ivanhoe

Say what you want but chit-chatting with people you know is far more fun and dynamical when everyone feels free to interrupt others. Part of that culture is of course learning to not let go, and fight back those interrupting you - refusing the interrupt request if you will.

Wait culture is IMHO more appropriate for larger groups of people and more formal settings, or some subjects that are very important to the one speaking, so interruption would be disrespectful.

Interesting, can you elaborate on the pros/cons of the office for you?

But crypto wasn't invented for rich people and drug lords to launder the money, so why would anyone give a shit about their problems in the first place?

It still would make a lot of sense for regular folks who prefer their online habits not to be tracked by corporations and sold around.

> I used to love going to the office.

I hated going to office (and that's why I stopped doing it like 20 years ago).

But it's not a case of one of us being right and the other wrong, it's just that some people are more extrovert, and some are more introvert, and we simply don't enjoy the same things.

Now, being introvert doesn't mean I hate other people. I actually enjoy in daily interactions with my colleagues, and with many of them (current and ex) I'm a close friend, we (and our families) socialize outside the work regularly - but we don't need to be locked for 8h in the same building for that. Being able to do it on our own time and terms is actually much more rewarding for everyone.

In theory traceability is not a problem if you can maintain a complete anonymity of your online persona - which in practice most people can't.

Shouldn't we instead solve the problem that you might "need some protection" because you're doing something political - instead of relying on security-through-obscurity which honestly doesn't even really work anymore, IDs or no IDs. There's so many other ways for governments to track people of interest these days.

> It requires a very untrained, overweight individual with a relatively modest caloric deficit.

It's hard to say because many overweight people already have a significant muscle mass, just those muscles are underused and hidden under the fat. When one starts to exercise and looses some weight their muscles' volume will increase with a better blood flow, and will get the proper shape and also become more prominent with less fat over them, but they'll probably not actually increase the muscle mass itself - it's just that we're now able to see them better.

Perhaps if you're obese and your body can burn enough of its stored fat you could maintain it for a while, but 1500 kcal/day is too low for an active person - for most people it barely covers the BMR needs. In order to stop body from reducing your muscle mass you need to stimulate those muscles a lot, you need to use them hard, so your real caloric needs would be significantly higher. Big problem with such extreme restrictions is that in 6 months body will adapt to low calorie intake (shed the unneeded muscles, slow down metabolism), so if you ever decide to stop the program and go back to the normal dietary regime, you'll be in a big problem how not to get overweight really quickly.

The problem is not in OSS, but that people now want to live from it. Open source development is primarily a hobby, something that you do for free because you enjoy it, or maybe for self-promotion or something. Obviously some projects get popular and the authors can then afford to dedicate their full time to them, but IMHO it's an unrealistic (and un-needed really) goal for every side-project one comes up with.

I love it when people say "Oh, I'm not a programmer" and then continue showing the stuff they've built (and fully programmed) that is a way beyond in complexity than what most of us professional programmers get to work on, like ever... :)

Weird, NASIC also has Egypt inspired insignia, what's the deal with that?

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

To reiterate after giving it a bit more thought, this actually could be very useful if combined with fingerprint or facial detection as approval method - a bit like what Apple is now doing with passkeys, but will work with many more services out-of-box...

This sort of defeats the idea of 2FA, doesn't it? If it's implemented as a software service on the same device, it's (well theoretically at least) hackable at the same time as the device itself. The 2 factors from 2FA are both accessible to an attacker at the same time, so you effectively have just a single factor auth.

Can you define what do you mean by sufficient support?

20 years ago ASM was just as cryptical black magic to most of programers as it is today... try perhaps 40 y/a...

Sounds a bit like 2nd-graders who wish to skip the multiplication because they don't need 2*3 - they can pass the test just by calculating 3+3 after all...

When learning, unlike the person teaching you, you don't know what's coming in the next lesson or the one after it, so it's sometimes a good idea to trust them on a curriculum. It's also the one of the biggest downsides of being self-thought (as I am in big part), you always have holes in your perspective that you're not even aware of and it takes years to stumble on something that someone else was told in the 1st year of being a dev.

any links/info on this 4 cases so that we can learn more about the subject?

strictly speaking it's a rate limiter, not captcha... but frankly it's probably closer to what most ppl use captchas for these days...

It's a nice toy, but I doubt its practical value as in design you deal with color palettes, not standalone colors. I might be wrong, but my gut feeling is that "the most popular" color wouldn't necessarily end up as a part of the most popular palette, or even in top 5.

> consciousness is, at root, a physical phenomenon, not a purely computational phenomenon. Computation may be necessary to produce consciousness, but it cannot be sufficient.

