mrphoebs

> It seems like you’re saying some people are being tricked by our brains, but others (like yourself) are able to pull aside the veil and truly understand our place in the universe. Perhaps we’re all being tricked.

I make no such claim. We interpret and navigate the world with the mental models and toolsets we have. If you can do math, you can calculate, estimate, plan, budget....etc. Similarly, some toolsets give you access to insights and paradigms eg: religious toolset might make you interpret the world differently. I merely have a certain toolset which lets me look at the world in a certain way, does not mean this toolset is exclusive, leads to authoritative interpretations or it's acquisition is special in any way.

I could just say "In my humble opinion"

>Regardless, in a universe where nothing matters, truth and knowledge have no more value than children or stone walls.

As always value is in the eye of the beholder, there is no objective value beyond what a subject is able to get out of it. So if you feel truth and knowledge are important, they are. If you feel faith is more important than truth, it is, to you at-least.

I don't know what specifically you are referring to but, the sun is going to be a red giant in 4.5 billion years, earth cannot sustain life. Deep into the future, all the stars will eventually burn out and there will be no more new ones born. The night sky will be dark. The only radiation emitted will be black holes slowly evaporating on a time scale so huge we can't even meaningfully comprehend it. There is no energy to sustain life. Then there is the heat death of the universe to look forward to.

Humans might survive past earth, but oblivion will come for us all the same. We just get to play around in our little imagined worlds of purpose and meaning a little longer all to no avail beyond living one's life.

And that's all any of us can really do, chose how to face existence knowing there is no grand scheme in which each of us is some how important or matters. Choosing to live is equally as valid as choosing not to. We are evolutionarily engineered thinking emotional machines where certain states make us feel good(love, friendship, self actualisation food...., accomplishment) and certain states make us feel bad (sickness, loss, pain...)

All we can do is live a life we are happy(good state) with, be it building stone walls that last or having kids and raising them.

I'm not dwindling others experiences against the vastness of the universe. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the parent comment that somehow elevates the meaningfulness of having kids over building a stone wall. My position is neither is any less or more meaningful beyond individual experience.

Legacy implies transmission of information. So forgotten not in terms of memory, but a total loss of information (genetic, memory or otherwise).

Children as your legacy are no less consequential or meaningful than this man's stone walls. In the end you are grasping for empty meaning and purpose in the same way the farmer is, your children will perish, their children will perish, you will be forgotten and so will they like the rest of human existence. Our lives have no larger purpose or meaning beyond what ever we pretend gives meaning to your life, like children or stone walls.

We are mere Spatiotemporal blips of information in the infant universe with delusions of grandeur. So if you have to tell yourself deep in the night that you actualising your reproductive prerogative makes your sad little life more meaningful than the farmer, please grasp at those straws.

Sounds fair.

While I see your point about the article's inability to cogently driving the reader to a deserved insight, Me thinks you've stretched the metaphor into an analogy and pulled at it until it's been "uprooted" :)

The thought provoking premises/ideas in it at-least, what ever bits and pieces that were locally consistent was some food for thought.

I don't think mine is a position as much as general facts about pre-history that calls into question the parent commenters position.

Now in the case of the (in)Famous mathematician, he seemed to have made a value judgement based on his interpretation of similar facts and the decay modernity wrought, and so it goes.

These roots you profess as being our core are more modern than you think in terms of our overall history as a people. - For waring more complicated and denser societies were required than our hunter gatherere tribes of old

- For Pillaging, and power grabs, jealousy, envy individual ownership was required that didn't emerge until we settled down with farming anywhere at 10,000 bc

>decamping to somewhere more promising when the vaunted Land Of My Ancestors crapped out

This too did not happen until we started settling down and consuming all the local resources until they ran dry. Hunter gatherers foraged from larger areas of land with lower population density like wolves or other big predators of today and in a more sustainable way. I'm sure as tribes prospered and grew they split off exploring for greener pastures. One could argue why they couldn't just have a conflict with their neighbours, it's because beyond a certain size tribes tend to be very violent and dangerous governing structures for their constituents. That's the reason why we don't see geographically contiguous tribes beyond a certain size and they usually move to a more chieftan structure of governance.

