it's a symptom of being over-read, if that's possible.

"An historic" is certainly used in the US, but it's wrong in all contexts.

It depends on if you're speaking British or American English.

The British pronounce it as "istory," so they use "an" before.

Such reason deprives people of the passion to take sides and argue emotionally.

I'm surprised that better science never resulted from that lady who could smell it.

That's why people come here, they learn these things in the comments.

There are rovers on Mars already that landed on the first try. The approach was rigorous planning and study with the highest standards.

It doesn't mean the approach SpaceX is taking isn't valuable in some contexts, but it's certainly not the only method.

They said less than 1% of users were affected.

As someone with no knowledge of the topic, why was electrical reform needed? Wouldn't one assume that either party motivated to do it while in power would be doing it with the goal of positively affecting the outcome for their party in the future? It would seem weird for a candidate to reform how voting works knowing it could negatively affect their side, right?

Regardless of the hyperbole in the title, it's an interesting find. I wonder where they were going and what happened to them.

On the other hand demand for premium seats would be down, lowering their price and making a nicer ride more accessible. Overall this would net to lower prices for the same distribution of amenities on a given plane ride. Supply and demand theory would seem to suggest that equal supply with lower demand leads to lower prices overall. Supply could of course adjust as more people move to supersonic, but that means more people are now getting a better product than before. And if supply of regular jets remains (they're pretty expensive to just have sit there and not try to use for income), lower-end fares and seat availability invite people at the lower end of the resource spectrum to now buy more plane tickets.

I think that take is a little cynical.

If it's only for the rich then the prices will be high. Meaning the capitalist mechanism of resource distribution will be even higher (more paid by the rich received as income by the non-rich). It will also take demand from existing airlines making fares lighter for everyone else. It also employs people. It also drives technology forward. And ultimately it does let people travel in less time, and why wouldn't we want that? To some extent emissions are not as bad as you'd think since they are being emitted over less time in the course of a shorter journey. Success in this category will also drive competition in every metric and work to bring cleaner, shorter flights to everyone over time.

There is a lot to love about the idea of supersonic flight.

There are many jobs where it isn't enforced.

Language is for both. Every concept is tied to a label that is a word. We identify pieces of reality by their common attributes while omitting their specific measurements, and attach these identifications to a label which is a word. It is a unique ability that we have as humans, which no other animal shares. It is essential for rational thought. Communication may have been an evolutionary forcing function on our ability to conceive generally (rather than simply perceive), but communication is still downstream from having concepts to communicate.

Whatever happened to Fuchsia? Is that still a thing?

And for every group there is an anti-group, another set of people for whom the group-included feel justified in feeling resentful towards in some way.

The "big crunch" wikipedia says that it's an idea about the end of the universe, where expansion will reverse and everything will collapse back in on itself.

That is not what I'm asking. I'm asking if expansion and contraction could fluctuate in perpetuity, like stress waves through a block of jello.

Stupid question: how do we know that the universe is strictly exponentially expanding, and not both expanding and contracting in perpetuity like a sin wave? And could such an idea have anything to do with the Hubble tension?

Completely agree with you. However, I think over time I've come to realize that those hacks that seem obscure, weird, and impossible are not perceived that way by the people who discover them. It's just their area of expertise, their natural playground. And so maybe those exploits are as easy to understand by others in that field, as this blog post is to you.

The point of crypto isn't to force decentralization, it's to permit it. If you'd like to keep your crypto on a service like Coinbase, you have that freedom. Alternatively, if you'd like to self-host your crypto, you also have that freedom. The option is the whole point.

Either way most people still need somewhere to buy it if they don't have any, which is what Coinbase is primarily for.

Part of the danger is that the CIA does not represent the people. The leadership is unelected, and they basically have influence over policy within government, and increasingly the ability to shape the speech of citizens through private corporations. Who decides what the "bad stuff" is?

There was a time on Twitter when sharing actual links to US documents on Covid would result in a ban for misinformation, or scientific opinions of actual doctors would result in suspension, if it was not in line with media talking points. The whitehouse itself would on occasion tell Twitter what it didn't like. Do you mean like that?

I feel like things are painful now partly because we live in the time of the first generation of humans to be born with this type of telecommunication, apps all day everyday, nobody knowing how to act. I feel like, maybe just let it play out? You could force it one way or another but like so many things intuitively it feels like people prefer to be happy and generations will rotate through ways of processing info until an equilibrium is reached. And natural equilibrium feels like it would be more stable than trying to control how people behave.

4 was rounding from 3.7, so I think that seems like a bit of a petty correction.

Humans will not go extinct (I hope), but HN is full of some of the smartest people and these are their trends, and I hope that of the people who do reproduce, the techno nerds are among them. The future will need them.

