ghettoimp

It would certainly be a horrific jolt to your taste buds... geish.

I don't think I understand the desire or the concern here. Look around the BBQ in the back yard at any party anywhere in 'merica and you'll find the guys hanging out and chatting away from their wives. Look at sports teams in your high schools, colleges, and local clubs and you'll find men hanging out together. Look at Men's bible study groups or similar if that's your thing. Go to the local men's barber shop and find a bunch of guys getting haircuts. Invite your buddies to your place to watch the game...

I think we're in agreement on basically everything.

Your point about the "kill chain" is well taken. I have not having paid enough attention here to have followed it in this case. But I certainly think the lack of nuance in the media is absolutely a real problem with many bad consequences.

> Depends on the reason for you being upset, I would hope that the paper would either pick it up and air it, or laugh you out of the room too.

Yes, absolutely.

In an ideal world, if there isn't a deeply troubling reason to be upset, a respectable media outlet should (in an ideal world) push back. And an employer should want to defend its employees against trumped up nonsense.

In this world, I fully appreciate that many media outlets love controversy and clicks, and it may be easier for a company to just fire someone than stand up for them and deal with said shit-storm.

> I think there's something wrong with trying to end someone's career - thus causing significant, real, material harm to them - just because you personally found their speech offensive. It's like a lightweight form of swatting someone because you got angry.

I agree completely that trying to end someone's career is very extreme. I take no position regarding the specific case of whether or not RMS should have resigned.

I would, though, push back against drawing an equivalence between swatting and trying to end someone's career.

I can easily imagine cases where I would try to end someone's career. For instance, if I had evidence that someone in law enforcement had a deep hatred of {women, men, gays, straights, Blacks, Whites, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, ...}, that would be deeply problematic. If I then saw them unfairly {arrest, harass, ...} someone in the hated group, it would seem very reasonable to object strongly to them continuing in their career.

These are interesting questions to consider.

I'm not sure how "private conversation" should be defined. If someone wrote something on HN, is it really private? In the case of RMS, I don't know enough about this mailing list to know whether it was private or not.

I'm also not sure whether "private conversation" matters a lot. For instance, a governor of Puerto Rico was apparently sending homophobic and misogynistic messages around in a private messages. Is it less bad for being in a private conversation?

To your hypothetical: If I was so upset with someone that I felt the need to go to their employer and complain about them, that seems like my right to free speech and expression. If, after security kicked me out, I took the matter to the local newspaper and it caused an uproar, that also seems like my right.

Eh. You have a right to say what you want, but your employer has a right to not want to be associated with it...

Would 90hz use more battery? When they talked about the always-on watch screen, I think one of the things they said was it slowed down its refresh rate to 1 hz. I don't know anything about if that saves power, but maybe?

TCL is still in use everywhere in hardware development. Practically every EDA tool has a TCL interface.

I'm afraid I don't share your fondness for it. :)

I don't disagree with anything you have said. But, if your main method of making money is dependent on some particular entity continuing to do whatever they are currently doing, you have a problem.

> You're seriously trying to argue that people who commit copyright infringement do so maliciously, i.e. with the intent of harming the copyright holder? That seems... novel. And not very plausible. If true, however, it would be much more effective to ignore the work altogether, thus denying the copyright holder both direct income and free publicity.

Your incredulity seems intellectually dishonest.

If not malicious, how would you describe enjoying a {book, movie, song, program, ...} that someone has offered for sale without paying for it?

Granted, it's not as clear cut as theft. You aren't depriving anyone of an item that they own.

Granted, the author may in some cases benefit indirectly from copyright infringement, e.g., when you go tell your more honest friends about it, and they go off and buy a copy for themselves.

But in a world where the vast majority of the folks who create these kinds of works need to get paid, and the way they get paid is by selling copies, consuming their work without paying for it seems really fundamentally unfair to them.

Knowing more than the market could work - that seems like winning through skill. Perhaps a second (perhaps even a more likely) mechanism would be winning through luck?

I wonder if there's any advantage to picking 30 stocks versus just investing in some big index fund like VT or whatever.

Does that... ever happen? As a casual iPhone user, I don't remember ever signing into or out of iCloud for anything. I assume I'm probably signed in at all times?

Thanks, this seems like a perfectly coherent definition of compositional. I think my earlier confusion was a purely terminological matter.

