grzm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_News#History

And even if it is the facts or true, is it important to share your experience? Is it important to counter someone's good experience with your own bad experience?

FWIW, I know nothing of Zig or anyone in this thread: hiding behind "it's just the facts" to be unkind I find is unhelpful. ("But I'm not being unkind! We're just having a rational discussion!" I hear you say. I disagree. It's never just that.)

Edited to add: I'm leaving this here as-is, but I regret posting it. I should have recognized that this would be fruitless and adds nothing to the thread, and should have never engaged.

Reading this thread, someone commented about his experience (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35505169), and you offered your own, unsolicited (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35505919). Yes, they then asked for details, which you then provided. But you volunteered your experience. You (nor anyone else) was asked for their experience.

The article does clearly label the authors and the publication. pubmed, while fortunately available to the general public (it wasn't when I was in school), it is not necessarily intended for general audiences, as it were. From the about page https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/:

> "PubMed is a free resource supporting the search and retrieval of biomedical and life sciences literature with the aim of improving health–both globally and personally."

> "The PubMed database contains more than 34 million citations and abstracts of biomedical literature. It does not include full text journal articles; however, links to the full text are often present when available from other sources, such as the publisher's website or PubMed Central (PMC)."

> "Citations in PubMed primarily stem from the biomedicine and health fields, and related disciplines such as life sciences, behavioral sciences, chemical sciences, and bioengineering."

At some point you have to have enough context that you bring yourself. Reasonable people can disagree at how much context should be required.

https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conserva...

> "In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?"

I believe this passage refers to work done Study 2 in "Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations"

https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~jhaidt/articles/graham.haidt.no...

In my brief reading of the paper, it's not clear to me whether they've reporting their findings on the understanding aspect, though the materials section for Study 2 sounds like the situation described. (They may have, I just haven't read it closely.)

> "As with relevance items, there were three versions of the moral judgment items—answered as oneself, as a typical liberal, or as a typical conservative. For both types of items, only results for the self versions are reported here."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31520597

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...

> Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can.

* https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/PostgreSQLRelea...

* https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraPostgreSQ...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33211562

Ron Garret (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=lisper) is a frequent contributor on HN.

* https://book.fulcrologic.com/#_install_fulcro_inspect

* https://reagent-project.github.io

At about 22 minutes:

> I want to talk about interactive programming, which is I think the only kind of programming we should really be doing. Some people call it live coding, mainly in the art community, and this is when you code with what Dan Ingalls refers to as liveness. It is the opposite of batch processing. Instead, there is a programming environment, and the environment and the program are combined during development. So what does this do for us? Well, there's no compile and run cycle. You're compiling inside your running program, so you no longer have that feedback loop. It doesn't start with a blank slate and run to termination. Instead, all of your program state is still there while you're working on it. This means that you can debug. You can add things to it. You can find out what's going on, all while your program is running.

And a few minutes later:

> So, for example, in a dead coding language, I will have to run a separate debugger, load in the program, and run it, set a break point, and get it here. Now, if I've had a fault in production, this is not actually so helpful to me. Maybe I have a core dump, and the core dump has some information that I could use, but it doesn't show me the state of things while it's running.

Are you using this as a pejorative or as a descriptor? If the latter, what's your definition of "boomer"? She was born in 1974.

For example:

> The term "5 nanometer" has no relation to any actual physical feature (such as gate length, metal pitch or gate pitch) of the transistors. According to the projections contained in the 2021 update of the International Roadmap for Devices and Systems published by IEEE Standards Association Industry Connection, a 5 nm node is expected to have a contacted gate pitch of 51 nanometers and a tightest metal pitch of 30 nanometers. However, in real world commercial practice, "5 nm" is used primarily as a marketing term by individual microchip manufacturers to refer to a new, improved generation of silicon semiconductor chips in terms of increased transistor density (i.e. a higher degree of miniaturization), increased speed and reduced power consumption compared to the previous 7 nm process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process

> You may ask why an electric race car needs a transmission in the first place? Using a gearbox helps you to extract the maximum efficiency possible from the electric motor. High Performance electric motor efficiency varies greatly depending on its architecture and design philosophy. Some motors are high revving – perhaps as high as 25,000rpm, while others only reach 9,000rpm. They will be delivering very different torque bands; using a transmission helps you keep the motor in the most efficient operating range possible.

> There’s another fundamental reason why Formula E cars use a transmission: because the rules say so. The regulations stipulate that the motor must deliver drive to both wheels through a single mechanical transmission, so you need at least one gear set to accomplish this final drive. The electric motors used in Formula E have some of the highest power-to-weight ratio of any automotive motor in the world so that transmission has its work cut out for it.

For what it’s worth, I debated initially commenting at all because I thought it was unlikely to be productive. I’m sure I’m not the only person who considered this (sheer numbers in this case make that unlikely) and they made the choice not to.