nnfy

Graphical interfaces are useful to me personally because unlike a CLI, there is substantially less in the way of functionality that I have to remember, especially for programs which I rarely use. It is painful to input -h args and read through pages and pages of options to find a handful of the options that I need, especially when I am using something new.

I've given light thought to the possibility of writing some kind of hybrid which acts as a general purpose terminal, but can somehow provide more information in a graphical manner-even something like directory traversal would be drastically simpler, IMO. Of course, this is not a trivial problem.

Are there any existing shells which hybridize GUI and CLI?

Why are you trying to scare them? Just explain to them that it is high risk.

But there is a strong potential future for btc, and in spite of all the fear mongering, BTC has so far come back from every crash. You're not just throwing away money if you spend a couple hundred of your otherwise disposable income on some btc. Buying at any point in the past would have yielded a payoff today.

We [myself former] are not simply poisoning ourselves for fun. There are a multitude of benefits afforded by nicotine in the short term, including improved focus, reduced anxiety, and of course the habit of a smoke break is great for clearing the mind.

Your problem is that you, as you say, equate smoking with poison. That's hyperbolic. One could say the same about sugar, but it would sound just as ridiculous.

It's almost as if smokers are dehumanized these days, and non smokers deliberately ignore reasons to smoke.

There has also been ample evidence of neuroprotective effects of nicotine[0][1] for decades now. I dont mean to suggest that you go out and start a pack a day habit, but my point is that walking past a smoker won't give you cancer.

[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19714494

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11772120

Regardless of these specific laws, the fact that one has the "freedom" to spend time and money fighting overreaching laws in court does not make them acceptable.

"Every other form of media" is not the same as the media on the internet, where individuals create the media.

More importantly, why would you want the federal government to have such abusable power? The sky may not be falling now, but that is no excuse to do nothing while our freedoms are eroded.

Do you believe that "harass" and "abuse" are well defined?

It doesn't bother you that a sizable proportion of mostly harmless messages on Facebook, Twitter, 4chan, etc are suddenly potential felonies? And that they can be used to target innocent individuals by the federal government?

What happens when a legitimate whistleblower becomes a problem, and suddenly an angry twitter rant becomes an excuse for arrest?

These laws are dangerous because they are vague enough to give the government a free pass to legally target almost anyone who uses the internet.

It is another means to possibly silence whistleblowers and/or opposition.

I'd just like to point out, hopefully without being accused of shilling, that part of Net Neutrality legislation involves the quiet reclassification of ISPs as title ii common carriers.

These are regulations designed for phone companies in the 1930s. Why should you worry? Because all network traffic will be subject to extremely broad obscenity laws.

I will try to find the legislation shortly, but effectively, causing "offense" or transmitting "obscene" material gives the federal government an excuse to prosecute you.

Suddenly, posting on 4chan can get you thrown in prison.

Edit: found it[0], I dont understand why no one is aware of this. I plead that you take a moment to check the link, as this is a dangerous extension of government power, especially in combination with current surveillence.

[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223

But wait, there's more! There are at least two COX pathways; COX-1 is involved in protection of stomach lining, COX-2 is responsible, in part, for pain signalling.

Aspirin inhibits both pathways. Other NSAIDs do the same, although they typically have less of an effect on COX-1.

There is something on the unnoficial market which may inhibit only COX-2, a sort of holy grail in the last few decades of medicine: kratom[0].

0.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21513785

No, this is disingenuous fear mongering.

The article you linked examines psychosis outcomes after quitting marijuana. It does not show evidence that psychosis is caused by marijuana.

In fact, the article is similarly misleading, as it makes reference to two studies which show, in the article's words, a "link" between psychosis and cannibus use. However, the two articles cited for this assertion [0][1] similarly only discuss a correlative link between psychosis and marijuana.

While the correlative relationship between marijuana and psychosis is well established, there is anything but a consensus for the causal relationship between illness and marijuana.

As they say, correlation != causation.

Edit: furthermore, I encourage you to browse the wikipedia page [2], which supports my assertion with multiple sources: neither consensus nor causal link has been established. You are spreading potentially harmful misinformation.

[0]Arseneault, L, Cannon, M, Witton, J, and Murray, RM. Causal association between cannabis and psychosis: examination of the evidence. Br J Psychiatry. 2004; 184: 110–117

[1]Stepniak, B, Papiol, S, Hammer, C et al. Accumulated environmental risk determining age at schizophrenia onset: a deep phenotyping-based study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014; 1: 444–453

[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabi...

Probably because he has a problem with fear mongering.

I dont think the people who withdraw into the world of comics do it for quite the same reasons as " Religious hermits and ascetics, and moralists".

