brmgb

I am not hand waving it. This line was commented ad nauseam when the book was released and is the one people who have no idea of neither what in the Greek text nor what’s in the translation like to discuss. As it’s far from being the most questionable part of the translation, I don’t see the point of centring discussion on it, especially when you consider it’s not an awful translation of the original. It’s not very close but you can find far worse later.

> Four hours of knowledge work a day is actually a lot. The average corporate worker probably does far less. Meetings, small talk, answering emails, etc. feel like work, but most of the time it isn’t. Four hours of focused knowledge work can produce exponential more value that four hours of meetings.

No idea if I should be rolling on the floor laughing or extremely saddened reading that. I might advice taking a reality check before spurring this kind of non sense in public if you want to avoid sounding both entitled and utterly disconnected.

Evidence and proof are the same word in my own native language.

> There's a lot of circumstantial evidence

Hardly. You could arbor doubts for the people who ate at her place but for her husband there is absolutely nothing. I am not proud of HN falling at the level of the tabloid press through not really surprised.

The complaint - which I definetely share by the way - is that for all the critical acclaim it got, Emily Wilson's translation strays so far from the actual text, it is not really a translation anymore and is actually closer to being a new text inspired by the Odyssey. That's fine if that's what you are looking for but it doesn't make for a great translation.

The πολύτροπος thing is a complete red herring by the way. Her translation is questionnable but remains within the bound of what I would expect from a modern translator. I am more annoyed by everything she drops in the rest of the poem. Remarkably and annoyingly, the coverage when her translation was released spend far more time dwelling on her gender than on her actual work.

Imagine randomly accusing someone of multiple murders on the internet with absolutely no proof.

Sure, I'm convinced that no one is going to riot when they get their their lifetime savings casually wiped out. I bet on them fully understanding that they just made a terrible decision when they chose the wrong bank, it's entirely their fault and that it is what's best for the economy as a whole.

At this point, the EU has the worst of both a free market based economy and a planned one. Profits goes to corporate owners when they exist and losses are taken up by the general public through subsidies. It's very comfy for our corporate overlords and the old generation who could afford to become shareholders in these companies when public policies actually helped them but it's a raw deal for the rest of us. Sadly, old people are the one who still vote and put our governments in place so I don't expect things to ever get better. I guess it's doomed to happen when the median age of your country hits 45.

> I'm not sure what the banking market is like in Italy

Significantly less competitive than in the USA.

I am not sure myself. The past two decades have shown that banking is a sector which needs to be tightly regulated and bankers can never be trusted to not do utterly stupid things if there is even the slighest hint of profits. Honestly, I would be fine with the banking sector being nationalised at this point at least for the retail part. We are already bailing out banks when they fail so let's be coherent.

It's entirely technologically possible for central banks to take over retail banking at this point and Brazil has demonstrated nicely that taking over payment processing would be a net improvement for everyone. Honestly, I don't understand why we haven't done it already but I suppose entranched interests are partly to blame.

It's even easier to not do the study if you are going to use bogus data anyway.

Unsurprisingly, highly regulated sectors like banking where entering is extremely hard display cartel like behaviors. There is no incentive coming from the competition so why would anyone lower the net interest margin. In this context, I think a windfall tax somehow makes sense. Then again, I'm pretty sure it's going to be misused by the government. I would much rather see regulation forcing banks to raise interest rate on deposits but well at least this goes somewhat in the right direction.

I will bet on the usual confounding variables when it comes to lifestyle study. Highly likely that eating late at night means coming home late, probably due to working late which probably means a more stressful life. Sadly they are controlling for a chokingly low amount of variables so we will never know.

There is little point of doing a study based on BMI when what you want is body fat. BMI is imperfect. It’s fine when you want to give people a quick metric for them to assess their fitness by themselves. People who are extremely fit with a high BMI already know they are extremely fit after all. It’s not fine when you want to analyse the effect of different life styles.

Given the delay to get cars right now, I'm guessing Europe has significantly less "bog-standard" fabs that you think it does.

R&D is a significant part of what you have to amortise. I'm guessing they are going to pay the machinery significantly less than if it was brand new. Part of it might even be relocated from another fab. Yields should also be better. That leaves the building but I'm guessing the German state must be generous here and that should help offset that.

> without a local source of steel manufacturing

Good luck when the war starts and you can’t build weapons anymore because your source of strategic ressources are not under your direct control.

There are good reasons modern economists are so critical of Ricardo. You need to take what he wrote with a major grain of sand. The actual situation is a lot more nuanced.

Anyone has a link to some communication from the university of Maryland which is not written by a teenager? They must be one if they spent time trying to reproduce the material.

> with a good example of how it's better than any other parser generator.

I already told you that it has full support for disambiguating LR(1) grammar and still generating a parser which is easy to read. How do you want me to paste a full parser in a HN comment?

Most generators only support LALR(1) grammar which is limiting and don’t deal with corner cases as gracefully.