What does "computational phenomenon" even mean?

I really don't see how any of the ideas presented in the text prove that "it cannot be sufficient", nor it's clear from the text what "physical phenomenon" author has in mind?

Brain is a network of 86 billion organic electro-chemical switches making 100+ trillion inter-connections, each either firing electrical impulses or not... so how it that not "computational" in it's nature? There're also chemical reactions going on that influence neurons and possibly some EM field interferences play roles, too, but that's all part of the "hardware"'s internal design.

Brain is, of course, not really modeled like general purpose programmable computers that we're used to today, more like old concept of specialized hardware machines and automata (or perhaps today's FPGA concept) - it comes with the programming implemented in the hardware itself. The obvious difference is that brain is incomprehensibly more complex than anything we can build, and also being made of living tissue capable of re-arranging and re-purposing tricks that no silicon based computer will ever be able to do - but in the end, it's still a "computational machine" processing inputs and internal states and generating some results based on that... how else to call it without going into the spiritual stuff?

Thanks for the clarification, I totally misunderstood the idea obviously... it was a long day I guess...

It's not a huge deal and maybe it's just me, but I find adding the word "Imaginary" in front of their Gods completely unnecessary, even annoying. I never heard anyone explaining Christianity by putting Imaginary in front of every mention of the God, so why do it to other religions?

Absolutely, WE should do exactly that (and there's a plenty of things that we can do to protect nature around ourselves) - instead of living in hyper-urbanized cities and pissing online on people who actually live for a century or more in a real untouched wilderness and haven't destroyed it in all that time, and now want one stupid gravel road through that unimaginably wast area. It's a raindrop in the ocean, but people love to focus their energy on isolated, far-away problems, rather than tackling real problems and the wider image.

Did we really? Just go around and see all those sterile lawns in front of houses, drowned in herbicides and fertilizers, wasting all that space that could be easily turned into gardens or beautiful meadows (you literally just have to leave it alone and it will happen on its own).

But we're pissed on others for wanting a single gravel road, so that they don't die if some emergency happens...

As the old Serbian saying goes: "it's easy to beat hawthorns with someone else's penis"...

Whole US were a wilderness once... you're basically punishing them for not destroying their nature earlier on, like the rest of us did...

We destroyed our local wilderness long time ago to make our lives safer and easier and more comfortable - and now we're judging others for wanting the same for their town...

> they've either been without that road for 40 years, or moved there knowing the situation.

It's a really weird argument, you're basically saying that people shouldn't be allowed to upgrade their infrastructure ever? Imagine saying that for some poor country: "Oh, well, they either had no running water before, or they knew the situation before moving there, so screw them, they can just continue walking 5 miles every day to bring water from the spring".

Also they've been without that road a lot longer than 40 years, King Cove exists since at least 1930s. Population is dropping so I doubt many people have been moving there, most of people live there their whole life....and if they get sick or injured and planes can't land, they're screwed without that road.

That's not how I feel, to me honestly the things got significantly easier and quicker in last 10 or so years (I primarily work in js and php now)

Sure it's not the same as it was with Delphi or VB that would install (and in case of VB also build into exe) everything you might ever need, but e.g. it's still a lot simpler than VC++ used to be back then - just figuring out all headers you need to include to compile an empty app was a horror - so it was definitely not like everything was "simple stuff" friendly back then. And doing web dev in those early days was far more complicated to setup...

Nowadays IME once you figure out how to setup the tool chain - and there's a plenty of boilerplates and starter kits for that - you more or less just rinse and repeat that every nest time. Sure sometimes package managers go berserk on you, but otherwise my experience is that - once you've figured it out - it all just magically works... but it does take some initial effort and time to figure it out properly.

And if it's really simple stuff that I need to finish quickly, I just skip the whole package managers/ build tools deal, and write a script, include and link what I need manually and run it from CLI/browser just like it's 1998 :P

It's the thing with every tech ever, first you need to know (way to many) intricacies, and then the tools evolve and you don't need anymore... I remember having to fight sound cards and modems on linux once, or (slightly more recent) days of having to manually install and set up every single service for local dev environment, which basically required a linux administrator level of skills from a developer, plus a lot of time and patience - and nowadays you just type a single command and drivers work, docker is up with your project ready, you're done in minutes... it's the normal path of evolution for these things...

For me this light pinkish text on the dark purple background is far worse choice... it's not just the eye strain that I felt immediately, it also has this anxious and aggressive vibe. Good choice of color palette for a striptease club, but not so much for a page with a lot of text IMHO...