pgayed

Thanks! I’m still curious about good neighborhoods for chance encounters though.

Related discussions on HN, pretty old though!

(2013) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4994459

(2010) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1455531

(2008) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=296404

PG on the problem with fame: “‘The world sucks because of tech, and tech sucks because of Paul Graham.’” lol

I don't know if it's possible to build an audience as large as Fridman’s without superficial treatment of wide ranging topics.

(I appreciate his efforts but I don't consider him a geek of any discipline or field, limiting his depth overall.)

Yes, agreed. HN archetype usually predicts failure of the introduced product or its irrelevance.

But maybe it goes the other way with clones. (“[Original thing] doesn't stand a chance. Releasing [Clone] will totally kill the userbase.”)

Interactions on Meta follow “proximity”-based neighborhood customs (birthdays, pictures of kids, social flexing, vacations). Polite society dinner talk.

You do not need to be followed on Meta, only liked.

Interactions on Twitter follow “rules” of interest-based disputes and discussion (sports, finance, AI dooming, technology predictions).

You do not need to be liked on Twitter, only followed.

It is so difficult to write challenging exams that only top-tier (“devoted”) professors do.

“Friends”: a group of people who reinforce among themselves a particular worldview and the permissible behaviors that go with it

Deliver an approximate or good-enough solution to buy yourself time.

Reduce the problem to a simpler one you know how to solve.

I would happily welcome a 9- to 10-hour oral history from Paul Graham.

> After all, I had no right to chastise him for yelling when I was screaming at him myself. Maybe I had the temper problem, not him.

I don’t know what I want to call this fallacy. Maybe tit-for-tat fallacy.

One person’s bad behavior doesn’t “annihilate” or vacate the other’s. They don't “cancel out”.

The tactic is (reflexively) used to derail the interrogator and change subject.

“Yes, it is true I am also verbally abusive but right now we're talking about your verbal abuse.”

It's not that this line of reasoning works with the abuser but at least it's a reminder to oneself what's being attempted.

I like it!

Here's one I use to decide from a list of free-form submissions whether to generate a link or a Google search:

  (fn [pair-of]
    (let [text (get pair-of 1)]
      (cond 
        (clojure.string/starts-with? text "http")
          (list [:a {:href text} (truncate text 60)] [:br])
        :else (list [:a {:href (str "https://google.com/search?q=" text)} text] [:br]))))

Doesn't always work but works often enough! ;)

Are you describing a particular experience you had?

  (map link-expander list-of-links)

I wonder what it looks like in Arc. Does HN keep any of its codebase public?

Related to this thread, generally, is Simon Baron Cohen’s The Pattern Seekers: How Autism Drives Human Invention https://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Seekers-Autism-Drives-Inventi...

> One warning is perhaps in order---this territory we are entering can become a fantastic time-sink. Hours can slip by, people can come and go, and you'll be locked into Cyberspace. Remember to do your work!

> With that, I welcome you, the new user, to The Net.

Your argument is still circular.

Why is the function you’re describing better served by government?

For alternatives, see Underwriters Laboratories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization)

Note that it predates OSHA by ~75 years.

Four years is a long time. Maybe this was your first significant partner. Those breakups can be hard.

Open yourself up to people around you. Friends. Colleagues you trust or admire. Have and make dinner with them. Be social. Be vulnerable to people who seem receptive.

Keep a good routine. Don't let it get out of whack but don't overwork yourself into isolation.

You'll be okay in time. HN is rooting for you.

The commentary on this phenomenon is an example of itself.

So it does succeed but just not enough?

What if the success rate for currently available devices is 0 percent?

Should we not make available something which succeeds in some fraction of cases?

What is the magnitude of benefit in cases that do succeed?

It doesn't matter if commenter is or isn't if such agreements are prohibited by law.

> When a regulatory agency, following due process according to its mandate, says so.

Begging the question.

> almost certainly going to kill or maim them

You are strawmanning by providing worst-case scenarios.

Is it reckless and arguably illegal to offer jobs on an oil rig? As an x-ray technician? A vascular surgeon?

When does risk become so great that consent is unlawful?

When is compensation so large it’s compulsion?

> That last bit sounds like a powerful and perverse incentive for abuse.

Okay, but would you oppose the legality of such an arrangement?

In any case, not sure why the family, instead of individual directly, is compensated.

Does the experience of zero-gravity reveal information not otherwise available via its deduction from physical law?

The Physics of Human and Superhuman Vision by Philip C Nelson:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL51EEEEE9904D4BE9

engineerguy’s reproduction of Michael Faraday’s 1848 Chemical History of a Candle [0]:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0INsTTU1k2UCpOfRuMDR-wlv...

This was a set of lectures given by Faraday for the Royal Institution’s “Christmas lectures for young people”.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chemical_History_of_a_Cand...

Link to YT playlist:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLez3PPtnpncSF2QwpCB9C3FBF...