Regarding "What you're saying is that proofs can be composed. That is true, but unhelpful, as it doesn't make proofs easy." I agree that the ability to compose proofs does not make proof easy. But I would push back somewhat against the idea that this is unhelpful.

The ability to prove, in isolation, the relevant properties about some entity (e.g., a function, a hardware module, or what have you), and then to make use of these properties, without ever looking inside the entity again, to prove properties of some larger system, seems to me to be absolutely essential for scaling proofs to large systems.

This ability is of course completely common in tools like interactive proof assistants, but is less common in more automated procedures.

Thanks. I think we may differ in our understanding of "compositional."

My understanding of "compositional" reasoning is something like, an approach where we (1) establish some properties about our helper functions, and then (2) reason about larger functions using these properties, instead of the definitions of the helper functions.

It seems like you have a different notion of compositional, which I'm still not sure I can articulate in a clear way... something more akin to transitivity?

> We do it all the time. Whatever it is that you want your program to do, and any interesting functional property of it, is a non-compositional property. I know that because if it were compositional, you wouldn't need to write the program.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here?

Say I want to write a program that tells me the duplicated members of a list. My program might call helper routines like, "stable sort the list," and then "collect adjacent duplicates."

I might want to prove my program is "correct", e.g., a statement like, "the output is a list that contains exactly those elements of the input list whose duplicity exceeds 1"). To do this, I can first reason about the helper functions in isolation, then compose these results about the helper functions to establish that my desired property.

Why is this not an interesting property, or a program that I don't need to write?

If management is looking for people to fire, and you have to somehow defend yourself and/or throw coworkers under the bus, then yes, that's pretty sad and dysfunctional. But that may not be the right way to view this.

You'll probably agree that it's valuable to you for your immediate and upper management to understand what you do for them, why it benefits the company and makes them look good, and why you're incredibly great at it. If they understand this in a deep way, they're much more likely to respect your opinion and work to keep you happy.

It'd be nice if you could just keep your head down, work hard, and expect management to notice that you're doing great and important work. But that will never happen. They're busy people. They don't really understand what you're doing and struggling with, or why you're doing it this way versus that way.

So it's up to you to educate them. You can tell your story better than anyone else, because you're the only one who really knows it...

Absolutely. If nothing else, it helps the author realize what he doesn't know. I know of no better way to understand how well I understand something, than to try to document it.

Have you met many people? :)

Yes. I'm definitely way less tolerant of them, now that I'm used to commercial-free TV.

Aha, that's a good point.

Uh, no.

Indelible ink or similar, perhaps? Maybe some fancy crypto scheme?

I'm no expert and could be missing something. But it doesn't look to me like we have an "inalienable" right to vote. Various amendments do say that our right to vote can't be revoked for certain specific reasons, e.g.,:

- The 15th amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on certain grounds (race, color) but doesn't go beyond that. - The 19th prohibits denying the right to vote based on sex. - The 24th prohibits denying the right to vote (in certain federal elections) based on outstanding tax bills. - The 26th prohibits denying citizens over 18 the right to vote based on age.

But this seems like a weirdly specific list. If the reason isn't on the list, is it still fair game? For instance, AFAIK some states don't let convicted felons vote.

Care to elaborate? Are you referring to taxpayers versus non-taxpayers, perhaps?

This is pretty much the one thing keeping me from writing some long diatribe about how performance doesn't matter for a large amount of software.

I've got a tool that analyzes ...lots... of data, and takes about 2 hours to run. This delay completely does not matter at all, when it's working. But man it's brutal when I have to debug some problem.

> it's especially important if that extra efficiency buys company value.

If you've figured out that this is the case, the optimization is no longer premature.

Is there some historical problem with camry/prius drivers?

Hrmn. I don't think I've ever seen Lisp code where both branches of an IF are indented the same amount...

I think this objection boils down to your perspective on what we mean by "C".

It's reasonable for some folks (especially working programmers who need to "get stuff done") to think that "what a reasonable compiler in their problem domain" would do is what "C" means. It's equally reasonable for other folks (especially compiler writers, verification experts, researchers, etc.) to think the ISO standard is what "C" means.

It would be great for the standard to be more "reasonable" and have less undefined behavior. But I, for one, cannot think of a more horrible, thankless chore than actually trying to make that happen. So much code is written in "C", and there are so many compilers and platforms, modern and legacy, that "C" runs on, each with their own notion of "reasonable," that it will take an incredible amount of work.