sethc2

I should say though, I will use classes if I’m trying to do OOP, and using a lot of inheritance. I find it easier for me to make “clean” in those cases, then doing the equivalent with functions, but that might just be old habits from when I only OOP

I find classes in JavaScript just more tedious, and they’re really just syntactical sugar on top of a function anyways. Working in react I’m always making things immutable, and I generally use typescript, and classes to me are just more painful to write then a function whose parameters act effectively as constructor arguments and the return statement which is the classes public API.

Oh. I didn’t know how it works.

Maybe HN should support flagging moderators’ misapplied flags? :shrug:

I’ve brought this up on an article flagged in the past questioning the covid lockdown, but it was from a statistical based view and while I disagreed with some of the authors conclusions others I agreed with. That article’s flag was removed and dang responded to my comment. I wouldn’t assume all the moderators are biased.

I found the article interesting is all, probably because I just read a historical fiction book on post wwi Russia and so I thought it was a thought provoking article, that is good to discuss even if biased.

I think it is a fair point, and flagging it just seems to prove the point that criticism of “The Party” isn’t allowed.

I think HN mods do a good job too, but that is why this is disappointing to me. I’ve seen far more biased articles around politics, causing much more heated flame wars than this, that haven’t been flagged.

Why is this post flagged? It’s like someone actually wants to prove the author correct in his views.

I just finished reading “A Gentleman in Moscow” by Amor Towles, and it gives good (though likely biased) context after the Bolshevik Revolution, that made reading this article more thought provoking than I think it would be.

Though even if you hate Biden, he isn’t Stalin, just as Trump wasn’t Hitler. The media is absurd to me though. Seriously they lack any sort of principle it seems. Whatever “The Party” is doing is right. (For Fox News the party being Republican, and democrat for all else)

That’s a good question. Combining bootstrap with create react app is probably the quickest way I would think about doing it, so I’d like to see what other people think too.

I’m curious if flutter2 has good support for building responsive designs. Anyone reading this know?

And I always thought it was funny how in classic books from authors like Jane Austen they’d always talk about a person’s physiognomy, and how you could draw strong conclusions about them from it. Maybe it wasn’t so bogus after all?

It’s pretty easy. Instead of looking at a watch a few times a day you carry around a controller and a few times a day you hit: up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A and Start, and then ask yourself if you’re dreaming. Then when you do it while dreaming: bam! Superpowers. :)

Honestly not at all. What is actually more novel about the news today is the fact that it is no longer geographically local.

News is about finding things that concern/interest you. Hacker news, happens to be a place where I find lots of things of interest and some things of concern. I expect to see if my team won that day's match that night on the news.

Primetime news is no different. We want to know if our team won the game, so it is reported.

It's everything else on primetime news that doesn't make sense, or points to a serious issue.

It isn't that we _have_ sports on the news, the problem is what we _don't have_ on the news. That cheezy little bit about the old ladies down at the community center doing a bake sale for the school. We don't have the local farmer on talking about how the highway road closure is affecting him. Nothing about the local religious group doing homeless ministry, or the individual homeless on your specific streets.

What we have on the news: a bunch of things that our online lives have taught us are important, that drastically inform our online selves, how to speak, think, what is worrisome. And yet none of those things that our online lives tell us is so important, hardly affects our material lives, lived in our local geographic material area, at all.

We desire to be informed about the things that concern us. Our problem is we have made things that were never a concern to previous generations, our greatest concern, and the greatest concerns to previous generations, the least concern. At the very least previous generations and ours have enjoyed our local team's sports for whatever weird reason.

No one (should) give a crap if their neighbor is a Trump supporter or Biden supporter: Your neighbor needed a cup of some sugar to bake some cookies for the bake sale and you gave them some.

> There's no need to have collective worship.

There is probably at least a billion people on earth who disagree with you.

Curious if you were raised in American Evangelical Protestant Christianity? It sounds like the kind of thing I hear often from exvangelicals.

> Collective worship is only important with regards to collecting money from a congregation. It's a money making scheme, not a religious prerogative.

Those tv preachers who have gotten filthy rich probably disagree with the necessity for corporate worship to make money. They’re probably seeing the covid lockdowns as a great way to make even more money.

I do strongly agree with you in teaching our children about Shakespeare, geometry, and classics though. We might have different motivations for doing so, but I’m glad to see that even a non-religious person sees a necessity for those things.

> Why is this drivel even here?

My guess is exactly because of statements like yours. He makes a good point, and when you can see past the conspiracy theory tone, I think this article is kind of awesome.

