lisper

This was my thought. Nanoseconds are an eternity. You want to be using Planck units for your worst-case analysis.

This analysis is not quite fair. It takes into account locality (i.e. the speed of light) when designing UUID schemes but not when computing the odds of a collision. Collisions only matter if the colliding UUIDs actually come into causal contact with each other after being generated. So just as you have to take locality into account when designing UUID trees, you also have to take it into account when computing the odds of an actual local collision. So a naive application of the birthday paradox is not applicable because that ignores locality. So an actual fair calculation of the required size of a random UUID is going to be a lot smaller than the ~800 bits the article comes up with. I haven't done the math, but I'd be surprised if the actual answer is more than 256 bits.

(Gotta say here that I love HN. It's one of the very few places where a comment that geeky and pedantic can nonetheless be on point. :-)

I am in Honolulu right now and the power has gone out twice in the last three days because of high winds.

Yep. TFR was issued three hours ago.

https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2233

Um, where is the car? All the images are of (parts of) the interior, and the captioning is bizarre. Ooohh! It has a steering wheel! (And it's a input! Who knew?)

Singapore is on the equator, so winter is not even a well-defined concept there.

OK, so the defining characteristic of a monad M is that:

a.M(b).M(c) = a.M(function(x){return b(x).M(c)})

So the next question is: why should I care about that pattern in particular?

> You need a Monad type in order to express that certain things are supposed to happen after other things

This is the kind of explanation that drives me absolutely batshit crazy because it is fundamentally at odds with:

> Do you understand "flatmap"? Good, that's literally all a monad is: a flatmappable.

So, I think I understand flatmap, assuming that this is what you mean:

https://www.w3schools.com/Jsref/jsref_array_flatmap.asp

But this has absolutely nothing to do with "certain things are supposed to happen after other things", and CANNOT POSSIBLY have anything to do with that. Flatmap is a purely functional concept, and in the context of things that are purely functional, nothing ever actually happens. That's the whole point of "functional" as a concept. It cleanly separates the result of a computation from the process used to produce that result.

So one of your "simple" explanations must be wrong.

I can do you one better and specify that the normal base-2 integer represented by the bits is the number of up-arrows. But as /u/tromp has already pointed out, that is not very interesting.

Ah. Thanks.

Thanks!

How do you do that?

What do any of these comments have to do with this advertisement for the Apple1?

> Do you happen to know if there's any kinematic analyses of these suspensions available?

Sorry, I have no idea. I never actually worked on the mechanics, just the software.

I had the privilege of working with Don back at JPL at the time he invented the rocker bogey. (I wrote the software for the first prototype with a computer on board.) Not only was he brilliant, he was also a really nice guy. I didn't appreciate at the time how rare that combination of traits is among humans.

To my astonishment, it turns out Don doesn't have a Wikipedia page (though the rocker bogie suspension does).

Heavy rain is usually very localized. I live in Norcal and I've seen many situations where we were getting hammered with multiple inches an hour while a few dozen miles away it wasn't raining at all, and vice versa. So even in a wet year whether your neighborhood gets slammed is a crap shoot.

Ironically, the rest of the country is having a drought:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2026/01/18/winter-dro...

If you have to ask, you aren't ready to know the answer. There are some things you have to figure out on your own. This is one of them.

Apparently no one has mentioned the Vasa here yet, so I'll do it:

https://www.vasamuseet.se/en

Not quite as old but preserved almost intact and now restored on dry land. Well worth a visit.

Can't argue with that, but Dilbert first appeared in 1989, and Adams publicly jumped the shark in February 2023. So May 2022 is hardly "always there".

> The racism and the provocations were always there

Were they? Can you cite an example? Because I also grew up with Dilbert, and I was never aware of it.

> You’re fixated on a particular model of aether

Well, yes, of course. This is a discussion of Michelson-Morley interferometers. In that context the word "aether" has a very specific and well-established meaning, and it is not at all the same as a quantum field.

> fields are aethers

You are free to employ the Humpty Dumpty theory of language and redefine the word "aether" if you like. But in the context of Michelson-Morley interferometers, no, quantum fields are not "aethers". The whole notion of making the word "aether" plural in that context is non-sensical. In the context of Michelson-Morley interferometers there is only one aether: the luminiferous aether, a hypothetical physical substance that exists in three-dimensional space. Quantum fields are not even remotely like that. They are not physical. They do not exist in 3-D space. They cannot be directly measured. Physical objects are emergent properties of fields, but they are not "made of" fields. The constituents of a piece of lab equipment are particles, not fields.

> My comment is just applying that theory to interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Really? Where in the Standard Model do I find the luminiferous aether that you suggest the apparatus is made of?

> The Michelson–Morley experiment was indeed very important, but it has not proved in any way the non-existence of ether. It has just proved that the ether does not behave as it was previously supposed, i.e. like the materials with which humans are familiar.

That's kind of like saying that our failure to observe invisible pink unicorns does not prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns, it just proves that invisible pink unicorns don't behave the way you expect them to.

Luminiferous ether was a specific hypothesis about how light works. It made a prediction, which turned out to be wrong, which falsified the theory. Whether you want to attach the description "proves the ether does not exist" or "proves the ether does not have the properties ascribed to it by the theory" is completely irrelevant.

> Another interpretation is that the apparatus ... is made from ether

Or maybe an invisible pink unicorn is sneaking into the lab at night and tweaking things.

More specifically MM showed that earth is not moving relative to a hypothetical medium through which electromagnetic waves propagate. So either the universe is geocentric or there is no such medium.

Source? Because Wikipedia says:

"A few Savery pumps were tried in mines, an unsuccessful attempt being made to use one to clear water from a pool called Broad Waters in Wednesbury (then in Staffordshire) and nearby coal mines."

Yes, that was it! Thank you! How did you know?

I remember reading an analysis of that a while back but I can't remember where I saw it. The upshot was that the industrial revolution turned on more than just innovation, it also required just the right combination of natural resources (coal) and economic conditionsL deforestation in England driving the use of coal for heat, which drove mining, which drove the need for pumps, which made Savery's engine economically viable. Before that steam power would not have found an application.

Also, the piston and cylinder (which came later) were derived from canon-making technology, so that had to come first too.