I get that you are hell bent on wanting Rust to prevail here but Rust will always be a subpar experience for wiring anything which doesn’t strongly benefit for its low level primitive. Rust has annoying semantics and a convoluted syntax. I can bear with that when the performances are needed but writing a compiler in it is just unnecessary pain. It’s also one of the only thing for which I would actually use Ocaml.

It can generate elegant and efficient parsers for LR(1) grammars.

> I tend to prefer hand written parsers, either via a combinator library or fully manually.

That’s common with people used to languages which provide poor parser generators.

I will take any of the dozen of sometimes very large compilers written in Ocaml above rustc personally but to each their own.

It is definitely very legible here and at least as legible as the Rust equivalent. It’s actually a lot more legible than the Rust equivalent here to be fair.

The Ocaml program is mostly matching followed by a chain of operations. It’s far removed from elegance for elegance sake. Meanwhile Rust is handicapped by the machinery it forces you to deal with as a lower level language introducing life time.

Type annotations are a non issue. They are systematically provided in Ocaml in a different file than the code. This header file is not provided here because well it’s a blog post.

Personally, it’s not so much that I disagree. It’s more that Ocaml has a top notch ecosystem for compiler writing. That’s probably by far its strongest point with library like Menhir having few equivalent in different ecosystem.

Not that there is anything wrong with Rust if you are ready to pay the price of having so much low level things to deal with.

I think it’s your inexperience talking here as programs in both languages here use mostly the same naming conventions and abbreviations, the main difference being that Ocaml is its usual terse and to the point while Rust is well far less terse

China knows that and doesn’t want to annexe Taiwan through violence. They would much prefer Taiwan to join with minimum damage. That’s always been their play book.

It is flexing right now because one, there might be a window of opportunity as the US is modernising its navy, two, it’s a way to keep Taiwan under the current status quo at time when American diplomacy has stepped up its own aggressive posturing towards China, three, it’s useful for Xi internally.

China is not trying to redirect Taiwan output to the mainland. As I said, Taiwan is right next door and already has a mostly integrated economy. They want to fold the island into China proper.

Taiwan is not and never was an economic annexion for China. That’s not the point. If you start from there, you are doomed to be wrong.

> But how does it work?

There clearly is something doing the scheduling and dispatching somewhere in the stack. There will most likely be queues involved and data structures linking receivers and emitters if you are using events. If you use system threads, they might actually be multiple schedulers involved (the OS one and the runtime one).

My advice is to pick up a system book about designing OS which will have a section about scheduling and work from there. Runtime schedulers are not that different.

That doesn't make sense here. Mainland China and Taiwan economies are already extremely integrated and most of the richest Taiwanese are actually fairly close to the CCP. That's my grip with the coverage of the situation in the US. Most American don't understand the current situation very well and imagine that Taiwan is a lot more segregated from China that it actually is.

Plus, a significant minority of Taiwanese are actually favorable to China (around 10% of the population). China doesn't want to loot Taiwan. They want control of the island. I still agree with you that it probably wouldn't go well for part of the population as illustrated by the current situation in Hong Kong.

You can read this article from the New Yorker for an actually raisonable coverage of the situation (something which is sorely laking in the US media establishment): https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/11/21/a-dangerous-ga...

> goal of annexing Taiwan, killing the Taiwanese intellectuals, suppressing the natives and looting the industrial/IP assets

That's not China goal, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who took five minutes to think and read a couple of article about China historic strategy regarding Taiwan: economic integration and sponsoring the Taiwanese business elites. To be fair, the idea of annexing with Taiwan seems to have a lot more to do with the internal politics of mainland China than actually Taiwan nowadays.

For all my own distate of the CCP, it's a bit sad that we have reached a point where having an intelligent discussion regarding foreign countries with an average American has become next to impossible.

> the landscape is a maze, and every new place you encounter needs you to overcome a sort of soft anxiety (Souls games were weird in this sense, every new place you encountered was a relief because it meant you were done with the previous place; but at the same time it was a chore because you became so accustomed to the previous place (LITERALLY HELL) that it felt like you were leaving your house for the unknown wilderness)

Still puzzled about why Souls games difficulty is so overhyped on the Internet. Souls game have a gameplay which takes some time to get used to, don't shy from encounters with a bit of complexity and don't mind trolling the player a bit on their first go around a new level. It means you have to play for a bit before you are good.

They remain modern games however and are not overtly punishing. You always have a respawn point close to the boss room. Hardest challenges are optional. They give you ample space to get better if you want to grind. They try to avoid difficulty spikes. It's pretty far removed from hell, certainly a lot easier and fair that most NES games. There is a reason they are that successful.

I think I'm starting to get old.

It's soon to be illegal in most of Europe anyway. Cash payments are capped nearly everywhere nowadays with varying limits (sometimes you can do it but have to fill in a declaration above a certain amount) and there is a draft regulation in the EU which would cap them to 7000€ everywhere if the sender can't be identified.

I can tell from this post that you probably have had the chance of never having to work with or emulate broken hardware (which is to say every pieces of hardware ever). At some point you just stop trying to be sane and just go with what works.