This seems to be a newer phenomenon, possibly because we now live in a time where it is possible to contribute little and still survive for the majority of a population.

Perhaps comics are beginning to fill the void left by retreating religion.

It is comforting to imagine a world in which things make sense, where good triumphs over evil, where you have an opportunity to be a part of something larger than yourself; especially when you're working a dead end job and you feel like your nation is falling apart.

Unfortunately, unlike most religion, comics and comic based films are lacking in the "nutrition" that religious escapism can provide, in the way of community and self improvement, so we end up with man children withdrawing from society.

It is ironic, I think, that the waning of religion in the first world may be very much double sided. Perhaps we as a society are not prepared for secularism, and this may manifest as a moral crisis wherin people on average still require external guidance for morality and ethics.

I doubt I'd be able to find anything to cite, but having lived in east Asia, I think part of the problem is that Americans take substantially longer to perform any kind of construction or repair. Things that would happen practically overnight take weeks or even months in the States.

As scummy as it is, you have to admire the ingenuity. That is a damn clever solution.

I don't think the problem is with social media. I think the problem is the competence of the average person.

How many communities start out full of reasonable, productive discourse, like HN, and then go downhill once they become popular? How many endless summers has the internet suffered?

Mediocrity is the enemy of progress.

Edit: I also take strong offense to the nonsense that the desire to aggregate knowledge began with the Islamic Golden Age. People have been centralizing knowledge for far longer than Islam has existed[1]. Frankly, the inclusion of Islam in this article comes off as forced and unnecessary. It doesn't surprise me that the author is from Iran, although his wikipedia page doesn't list any information regarding religion...

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libraries_in_the_ancie...

I'd imagine the tubes are relatively stable because they regularly (at geologic time scales) experience seismic disturbances from weak plate tectonic activity and especially impact events.

I am confused. If the betting is rigged, then how were the authors able to beat it consistently? What did I miss?

How many times have you seen Donald Trump called a Nazi? You dont think it a stretch to have twitter ban people for supporting certain policies? Twitter does seem to lean quite heavily left, does it not?

What about the rise of the right in the EU? What about "undesired" stories about actual problems, large and small scale, caused by migrants? Pretty important topic, I would think, yet we already have communities self censoring all over the internet, what is stopping twitter from applying these laughably nebulous rules to hide a side of discussion on this topic too?

How would you even know of there has been so little research on the subject? How can you claim to have an unbiased answer when you only research one side of a topic?

I legitimately want to ask you how you can be so sure that our doomsday scenarios are accurate, when we still have a fledgling understanding of a massive chaotic system like climate, and when almost all research has been purposefully negative?

If you look hard enough, you'll find anything. That's why skepticism is necessary. You'll at least agree that anything remotely pro climate change is taboo, I hope, and there is no room for taboo in science, in my opinion.

Edit: hell, how long have we known about deep ocean currents? Stratification of the subsea into various isoclines and thermoclines? Calthrates? People seem to underestimate how complex climate is, and how much we've yet to discover.

Some of the people you go out of your way to slander as both trump supporters and climate change deniers exist as they do because of people like you, who immediately take any adverse global trend, blame it on climate change with what amounts to shakey, correlative evidence, and then shame anyone who dares glance over with a skeptical eye.

We are dumping all kinds of chemicals into the environment - pesticides, plasticizers, and a host of bio-active compounds which we already know may be directly responsible for the decline of certain individual species[1].

Climate change is a serious threat. But your post is an example of how climate change has become a highly politicized meme.

Next thing you know, it becomes a cultural taboo to be skeptical about climate change, and suddenly we're only asking the questions we are allowed to ask, looking for the data we are allowed to look for, sweeping inconsistencies under the rug, and just generally practicing sloppy science.

The scientific method necessitates skepticism. I welcome sources to the contrary, but modern western climate science is void of any published criticism, or at least it was when I had access to journals some 5 years ago. Hell, I couldnt find ONE paper discussing ANY benefit on any place on earth from a warmer climate-which is absurd, because northern permafrost could thaw and create arable land, for example.

Climate science has been sickened by politics and political correctness. You should be very wary.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder

Like any market, cryptocurrencies have value because of the collective valuations of large numbers of individuals.

The simple fact that people like GP exist, and that there have been enough of them to propel the market cap of BTC et al. to billions, suggests that people like GP will continue to exist if the economy crashes.

In fact, if the economy were to crash, it would only take a handful of high volume BTC purchases, I'd bet, to cause another spike in price as people see an opportunity to shelter their finances.

Yes, it is high risk, but you're not just throwing away your money. BTC is much like gold in this manner - to the lay person, there is little value in the commodities other than as a store of value, which becomes more and more appealing as price continues to rise. Look at gold. Markets do not always appear to be rational.

