The Non-Aggression Principle[1] is generally accepted as rule #1 for a limited government or a maximally free society. I can't speak to the ideals or proposed solutions to this from the Hobbsian State of Nature types.
5,197 karma · joined December 13, 2011
ben at blinq dot inc
Engineer in beautiful Denver, CO.
The Non-Aggression Principle[1] is generally accepted as rule #1 for a limited government or a maximally free society. I can't speak to the ideals or proposed solutions to this from the Hobbsian State of Nature types.
While i won't dispute that tidal energy is not truly sustainable, at least not in the way solar appears to be, i think we can agree that in the short team (a few centuries) cargo ships saving fuel would be a net positive with no measurable impact on the rotation of the planet.
Edit: after some more napkin math, i have a hard time taking this paper seriously at all. It appears to suggest that the available tidal energy would remain constant throughout this process? Also, 1.02^1000 equates to a roughly 400 million factor increase in the current energy demands of the planet. That's not something i'd expect such an advanced civilization to be trying to generate out of some waves.
For the bullish-AI types, is there a prevailing hope that "human content" may itself be an artificial barrier and a properly trained AI could generate better training content for future AI generations? Is this strictly in "AGI" territory?
Perhaps some of this is too introductory for seasoned game/engine developers, but as someone who doesn't live in those worlds regularly i found this struck an excellent balance between discussing changes and explaining topics in a consumable way. Bravo!
Say your users are predominantly seeking long-term relationships, and your branding supports that. Then a bunch of men, fueled by gender-ratio marketing, flood your app seeking hookups. You will see short-term a bump in engagement and payments. A/B testing will suggest everything is great. But long-term your product loses value as your users lose faith in your ability to deliver on what they signed up for. The (in this case women) leave and the product becomes another graveyard.
I CTO'd a fairly successful dating site for 4 years. I think a lot of the critiques of dating sites/apps miss the mark. The "they only stay in business by keep you single" sort of comments.
Instead, i think dating sites' issues are more fundamental. Thought experiment: write a dating profile for yourself in the 3rd person. Then have you 5 closest friends and family members each write one on your behalf. Now have everyone vote on which of the 11 profiles is the most "you". Do you believe yours comes in first? How about top 5?
When we fill out profiles, we naturally try to highlight some parts of ourselves and hide others. Your friends and family see you as you present. Only you see yourself as you intent.
The result of this all is that our dating profiles are a limited, and often misleading, approximation of ourselves. Any matchmaking app is thus matching my "Online Dating Approximation" with your "Online Dating Approximation". The hope is that if our approximations match, we can extrapolate us matching? Weak connection in my experience.
I think this is why Tinder and Bumble have had so much success with their frankly superficial model. At least the online vs reality is closer than more in-depth matching schemes. But we still hear tales of cat/hat-fishing, so maybe they suffer the same issues.
None of the dating apps ive seen have really keyed into the "monkey brain" side of love. The subtle things that make us truly love a person. To be seen if any get there, but there is just no substitute for getting to know someone in person vs flipping through people online.
Strikes me as harsh given that we know essentially nothing about the company's plans. The laid off employees were given severance and the CEO offered to personally intro people to hiring companies. The CEO stated it was to increase speed and focus (i read as reducing meetings/overhead).
I understand people are upset with layoffs taking place, but how do you think a company should behave when they realize they are wasting time and money?
I've been using Shipscoop for years now to the delight of many clients, but we've yet to finish its "go live" flow. That said if people want to try it out, it works quite well for turning git logs into weekly status reports
The presumption that employing former generals impacts the military spending budgets is, if true, a failure of the legislature and the budgetary councils, not these former government employees moving onto private sector jobs.
I have tried multiple times to discern flac vs 320 mp3 across genres. Every time I believe I can figure it out and I consistently fail to exceed 50% (pure chance) accuracy.
Makes me wonder what ultra-linear source gear or speakers would highlight the differences in real-world situations, if at all. But for my purposes I’ll happily accept the roughly 80% file size reduction for no audible difference.
This qualifies as culture-war gas? The article does not ignore human climate impact. There's a big CO2 graph right in the middle.
I'm frankly not even sure how to napkin math such a question.
1. I badly want the ability to rotate pieces. Perhaps it's too strong to have this universally, but maybe i get 1-3 piece rotations recharged on each Reroll?
2. Having multiple of the same orientation piece isn't great, but a few times i got 3 pieces in identical orientations. This is really fun-sucking and i'd either code that case out or weight it to be very unlikely.
3. UX-wise it would be great to be able to hold my mouse down and drag across pieces to highlight them instead of needing to click on each block individually.
Feedback aside, i really love the concept here and think it's a great first pass. Some UX improvements i think could make this a really addicting game. Awesome job.
I've not had a seizure since, but the closest i have come to experiencing that "aura"-like sensation since has been times of extreme auditory load: loud, frantic music mixed with hustle and bustle around me. And i'm a regular (sober) concert attendee. I've never had a seizure from these situations, but the article puts to words a sensation i've never really voiced to others.
Flash had its share of footguns in terms of code organization, but animating interaction was never a weak point.
Similarly, i wouldn't wear it at a coffee shop. But i could see it coming into style at co-working spaces. It feels like a no brainer in hotel rooms and airbnb's.
A wearable that acts as if i have floating monitors anywhere sounds like a massive win, in a device that appears to be far more portable than actually bringing the aforementioned accoutrements with me everywhere i go.
From the perspective of a driver, this fits: i am held responsible for harm i cause even if i was otherwise driving lawfully. But should my car maker be held responsible for the harm their car caused under lawful use?
> The review also evaluated the potential welfare implications of current commercial practices involving these animals. It recommends against declawing, nicking, eyestalk ablation, the sale of live decapod crustaceans to untrained, non-expert handlers, and extreme slaughter methods such as live boiling without stunning. It also includes suggestions for best practices for transport, stunning and slaughter.
But this reads more like additional recommendations than required by law under the new classification.
Pedantically, though, the votes haven't been strictly progressive, more lowercase-L libertarian. Often the state votes to increase freedoms instead of traditional progressive/conservative lines.
Overall, i think the CO population is more drug-friendly than the average liberal US voting pool. Denver feels relatively moderate, politically, as we have so many influences from where people came from (east coast, california, texas). We have one of the most liberal (Boulder) and conservative (CO Springs) cities in the US. The things that the population collectively agrees upon is often the freedom-y bits.
The "we'll just do X" developer tends to think about codebases as they do the customer. "We'll just refactor <huge system>" or "we can just include <major new subsystem>". Type 2 devs, in contrast, are far more careful in their approach to the codebase itself.
The two balance each other out in the right ratios. Left to their own devices, Type 1 will bring innovative changes to a system while Type 2 naturally improve the stability of the system. I just think you want 3-4 Type 2's for each Type 1 you have on a team.