doublesCs

I never had long-term consequences, but one thing I learned from my one surgery, is that general anesthetics are absolutely brutal.

Why are people always called "proud people"? Are there no people embarrassed of their country?

This is cartoonishly circular: exec needs millions/year because that's the only way to attract a person worth millions/year.

> I once worked somewhere that had an employee who took notes during every meeting, to what seemed like an annoying level. After every meeting, he emailed everyone who attended the meeting a copy of his notes.

Can you share what company was that? If not the company name, at least the industry?

You want TikTok banned because you or your siblings can't educate their children?

I'm so depressed right now.

Can someone clarify for a layman what this means in practice? I still want to use uMatrix on Firefox. Does this mean that over time, uMatrix will eventually stop working?

Separate question, is there somewhere can we can read from the author about this decision to archive uMatrix?

> Let the Europeans deal with the Middle East since it is their backyard and not ours.

You have to admit there's two sides to that, though. The fact that the EU doesn't _have_ to defend itself reduces the incentive to do so. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we were to learn that the USA (pre-Trump) lobbies EU countries to keep their defense budget low, as that maintains dependence of EU on the USA.

But I 100% agree with you. Pull USA influence out of Europe - that's the best way to force Europe to take its self-defense seriously.

> What an ignorant thing to say

> (...)

> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11138

> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/08/special-breakthroug...

Thanks for that, because my comment applies exceedingly well to people like Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder; I've never heard of Michael Banks.

> The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) confirmed nine years after that El Masri was “severely beaten, sodomized, shackled, and hooded, and subjected total sensory deprivation—carried out in the presence of state officials of Macedonia and within its jurisdiction.”

> Macedonia’s “government was consequently responsible for those acts performed by foreign officials…Those measures had been used with premeditation, the aim being to cause Mr. Masri severe pain and suffering in order to obtain information,” the ECHR additionally found.

> (...)

> “The U.S. diplomatic cables revealed the extent of pressure brought upon the German authorities (and in parallel, relevant Spanish authorities) not to act upon the clear evidence of criminal acts by the USA even though by then exposed,” Goetz added.

Then some Americans are confused that many in the western world don't like American influence. I find it outrageous that these things happen, and I wouldn't want my government to consider such a country an ally.

What an ignorant thing to say.

Almost everything about Apple is driven by style instead of substance. That's one of the reasons why Apple is so successful - people are shallow.

> POSIX is a monolith and really deserves to be improved.

Care to explain what's intrinsically wrong with monoliths? I'd have thought that the most important point of a solution is whether or not it solves the problem, not the arhictecture by which it solves the problem.

I'm not sure I like the idea of using GOTOs, I'm sure better ways must exist.

But this bit resonated with me very strongly:

> is unfortunate that the majority of the ma- terial written on reducing finite state automata to code is in texts on compiler construction. Finite state machines play a sufficiently impor- tant role in a variety of computing applications to suggest that their use in programs should be introduced in lower level or even introductory programming texts.

So many things are better modeled as state machines, and their use as a programming pattern is rarely taught / seen in the wild.

> Our entire field is bad at what we do.

Our entire field is bad at what we do, because it's full of coders instead of engineers.

Think about it. Building airplanes reliably has been figured out by aircraft engineers, building elevators safely has been figured out by building engineers, and building software reliably has been figured out by software _engineers_ (the NASA kind, who landed a spacecraft on the moon).

However, this isn't the experience you have on your regular job. "Oh, oops, everything failed because I forgot to do X". Can you imagine if the moon lander crashed because some guy forgot to do that manual thing he's always supposed to do? Of course you can't imagine, because they put actual engineers in charge of that, not coders.

> Am I the only one still against network-based, and to a lesser extent electronic-based, voting?

You're not the only one, most people on HN have the same opinion, and all these ideas have been extensively discussed here.

I could say the same thing about your suggestion: Problematic since it depends on what you set as primary/foreign key. I can see how it is convenient though.

If you do

x JOIN y

Postgres automatically uses same-name columns for the join. So in the example I gave you, actually "ON x.id=y.id" is redundant. I just added it because if I hadn't someone else would've replied "oh but that only works if you name the columns the same name"

Also, in any less than trivial scenario you will have to think how to handle the edge cases. But again, that's a property of the operation, not of the language.

I don't understand this comment.

x JOIN y ON x.id=y.id

How is this advanced?

The fact that there's an endless number of pitfalls[1] is a characteristic of the operation you're trying to achieve, not a deficiency of SQL. In fact if anything I would say that SQL does a great joke at letting you tweak how you want all those edge cases to be handled.

[1] E.g. What happens if some records are missing on one or the other sides of the join? What happens if ids are not unique?

speedgoose was doing it to an entire country, but tedk-42 is the one who gets reprimanded?

> Travelling abroad this summer is considered by many as stupid and careless. I bought the trip when the numbers were good and when the governments were allowing tourism.

So wait. You bought your tickets when "the numbers were good". So you made a bet. Why do you have a problem with other people making a bet NOW? They're just accepting different odds. Everyone has to judge their own risk/rewards.

What's wrong with sugar though?

I also don't buy the cartoonishly simplistic claim that "coca-cola is unhealthy". Does it cause obsesity? It doesn't "cause obsesity" in the same sense that ingesting more calories than you spend causes obsesity: It's not the coca-cola or the sugar by themselves.

I 100% agree with you.

But hyperbole aside, OP also has a point. If we forget that the estimation of probability in itself has a cost, we could be tempted to put more and more resources into more and more sophiticated methods of data collection and analysis to be more and more certain of your estimate. But if we remember that this process has a cost, some times it's more efficient to just add a margin of safety and move on with your life. Bayes theorem is often used for resource allocation, but the process of optimizing resource allocation in itself has a cost.

I thought it was abundantly obvious that the author meant it in a qualitative way, i.e. we update our certainty as evidence comes in. Not necessarily in the quantitatively correct amount.

Do you wanna say a few more words about this? I thought that `v[1:10]` always causes allocation but `view(v, 1:10)` never does. Is this not the case, or has this changed?

hmm no? I walk away when I decide to walk away, regardless of what "everyone" is doing.

> Why are you wasting all these words on something that is not at the top of your sorted list?

I wrote that out of curiosity about why such an article would end up on the front page of HN. Yes, I understand that HN isn't just business and tech, it's "interesting things" - but why is this article interesting? Since I don't find it interesting, maybe some people found this an important issue, I thought?

Isn't this a really small problem? If you were to sort by importance all the problems in the world, how close to the bottom would sledding athletes injurying themselves be?

I feel sorry for those who already incurred lasting damage, but for the rest... it only depends on them to stop.

No, the next customer will just return it as well.

It's a mild inconvenience, the customer is hardly the victim. I'm for regulation of bad corporate actors, but punishing for mediocre customer service is going too far.

Amazon's example is completely different from that of Google or Facebook.

- In Amazon's case, it is only Amazon that is that victim of its mistakes: if they decide it's more efficient to give money to scammers than to avoid getting scammed, I couldn't care less.

- In the case of Google and Facebook, they're not the victims for disrespecting their user's privacy, their users are. So, regulators should keep making the fines larger until it really really hurts them.

There's no single data point here. You put a thermometer in the air, it takes a finite time to take a measurement, it's actually averaging over time.