The phenomenon of climate evolves on a scale of millions of years. We simply do not have historic data with high enough frequency and accuracy to truely conclude that this is an unprecedented rise rate. Nor do we actually know if it is catastrophic. Some of the most bioproductive eras in the history of the earth had higher carbon concentrations and temperatures than we do now.

But any time you bring something like this up, you're slandered as a denier because of the taboo.

Edit: predictable down votes, illustrating my point. How do you expect to solve problems if you deliberately avoid certain questions?

We have about a hundred or so years of high frequency data, and then we have high uncertainty, gap filled evidence of past temperatures in the form of core, tree, and fossil data and such.

And basbased on this tiny trend over the past century, we are extrapolating a trend which normally occurs over tens of millions of years. More so, we are using this spotty data to predict the evolution of a massive, poorly understood, highly chaotic system.

Modern climate science seems dogmatic because, in spite of the objectively poor data in comparison to the trend we are attempting to model, there is almost no healthy skeptical science.

I challenge you to find more than a handful of papers exploring potential benefits of climate change, or challenging the consensus, as you would expect in any other healthy science.

You likely won't, because the subject is a taboo. I searched as a college student some 5-7 years ago when I had access to journals and was astounded to find nothing.

Healthy science requires skepticism.

You really can't compare being spied on while using a private social network to being raped in public.

I think we have witnessed the inevitable dilution of substance that occurs when the middle of the Bell Curve, so to speak, begins to participate in a social phenomenon.

I think one true measure of a superb game development studio is the ability to make a game enjoyable and interesting within the construct of the chosen setting.

It would have probably taken much more than the small team they had initially, but there's no reason in theory that they could have gone with their idea and made an extremely rich game, with different play styles in each thematic genre, for example.

Dark Souls does this well. Without modifying the properties of the universe, each area requires modified strategies and this keeps the game fresh, and clever, while staying within the confines of this medieval fantasy world.

Point is, you dont have to force platforming onto a game; but these guys were doing this 20 years ago on potato technology with an understaffed team. I didnt understand gex when I played it, but as a hobby game dev, I respect what they accomplished.

These were national champions. The news cast was a clip from national championship debate. I don't think there is a better representation of a subject than a clip which literally shows winners competing seriously.

It is the first clip I found of what I remembered. I am using it as evidence of the state of modern debate, and I attest that it is typical championship behavior. I dont know what more evidence you need.

I'll say it, I think you are giving the champions an excessive benefit of doubt because they appear to be underprivileged minorities. I dont know where that Atlantic article is, but I have a haunch that the trouble comes from giving minorities social privilege because of the color of their skin, and in doing so, avoiding any challenge out if fear of being slandered as a racist.

Edit: I tracked the article down. It's even more absurd than the video, because it attempts to justify the degradation of debate, as though any change is good if brought about by black participants. That article is a joke. That whole tournament was a damn farce. The champions won by debating about something totally off topic. How is that acceptable? You think they would have won if they hadn't been black? Did you even read the article?

Given the efficiency of information exchange over the internet regarding btc prices on numerous exchanges, I'd venture to guess that these arbitrages only exist because of market barriers that average investors cannot efficiently surmount.

Example: a few years ago there was a difference of a few hundred dollars between U.S. and Chinese exchanges. But you couldn't really trade on the Chinese exchange unless you were or knew someone who was a Chinese citizen.

I haven't researched it, but my impression is that arbitrage is only indicative of market inneficiency. And a corrolary is that by the time you get into a position to take advantage of significant arbitrage, someone will likely have beaten you to it.

In other words, efficiency is antithetical to arbitrage. I welcome alternative perspectives.

I don't know how to make this any clearer, as you seem to have a vested interest in maintaining that the clips indicate nothing untoward about the competition.

A clip of ANY duration showing those behaviors bid competition is unnaceptable.

> Come off it. I could record your next presentation and edit out all but the parts where you said "umm" and you'd look like a moron. Even more so if I then creatively cut that in with video of you explaining to your boss how you'd done a great job in the meeting. (I have no idea what you do; I am sure you can understand the analogy).

Or, you could generate a single clip where I say "nigga" during a meeting and scream non-sequiturs as quickly as I could in order to get a point across, and I would be rightly fired for behaving like an animal. Regardless of whether the clip is 5 or 20 seconds long

The fact that something is selectively edited does not alone imply that it is biased or incorrect. The clips were more than enough to highlight the state to which modern debate has devolved. There are other, unedited examples of this inane style of "debate".

My point is that this style of debate activity itself is not in any way conducive to the exchange of ideas or advancement of understanding; the fact that they were given a trophy after spending ANY time debating in such a manner is an extremely poor reflection on the state of "debate" in our schools.