I think all of this is a round about way of saying, I don't think there are innate, universal, roots that humans are bound by. Beyond our mammalian firmware, and human firmware, most of the rest would be a software programmed through your experiences with the world, that's why there is such an expansive manifold of how humans can live and behave for better or worse.

The content seemed to be talking about the fundamental common operating system for societies, not individuals. Individuals might have varying needs but as long as their needs align well with a superset of a culture's fundamental tenets the society would be relatively harmonious, or at least that's the way I see the author approaching the subject. I don't think these fundamental tenets need to have a theological basis for them, but as humans an overwhelmingly large part of our history as a people tribes, kingdoms and societies have been grounded by a shared belief in a common higher power. (I'm an atheist btw)

>This just seems like unnecessary hyperbole

This refutation seems to be as vague and unfounded as the thing it's refuting and doesn't provide much value. It would be beneficial to everyone reading if you can elucidate.

Still in the midst of reading it and it's been fascinating from the get go. Thanks for the link.

Thanks for the mention of julian jaynes' book, never heard of it before, seems like quite an interesting read.

Software complexity is often an entropic outcome of bloated teams and improper layering, working in an environment without strong stewardship that's explicitly guiding the the effort with simplicity as a fundamental tenet. Adding funding, prioritising short term feature delivery and having misaligned incentives often create and catalyse bloated teams to drive complexity up.

Thanks for the information and links, looks like a great way to spend some downtime.

This was a very well written article.

The distinction between maintenance and Tech Debt comes down to whether the choice for an imperfect or expedient way of solving the problem was made consciously. You incur Tech Debt consciously to deliver value in the short term at the cost of not being able to sustainably deliver that value as parameters change.

Maintenance on the other hand is stewardship of a system as both the system(entropic decay) and it's environment constantly change.

Capture One has a perpetual license, you can try it for free and before checkout their price shows the yearly commitment.

DNS is a fragile system to use within a DC to do service/endpoint discovery. That's because DNS tends to be a single point of failure.

Though the DNS system can inherently be resilient, within a DC most people only operate a single DNS server because a hierarchical domain scheme and DNS setup within DC is too cumbersome and is much less reactive to end point changes. Eg: Changing a service endpoint in an emergency takes way too long.

A single DNS server means, still there are propagation delays(local caches) and a single point of failure at critical moments(when there is a thundering herd)

It's flipkart's OpenSource software org on github to incubate projects that developers drive and graduate them to fully sponsered, flipkart opensource projects.

While I agree it's not hard to make an object safe for concurrency, knowing how to do it effectively is another matter. In an organization or team where there are engineers at all levels of familiarity with java, getting concurrency right is a PITA.

Additionally in this context, the very basis of the channel mechanism is "share state by communicating, don't communicate by sharing state". Also pass by value lends itself well to remoting if I choose to go in that direction.

Thanks, I remember reading the pulsar blog post a while ago. Couldn't recall the name.

Thanks, the analogy to the system call helps heaps in my understanding of the intent. It's value wasn't clear to me when I was debating it's inclusion in the library. I'll have a deeper look and see how best I can include something similar in the library. Sadly, I doubt the interface for it would be as elegant as the one Go has.

I had no idea such a thing existed, will check it out ,thanks. Can't comment on the differences, sorry.

It's not pass by reference, it's pass by value. And also I like this abstraction better.

I'm not an expert at Go but what is the power that select gives. Don't higher order channel structures like multiplexing achieve something similar. Can you throw more light on this?

The bounded nature of channels tie the communicating processes together more intimately. As a result channels are very good for coordination between processes. Both do a good job of communication between concurrent processes/threads.

You could always just do a read=any on a cassandra cluster.

those are rockets launched to create smoke trails. The smoke trails were used to study the velocity of the shock-wave emanating from the explosion.

A comprehensive explanation can be found here. http://www.atomcentral.com/atomic-smoke-trails.aspx

I love the interface. It would be great if you could add the ability to login, upvote/downvote (near the comments icon). Realtime reddit content would be great.

It's a huge deal. I don't use Google+ either but a social network this big will set precedents for everything that comes after it. Every website that might allow you to sign in with g+ id will be affected.