kylebyproxy

I'm asking if there's a proof for determinism itself. I was under the impression that we've only ever been inferring consistency is a property of reality.

If you can QED me to a conclusion that yes, in fact, the sun will rise in the morning, I would genuinely find that useful.

> Chaotic systems are still deterministic.

Is there some definitive proof for this, or are we just taking it as a useful assumption?

From the perspective of someone on the front desk side of things, I always got a sinking feeling whenever I saw a reservation come through Booking.com. They must do 0 CC validation, because their customers were the only ones I ever had payment issues with, and it happened regularly.

Spanking specifically means open-palm slaps on the ass, though. It's done in such a way as to inflict pain without injury (as opposed to beating).

> the SNES translation is pretty rough

Sounds like something a spoony bard would say.

I tried to file for unemployment insurance benefits for the first time back in July, and I'm still in limbo thanks to Id.me. My state won't let me into their online portal without verifying with Id.me, but their website fails to recognize the photo on my driver's license. Their customer support rep apparently couldn't help in any way other than to escalate my ticket. Got an email update in November to please be continue being patient...

Bonus points to the state of Florida DEO for removing any human staff from their phone answering system. It's just an automated menu that always leads to forced disconnection and useless advice to check their useless website.

Why even have a government if it's adversarial to its own citizens?

Oh good, it's not just me. Started getting ~3 PayPal phishing attempts a week, all formatted the same, for the past month or so.

We could have put NIST or another entity in charge of developing a federally-approved *nix distro decades ago and we'd have none of this friction today.

> as soon as you end up having an institution with the power to do something for a large number of people, you'll have power and corruption

Honest question: What would lead you to this conclusion?

I hear this sentiment often, but I've never understood how anyone could think so little of other people and (evidently) themselves.

It sounds like you're saying you can't even trust yourself to resist corruption in a position of power, which strikes me as pure cynicism.

Moreover, you seem to have made the assumption that factoring corruption out of government at a structural level is impossible. If that's the case, I think you're being unimaginative.

> To those who endorse such an approach, we can only ask: How is it going? Is it working yet?

What argument is the writer trying to make here? It's not functioning well. Neither is complete lack of censorship. All that says is we haven't found the right balance.

Frankly, this article just reads like promotional copy to me.

Yours seems like a particularly uncharitable interpretation compared to my reading; I didn't hear them saying D == R so much as both are susceptible to the same flaw of human nature: impulsive overreaction to stimuli we find threatening.

I do agree that's an unhelpful analysis, but only because it happens to be tautological.

Depends. Is it a worker cooperative that employs everyone?

Huh. I always thought it was for the conductors. This changes everything.

Obnoxious is being far too nice. MS has done more than any other single organization to derail & suppress the pace of technological development, and by extension the progress of the species. I genuinely see them as an enemy of humanity.

The issue is we don't have anything useful to compare those results against. Any other system in place over the same period in history could have just as easily yielded the same net result.

Magic: the Gathering is basically writing software and teaches how to optimize randomness ― high barrier to entry, unfortunately

Just guessing by "cheque", are you outside the US? The checking system & ACH might be more of a US-centric phenomenon. It's been busted forever, but it's just how we do things around here.

Build usage profiles on each client you encounter, calculate reputation scores, and weight the reports accordingly?

To my ear, this all sounds like you're saying participation in NFT is performance art, which I hadn't really considered before, but I can kinda make sense of the appeal in that light. It just seems in bad taste to me that a person would claim ownership of someone else's work. But to each their own.

> at least for children to be too young to be left without supervision

Maybe school openings should just focus on that age group instead of being all-or-nothing? They could give extra focus to preschool & kindergarten, reallocate teachers from higher grades to decrease student-teacher ratios and help spread the infection risk thinner.

> petty

Says the guy hung up on terms of service

> assuming

Says the guy accusing OP of malice

> irritable

Says the guy lashing-out

A+ projection all around. No notes.

Only really comes up when you commingle stock, but it's not like the customer can ask for a return, so does it even matter?

It has competitors, sure. But what the competitors don't have is user base and mind share. Maybe _de facto_ or _effective_ monopoly is more accurate?

I can't say how common this is, but many (most?) online accounts I personally interact with are disposable, represent no sensitive information, and I couldn't care less if they're compromised. They're one-time sign-ups, junk accounts, free trials, free tiers, etc.

> one of the most frustrating experiences

I understand this frustration as a mismatch between the user's non-expectation of security and the service's obeyance to industry security best practices.

Placing a cognitive burden of memorizing a new password just to try out your product strikes me as cruel.

Maybe only enforce password rules as progressive enhancement once sensitive information comes into play? After all, what's the point of protecting junk?

Right, surveillance needs to go both ways. The watchers need to be watched.

> nearly every company offers some raises

I've worked at least a dozen jobs. Received exactly 2 raises: one for $0.25, the other $0.33.

> In order to be stuck at minimum you have to additionally have stability issues

Or just not be able to afford a bachelor's degree

I threw together a crude implementation of a pure CSS lighting system if you're interested: https://github.com/kinseywk/zShadows/blob/gh-pages/index.md

> This disease just isn't that deadly

Vs. 4.6M dead worldwide, discounting 2nd order excess deaths.

How can you be so blithe?

Agreed on all points.

Parent's assertion that "Voting at all in an unegaged populace is bad." still rubs me the wrong way.

Why discount the votes of engaged individuals just because the masses aren't? Baby, bath water, etc.

Ooo that's interesting! I stand educated; thanks for sharing that.