Your kind of response making people feel like this article is bad is almost the entire point why he writes in a crazy way.

Does he actually think the NYT is some singular conspirator, plotting the worlds doom? I highly doubt it. Is the NYT a good embodiment of the spirit that he is talking about? I’d say so.

This was my favorite part from his article - “ Invite friends to write on your blog. Start 20 blogs all with fake names of fake people. There are no rules! Start a blog for your cat and your rat and your flower garden. How does your rose feel about all this? Change your style with every post. Contradict yourself. Lie to me. Commit plagiarism. Be really egregious about it. Misquote authors and butcher philosophy. There are no rules! Ok now write some good stuff. Like some really deep look out the window and ponder the truth of the ages stuff. Get drunk and write. Get high and write. Write a message in the snow with your piss. I hope it offends somebody. Does this post offend you? Good! Now offend me! Let’s offend each other. Doesn’t it feel good to feel something?”

I think it’s because God is often seen as the infinite, or uncreated, or all that can be known. The something that exists apart from any material existence.

Mathematical relationships and patterns have this quality.

Really what I wonder is why can’t we all just believe in god again?

Even if it was just to recognize the fact that there are things that exist in an immaterial way. That there are things that are good and true and beautiful whose goodness truth and beauty is not quantifiable or reduced to some set of atoms. We might disagree on what things are better physical manifestations of the immaterial things, but we don’t need to disagree on their existence.

Though I think it is because so many people have said “god is like this” and then posit some religious thing that affirms their often heinous actions, that people have chosen to say yeah I don’t believe in that.

But it seems sad that we can’t just talk about god in the sense of there are things bigger than ourself, even if we don’t know them because they are unknowable.

Even if we just acknowledged “God” as the first cause or the existence of things not material (like 2+2=4 is true even if there was no material thing to represent it), I feel like we could go a long way to finding that us humans, usually have more in common than we have not in common. That the things that divide us are actually smaller than the thing that unites us.

(I don’t see why your question was downvoted by the way)

What makes this headline troubling to me is it allows for a conspiracy of “they are just labeling this non deepfake video supporting my side as an adversarial deepfake so people will ignore it”

In general deepfake technology exacerbates the epistemological crisis we are in, wondering how we can know what the true story is.

Good point, though not as if my 20 something self would’ve thought of that. I would go like 125mph on the 520 floating bridge on my motorcycle, because.... I have no idea. :)

On straight drive road trips from Washington State to California in my late teens to early twenty’s, driving 80 vs 60 had a huge effect in my mind. 16 hours at 60mph vs 12hrs at 80mph seemed like a lot. Even counting the half hour I lost getting a ticket I got going 80 in a 60 in weed, , I swear to this day I still see lots of speed traps there.

Where as a 12 minute drive around my hometown didn’t mean much to me compared to a 16 minute one.

Maybe that’s because I’m one of those people who has a hard time counting how I spend my minutes in a day, and I generally count in hours.

Though now that I’m older the idea of a road trip to California taking several days sounds more appealing than speeding through the night. Though maybe that’s because I’m no longer working my highschool $6.50/hour job, and stopping lots for food and hotels doesn’t sound like going broke.

I grew up with no sisters and have my fourth daughter on the way (first born girl too). Wonder what the differences are for those of us with more kids than the average.

I think most people when they truly think of what it would mean to live forever, it is more scary than comforting.

Only to the extent “real” is defined by something being embodied by entities of physics. Though now we are simply describing a characteristic of what something is not. But the fact that we are describing what some thing is not, assumes then we are describing something that is, and therefore math is real. Though like many real things it’s embodiment varies.

By the platonic idea maybe: The shadow from the flower on the cave wall, does not smell like a flower, but the flower’s smell is a real thing.

An apple is a single unit though.

An apple is made up of constituent parts, but it is a singular thing.

If you argue against an Apple being singular then you are essentially professing that nothing is singular.

When you take a bite out of an apple you now have a subset of an apple “an apple with a bite out of it”.

To me saying God made the integers is more akin to saying, there is and there isn’t, and all else is built upon the difference.

This kind of reminds me of a question a theistic friend of mine with a masters in math asked me once. Was the fundamental theorem of calculus something discovered by man (i.e created by God) or something created by man?

He thought it was both something created by man, and yet also something discovered.

Our mathematical constructs seem to me to describe things as they are, like discoveries, but it’s like we could only understand the discovery by creating a new way to think about things. What’s most fascinating is they’re not just constructs that are true in that they’re predictable and can be tested, but they have a. absoluteness to them that is this is true or nothing is true.

