roarcher

How so?

This is the company that named its web framework "MVC". At least this time they're not eternally polluting search results for an industry standard term.

Sure, you can consider the issue in isolation: If you accept the axiom that there is either no god or the Pauline Christian god, then Pascal's wager makes sense (assuming that that god doesn't care about sincerity, which is certainly not my reading of the gospels, but that's a different issue).

If you want to do a fun thought experiment, you might accept that axiom.

If you genuinely believe that an eternal future of unbearable torture hinges on your choice, you might want to cover your philosophical bases a bit more thoroughly.

True, but I believe Pascal was specifically talking about the Christian god, was he not? Ironically, Jesus clearly claims that what truly matters to god is your intentions, as in the goodness of your heart. I would argue that Paul came along later and dumbed that idea down to "do you really believe?", which is what Pascal based his wager on.

> But Pascal's wager was anchored to specific attested propositions: specifically, the gospel of Jesus

Right, but that's the problem with it. It assumes that there are only two possibilities: no god, or the god of the New Testament.

Betting that Pascal's god exists isn't the safe choice that the wager makes it out to be, because it's equally possible that some other god exists (or just some other version of the Abrahamic god, say Allah or the pre-messiah god of Israel) and your faith in Jesus is just going to piss him off.

Believe in Jesus all you want, but Pascal's Wager is a pretty terrible reason to do so.

Edit to add: Your description is also not even the only possible New Testament god. Some (myself included) would argue that that particular image of god was painted more by Paul than by Jesus.

I've always thought that surely an all-knowing god would consider Pascal's Wager to be rather mercenary and insincere, and it wouldn't count.

As a kid in the 90s, the ultimate fate of all appliances and electronic devices in my house was to be disassembled and stripped by me, their components buried in deep drawers for use in some imagined future invention, and occasionally reincarnated in the form of some makeshift radio or blinking LED.

I remember visiting repair shops for our aging color TV with my dad and being awed by the tables and shelves full of exotic-looking vacuum tubes, exposed CRTs, and dangerous-looking coils, and what I imagined to be the sorcerer-like skills of the man behind the counter who could divine their inner workings.

On weekends I would cajole my parents to drive me to the numerous electronic surplus stores, where I would marvel at tallboy-sized capacitors, which my father wisely prohibited me from buying.

Radio Shack was in its prime with walls covered in DIP chips and those "Electronic Project Lab" kits, of which I aspired to own the 300-in-1 version for $65 with a real breadboard and digital ICs. I vividly remember the birthday when I finally received it. I could seldom get the more complicated digital designs to work, which I've since learned was likely because breadboards are terrible for digital logic, but I was nevertheless entertained for countless hours.

Those were some of the most formative experiences of my childhood, and I too feel sad that they're becoming a thing of the past. You can open a modern electronic device and there's hardly anything in there that you can disassemble and re-use. And even if you could, the magic doesn't live there. When I was a kid, everything a device did was physically manifested in the arrangement of its parts. Now it only exists in firmware, invisible and inaccessible to the curious eye.

I suppose every generation feels nostalgia for the lost world of its childhood. But like you, I can't help but feel sad that no more children will get to experience that.

This thing apparently has an integration with 1Password. Am I hopelessly out of touch in this brave new AI world, or is giving an LLM access to your password manager the mother of all bad ideas?

> Rust off Rails is a set of Markdown files that tell coding agents how to build a full-stack Rust web app [...] The convention lives in the prose. The agent writes the code.

What exactly is the benefit of this? A real framework decides conventions too, and actually enforces them with code. This just sounds like a way to burn more tokens for fewer guarantees.

That's not the same thing at all. Loco is an actual framework. This project apparently contains no code at all. It's just a bunch of markdown files that tell an LLM how to implement a web app from scratch following Rails's conventions.

Do all those toggle switches and dials and sliders actually help discovery for people who grew up with iPads? Maybe their function is only obvious to us dinosaurs.

> when having anything sugary or acidic, have it with hot water/tea/coffee

Isn't coffee also acidic?

Show me one single word where anyone has objected to your topic. You are trying so hard to make this conversation about that, but you can't, because it is not your topic, but your shitty attitude that puts people off.

