marklgr

Parent's comment about the big game is accurate; they were all friends waiting for some whale to show up, so playing there doesn't mean you're one of the best players in the world, skill-wise.

Up to 2010, Negreanu had some up and down and as poker theory developed, his game showed a number of pretty big flaws--which he himself admitted. Sure, he was a competent player, so calling him just a 'celebrity' might be misleading, but there were many players in the top online scene who did a lot more of volume and analysis that Negreanu, who pushed more edge and who leaked much less.

Back when I played poker (up to ~2010), Negreanu was mostly a celebrity, as well as a pretty good blog writer. He was no match for the best pro players, but perhaps he has dramatically improved.

Ivey was pretty good at managing his image, too.

The language is heavily loaded. What about tobbaco being punishing for society (especially passive smoking), or tobacco companies being punishing for their addicted user base? Taxes drive people to meth? This badly sounds like fear mongering from lobbies, "let people smoke our cigarettes, or they'll become junkies".

In the same vein, very little attention is given by capitalism to the details of what is the value of things that don't have a price, like, ecosystems, or human dignity.

The assumption of perfect efficiency and that the free market magically leads to the best outcome for all is wrong. It's a very common assumption too. Even though the absurd level of inequalities or the ultra short-sighted plundering and wreaking of natural resources are often remarked about.

It does not invalidate anything, but that's beside the point; it's not about valid or invalid arguments (their first one is almost always valid or defensible), it's about getting into what you might think is a honest discussion whose purpose is to find out the truth, whereas your interlocutor's purpose is to unroll their rhetoric and influence you or the audience, according to their hidden agenda. While you're only paying attention to logic and validity, they win points and convince people around.

A lot of arguments can be seen as sensible until one realizes they were pushed by people with a hidden agenda. It's often just the motte part of motte-and-bailey arguments.

That's why there are people (eg. in Europe) who aggressively promote secularism, and many agree with that, until you find out they belong to some hateful anti-islam organization. And that's why some people put science into question, like, how can we be sure of anything, which is defensible from an epistemological standpoint, until you discover they are creationists.

So you want to be careful before giving random people the benefit of the doubt.

Will take a look, but 'history-search-backward' fills most of my needs in that regard.

Yeah, let's put peer review into perspective. In a topic about Trump, censoring scientists. I can see the "give science back to the people" anti-intellectual slogans coming up.

> adds a lot of good functionality.

Parent's comment is misleading, then. As someone who already has a pretty solid grasp of Bash, when I peeked at Fish it looked like there was nothing that it would gain me -- though I understand that the preconfigured shell can be useful for people who don't have the time to learn and tweak it.

I would have replaced carbohydrates by ego, but that would have been a bit too rich for him to say.

Can't help thinking about Amigara Fault -- but more seriously, yes, nice zen/taoist perspective.

This often is a euphemism for "making money is good". Except for the worst cases of rents (or scams), if you're making money, this means someone found what you do valuable, so hey, you're creating value. The tacit corollary is, if you're not making money, you're not creating much value (not logically correct obviously, but here it goes).

So one should define how you measure value, and what cost (social, externalities etc.) we should be ready to accept for each type of value.

> Companies cannot be soley profit driven if at same time they artifically reducing supply of eligable candidates.

If there is a strong shortage of supply, you can be sure a lot of people will get over their prejudice -- but in labor markets, there often tend to be more offer than demand, so companies can choose whoever they want, without hurting the business whatsoever.

"Websites love talking about how much their readers are cheap, and how, no, they don't publish crappy content, they would totally check facts and whatnot.

Let's be honest - many websites are after monetizing whatever they can. They want content cheap to produce. And if readers don't want to buy it, they'll sell your attention and your privacy to advertisers, until eventually it's a race to the bottom."

> Also, it should be computationally infeasible to find any other word which also hashes to [...]

He knows there are collisions, he just chose to start with the simplest explanation and add the useful details as he moves on. It's fine by me, even though engineers tend not to like that (they prefer accuracy from the word go).

You're refering to true libertarians, but many people like the idea of being one, or at least tell others that they are, even though you're correct that they're often just after some "free market" which is not free at all in practice, or just tax cuts.

Rosa Parks, gay people, now terrorists: are you going to enumerate all the dubious parallels you can make about this to try and hit an hypothetical moral blind spot? I'm not against moral debates, but if you're just throwing random cases trying to dumbfound someone and switching to another parallel when you can't seriously defend it any longer, well, you know how this is called on the Internet.

True, but I was including real life discussions, with friends, colleagues etc.

The essence of your sophistry is to bring on highly symbolic and emotional subjects into the discussion so as to get some halo effect on your side of the argument, ala Godwin, while pretending all along to stay at the purely logical level and demanding that everyone does so, ignoring the blatant disrespect for those subjects that are orders of magnitude more important.