I worry that the Great Filter is not about technology at all, but that in every planet with a species that has evolved into a higher intelligence, that at the cusp of being able to seed their galaxy, they willingly do not pursue it, because the level of analytical thinking required to achieve it also leads them to disinterest and abstinence.

In regards to your last sentence, that is true. But I would ask, who would be around to appreciate that fact?

I think this is probably true. Historically children would provide for their elders, but that role is fulfilled now more by technology, so in practical terms, they are less needed. It's an emergent trend of humans+technology that acts as a natural limit to our growth, so that as a species we don't just eat all the carrots and die like the rabbits would.

I do fear that Idiocracy might be a little accurate though. The people reproducing currently are the ones who do not consider their future or economics, while the smart ones who do, have less children.

I will admit that I was a bit off-the-cuff in terms of the Western aspect of my comment.

There are lots of factors, of course, and the trend isn't limited to only the west. Though it has certainly become a more normal trend in developed and developing countries than those with a higher level of poverty and poor.

I still contend however that it has never been easy. My grandparents had four children starting at age 20. My grandfather's first job was sweeping floors in a factory at age 13, making $0.30 an hour. When he asked for a raise, he was fired. He said he didn't have two nickels to rub between his fingers.

His father before him went into World War 1 at 15 years old. And his father (my great-great grandfather) falsely signed the documents affirming that he was 18 years old, to allow his own 15 year old son to go to war.

They struggled, but didn't complain. Some part of it is cultural expectation, and that has changed greatly over time. In spite of all odds my grandparents raised four fairly middle class children in these circumstances, but had a good few decades of strife. Whether or not they would create a family and procreate was taken for granted. It was assumed, at their own economic expense. But long-term family wise, today my grandfather has a tree of descendants who love him.

I think today we are more conscious of the economic equation. We ask whether or not we can afford to provide for children, rather than letting them exist and then asking how we can provide for them. There is an aspect of this that I appreciate, but I worry that it's mixed with some amount of narcissism. Though I am an atheist, there is some unreason to our existence in the first place, and there is hope in the continuance of ourselves that we should value beyond economics. There is a romance and some type of spiritual value in being able to put aside the cost-benefit analysis and simply bear new life that is part you, to have and to hold, to love, teach, and reciprocally learn from.

We have so much bounty today that the idea of "sacrificing" ourselves for something that only has potential value is an alien concept. As our material wealth has increased, and as our understanding of personal economy has evolved, I think we've lost a bit of our primal, but beautiful, nature that wants ourselves to persist at a biological, cosmic level.

You, here, right now reading this are the absolute last leaf, the most extended branch, the most outstretched and sun-bleached arm of a tree of life that has been proceeding for four billion years. You are the last link in a chain that has not been broken for four billion years. Can you believe that? Every time I consider that, I think of my parents. And I ask, who am I to be so conceited that all of that history, that fourth of a fraction of the universe, should end with me?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, and, I will confess that I got a little tipsy for the super bowl. Don't judge me too harshly. But life is beautiful, and beauty is always difficult to sustain. We do it because beauty contains a truth and a promise for the future. And I think that's something we need to put effort into re-evaluating, and re-valuing, in our current world.

One line of inquiry might be why there is a correlation between bounty and the general wealth of an economy, and the fertility rate. Many parts of the world that are poorer are more fertile, and reproduce more unquestionably. Korea is rich and the rate is 0.84. In the Congo the rate is 6.21. It is not about economics. And if you counter that it is about poor education or care, I don't believe that's the reason either. It's culture, and values.

Paul Revere had 15 children. 5 of them died young, and he still had 10. He had a horse and a rifle and a small wooden house you can still tour in Boston. Today we have DINKs, and people who are in what is considered to be the low-income range with multiple rooms in big cities, an education, and combustion-engine vehicles who say it's too expensive to have children. Maybe your tastes are too expensive. Maybe you've been raised softly, and don't know how to set yourself aside to rear and participate in a family that is spiritually worth more than just yourself.

One of the other comments said I ranted so I thought I'd actually provide one. Sorry HN, I hope I made some sense here.

It isn't a more difficult undertaking. It was never easy, we've just been raised softly and do not value children the same way previous generations did.

An outlier in many places, but not most. Only in the Western first world is this now normal.

True in a way, but Google certainly benefits from having their OS on the majority of the world's smartphones.

A more apt comparison might be Microsoft, who has roughly the same market cap as Apple, while having their operating system be on so many more computers. They sell their OS, not give it away (like Android) so maybe more accurate?

But they don't have the quality, mindshare, or respect that most HN-ers give Apple, so in terms of success it doesn't appear to be just units shipped that matters most.