Refuse to acknowledge that all you want. You are doing it at your own expense.

Ah I see. Not my cup of tea at all, unfortunately. One of the perks of being an employee is that the company pays somebody else to do all that door-knocking.

1. Is that a serious question? Your entire comment embodies that sentiment. Read it again.

2. Your "shift from capitalism". Seriously? Do you not know what you wrote?

3. Buddy, there was no "utterance". If you want someone to consider your thought experiment, it helps to actually bring it up as a topic of conversation. Instead you showed up out of the blue to whine about how nobody spontaneously started talking about it in your absence. Why the hell would we be talking about it?? You weren't here to mention it! You could have said, "hey, consider this", and had a conversation about it, but instead you came out of the gate bitching about how everyone is talking about the wrong thing because we're a bunch of narrow-minded proles.

I can't imagine why your attempts to talk to people about this get shut down. Truly a mystery.

Pretty ironic to come in here and claim everyone is closed-minded because they were talking about something other than your preferred topic.

> But there is such a definitive hard stop when trying to discuss a shift from capitalism.

But nobody was trying to discuss that. We were discussing how our current systems might adapt to such a huge change as people suddenly living 500 years. You know, because it's a fun thought experiment. People do that. Not everyone lives their entire life on a soapbox.

I reckon this would be self-correcting. If the average person could reach retirement in such a small fraction of their lifespan, then the vast majority of the population at any given time would be non-productive retirees. The economy would slow until your interest was zero and you'd be forced back to work. Eventually an equilibrium would be reached, wherein the average Joe could look forward to a rewarding and fulfilling career of, say, 450 years or so.

> despite the myth that Big Pharma invests in a lot of research. It doesn't.

That's the first time I've heard this. Can you elaborate? How do they produce new drugs without heavy investment in research?

Ok. Still reminds me of it.

I actually laughed out loud when I reached the end of the article decrying "bulky" headsets and finally saw their alternative. Reminds me of the giant egg thing that Darth Vader lives in.

Do you mind if I ask how you find customers?

I've freelanced before and always ended going back to a "real job" because I either couldn't find clients, or when I did, they didn't know what they wanted and weren't prepared to pay what it would actually cost.

No worries. It has actually always been my impression that Oxide does good work, even if I may think your hiring process is a bit on the onerous side. Keep up the good work!

Great, I'm glad to hear it.

> You do know

No, I did not know when I posted that comment. steveklabnik's comment was posted concurrently with mine, and I did not feel the need to scour the whole thread in case there happened to be an answer to this specific question from an Oxide employee. But thank you for the data point.

I understand that, but it's still possible to devote up to 9 hours to this and get nothing in return. And maybe not just possible, but likely. We don't know how eagerly their pipeline rejects candidates. Every candidate has to take that gamble.

9 hours just seems excessive. Other companies have "funnel" hiring processes like this and still manage to do it in 3 hours instead of 9.

> You are going to potentially spend a major portion of your life there - so it isn't that weird to set aside a full day to get to know them.

Right, but you're not just doing it with them, you're potentially doing it with lots of companies you're applying to. It would be untenable to devote that much time to every prospect. Oxide can only do it because most other companies don't.

There are lots of axes on which to judge a company so I wouldn't write off Oxide for this alone, but it doesn't speak well of their respect for their candidates' time.

No.

> they can't unilaterally slow down without essentially destroying their company

According to them, the alternative is destroying the world.

They made up a shitty excuse to regulate the competition without thinking through what it implies about them. That's all this is. Let's not help them make even more excuses.

You think it's cringe because it was created by Trump (Musk wasn't involved, not sure where you got that).

The Space Force's role was previously split across military branches with overlapping budgets and poor communication. And since space duties weren't the primary focus of any of those branches, they weren't taken seriously and career tracks within them were stunted, making it hard to attract talent.

Hate Trump all you want, but if your analysis stops at "cringe", consider that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

I guess I thought the sarcasm was obvious because I can't imagine a serious person looking at that pelican and considering it proof of AGI. But you're right, this is the internet, anything is possible.

Pretty sure the parent comment was sarcasm.