In that regard, the question above is just a straw man -- but since you asked, many gays already had to suffer harm, beating and death in the recent history, so even that straw man is moot.

Endure the amount of abuse, beating and killing that the civil rights movement was about, and you can have your Uber. Is that a deal?

> the default assumption of almost everyone around me seems to be that regulation is the way to deal with almost anything we don't like.

Well, in my experience, people are very polarized about this: either they want to go to the gulch, or they want a very protective state that deals with everything. Both population seems comparable, number-wise; YMMV.

Some people specialize, and get more and more efficient at the same specific tasks; but I believe it's more common to widen one's experience in various areas (languages, tools, platforms, non-functional requirements etc.), leading to some lack of practice in the hands-on tasks one used to do everyday in the past, and also making it more difficult to commit everything to memory. On the other hand, one generally gets a much broader picture.

For instance, I used to be able to perftune UNIX and DB (mostly Oracle on Solaris) pretty well, knowing various kernel parameters by heart and all the tools of the day (tkprof, Cockroft and co). Now I guess I could still get by after some brush-up, but I'm not anywhere near as efficient as I used to be on that specific task. And I still write code, but I don't know every single method of every API anymore. But now, I can design full solutions, from choosing the hardware to setting up platform, languages, monitoring, high-availability, backups, security etc. Not because I'm smarter, but because I've been exposed to all that along the years.

In that context, to me, tactics is writing & debugging code, compiling stuff, settings things up to work with other libs--ie. mostly hands-on tasks.

Strategy is more about planning, architecture, knowing about the real pros and cons of different solutions eg. libs, tools or languages.

One kid, seven. Got three brothers (the eldest got four kids). Most of my friends got kids too, some of them "difficult". For what it's worth, I was a pretty difficult child too.

> Maybe they are written by non-parents or their children are much easier

To be frank, the article tips are pretty sound and well-accepted, including from specialists who deal with much more difficult children then you and me on a daily basis.

First point, there's a tendency to see one's kids as special, be it especially gifted, or difficult, or an astonishing critical thinker for their age. It's quite understandable, since we have an infinitely deeper relationship with them than with any other kid. Secondly, it's much more difficult to deal with relationship issues when you are involved in them; that explains why you can often clearly see what's wrong in others' relationships (parent/kids or S.O.), but yours always seem more complicated by several order of magnitude. And thirdly, we can also find it quite irritating to be given some basic tips when we are experiencing hell and we feel like we are so past that kind of "pop psych". It's like, "Do you think we've not tried that already?".

Of course, a few tips are no magic bullet (sorry for the cliché), and sometimes the problems are just too serious, but on the whole they just deliver, to the surprise of many parents when they see it used successfully by specialists. I'm not one of them but I know a few, and I personnally use the "give them a choice" tip and if done correctly, I have found it to work very, very well--for parenting and in life in general.

> The number of Macs I've unlocked by creating a new admin by removing the "install is finished" file in single user mode is in the teens.

What's the procedure, in case I need to unlock a mac someday?

Thie is a charming free-market story, but the problem comes when people construe it as "unplanned, unregulated and competitive is always better". The idea that things can "work themselves out" to a better result than if supervised is highly exciting, to the point that some cannot resist it and just fall in love with it. This leads to the classic "Man-with-a-hammer", as C.Munger calls it: this is so good, let's hammer/free-market all the things!

Games are full of Man-with-a-hammer examples, like "bluff all the things" (eg. poker), "sacrifice all the things" (chess) or "never run to win the race" (backgammon). This inevitably leads to failure, but economy being what it is, the failure is too vague, too diffuse and too erratic to acknowledge them in the case of "free market all the things".

Those gambling machines are much closer to the shit the tobbaco industry has put on for decades, with all the chemical additives they included so as to maximize the addiction.

The assumptions behind "unlimited full free speech" is that 1) speech is just speech and has no consequences, and 2) it is all or nothing, either anyone can say anything they want, anywhere, or there's no free speech.

Another point is that both politics and consumerism is about swaying people to make them do what is profitable for the candidate or the seller, so all in all it's better to have a very malleable population. Strong individualism, a mark of many Western societies, significantly contributes to the general lack of empathy and solidarity; as a consequence, the "losers" of the individualistic competition are just ignored ("they must be stupid, or lazy"), and this makes them all the more prone to being manipulated.

When you are in the business of selling little stories to people, you don't want to face a well-educated community with strong ties.

> I guess I will not spend time on this task.

Then why do you comment at all? Your post brings nothing to the discussion but appeals to popularity and shaming gp.