I’ve seen that episode of Black Mirror (or it at least sounds like one)

Every technological advance is usually both good and bad. Some are more good, some are more bad. Sometimes we gain a lot by it, and only lose a little, other times what we gain is not worth what we lost.

The problem with this idea is what makes life valuable the machine would not know. “Life’s best practices” is subjective, and therefore the machine could promote what one considers a best practice that another considers a worst practice.

Imagine a government that treated the law with such respect, that every single law was always enforced to a “T”. Our government haphazardly enforces the law and so disrespects it. However with the number of laws we have I’d probably be scared to see them all enforced to a “T”. Though it could be argued our disrespect for the law caused us to write so many laws.

Trump is a power hungry man it seems. He’d even break the highest constitutional law of the land if he could get away with it, and not relinquish power. However good thing we’ve respected and kept the 2nd amendment law of the land, so there is a force who will not allow him to break that law of the land. Weirdly enough though Trump is taking a play from the “who cares if we don’t follow the constitution” crowd.

Will the constitution lovers prove to be hypocrites, and be fine with breaking it here? Will those who have argued for unconstitutional laws to be passed via the Supreme Court be annoyed, when his newly elected scota judges reinterpret the constitution to let him remain president?

Let’s hope that he elected judges who take the constitution written as is so he is firmly booted out of his office without the government to back him Or else it smells like a civil war. Not the North and South this time, but probably rural vs city, across all states. That is a scary thought.

If we use this logic then we are saying what people aren’t talking about will be the “right” thing to archive.

Is this a true statement? Is it not that popular things are the things that people remember? The Beatles were popular. But that’s not why they are remembered. There were other popular bands completely forgotten.

Things become popular for various reasons. Sometimes it is because it reflects a truth of the time, or it was simply good, or beautiful. Other times it is because it’s something that feeds a craving. Mass produced food isn’t necessarily good, but it is popular. I think the things that are good beautiful and true, can be the popular things, but they often aren’t. However the things that last are often good beautiful and true and the things that don’t aren’t.

Then again our memory of Hitler lasts, and he wasn’t good, but he did reveal what good was, because it shone so bright against the dark evil of his way of thinking that permeated that culture so well. If you think of Hitler’s murder of Jews, then think of the stories told about those unknowns who risked their lives hiding Jews. The stories show that an utterly unknown person is a vastly better person than Hitler, and his name will never be celebrated the way that unknown person is.

We’d do better as a society if we told less stories about Hitler, and more stories of the unknown, courageous, good sacrificial man, who saved the lives of many Jews.

Maybe Kanye West was meant to be a politician after all. https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/1046495010500182016?s=2...

I like the semantic differences between null and undefined. I’d rather spend the time cleaning up the codebase to use them appropriately. Maybe you should use typescript and be forced to think about the interfaces of your various functions; their types and how you expect a consumer to use them.

I wonder how many people wrote in Kanye West. My wife and I did. Anyone else in the HN community do so?

I appreciate the article.

I think your argument I find most dubious is the idea that we have lessened health care capacity by sheltering at place and closing businesses. Even if we have furloughed hospital workers, and I'm not saying that isn't a huge blow to those people and their livelihoods, and stopped elective surgeries, and I'm also not saying that those elective surgeries aren't things that don't matter, I think in terms of the next 6 months, the chance that our hospitals have less capacity to deal with serious illnesses that lead to death seem unlikely. If anything the decrease in deaths from other things, like drunk driving, and influenza might offset the loss in capacity from those furloughed.

I agree that if the timeframe is long enough it is very likely to ultimately lead to more deaths from missing elective surgeries and preventative healthcare, and I think the argument for Pareto-efficiency and only asking those who are at risk to shelter in place isn't dismissed with this argument, but I don't think a time frame of say 6 months to a year would lead to more deaths in the way you state. I think you should maybe specify (or point out to me where you state this if I missed it, i'm not a careful reader) what kind of timeframe you believe that the combination of lack of capacity and missing out on preventive measures would start to lead to more deaths and indicate where you think we would reach pareto efficiency. Have we already passed the point of pareto efficiency? Was it never good at all, and the most efficient thing to do was no response?

I personally think you wouldn't see the effects you are talking about for probably at least a year, and I'm hoping it doesn't last that long. I think you might start to see an increase in deaths from other things like, overdose, alcohol, and suicide, in a shorter timeframe than that though, and that is something that probably should be weighed in picking the best time to end the lockdown too.