vfinn

I think we should get away from our computers, because Internet made this issue worse, and it's continuing to do so.

So changing "constitution" isn't possible? :)

The thing is that decaf is not completely decaf, it still has more caffeine than I would have thought at first.

That was great, thanks. I've studied Buddhism a bit, but I feel like I learned something new by watching this :). This Dr was very articulate with his ideas, and I loved the honesty of the "troubled gamer".

What is 'now', how long have you been eating this way?

heh, I should make an alias for no-break space (code point 160/00A0) + 'grep', because I type it so often when I pipe and get:

Command ' grep' not found, but there are 17 similar ones. Maybe I'm not the only one :).

What? Animals are emotional, no? The part of the brain that is responsible of emotions is older and more primitive than the actual thinking part of the brain.

My strategy at the moment is not to choose. After keeping a log of my ideas for over a year, I noticed my interests circulated around a few topics/ideas. So I decided to work on "all of them", switching the priority based on feeling.

Thanks :). I think the resolution to my problem is moving away from infinitesimals. I did learn some calculus, linear algebra, number theory etc. in university, but I did it quite superficially, since it didn't feel that relevant to me at that time. Now I feel different.

"If 0.999...!= 1 then there must exist a number A, such that 0.999... < A < 1."

Thanks for the reply, but I don't know how you can make the above claim, because to me the question of what we mean by 0.999... is intertwined with the claim itself. I mean to me it seems to be a matter of how you interpret the approach to infinity. I don't see why there has to be A in between, if you interpret 0.999... as the "biggest possible number below 1", as then there would be also a "difference of the smallest possible amount" between those numbers approaching 0, but not quite getting there. But then again, if it's by some fundamental definition (limit) that 0.999... = 1, then ok.

I'm slightly embarrassed I don't know more mathematics, but I'm trying to learn some more...

Yeah, it makes sense if the whole foundation of mathematics is laid out in such way that the above has to be true (kinda circular, but still), and this would mean that what I'm talking about is actually not mathematics but something else :).

Yeah, this applies to any profession. People not only burnout because they have too much to do, but because of the stress of not being able to do their work well. It's a tough problem.

Sorry for my naivety, but why one couldn't prove by induction that adding 9s never close the gap, or let's say, that by definition the operation is such, that it never closes the gap. If you can always halve the pie, then you can continue eating forever. To me it would be much easier to accept that (1/3)*3 is not 1.

I'd say write manageable programs. The uglier the codebase gets, the more I hate coding it. If the codebase is well-thought and easily extendable, coding is mostly fun and you get pleasure out of beautiful execution.

Could you shed some more light on this amazing work you're talking about?

I'm writing a Telegram bot in Python for my own and my family's entertainment. It includes an interpreter so I can write for instance:

   /interpreter save "'https:'+REGEX('((?<=data-image=")
   .*?(?=" data-))',GET('https://www.dilbert.com'));" 
   dilbert

and then write just:

  /dilbert

which shows the strip of the day on our channel

AFAIK after taking a quick glance, it takes c code as input, then translates it to internal format by doing tokenization and parsing, and then executes the code. So, it's an interpreter. You could call it with other names as well. You can also have the program itself as an input, and have many layers of execution.

What do you mean? They are in the source.

Yes, up-front pricing is very essential. I don't want any surprises. If there's a chance for that, I won't be using the service at all.

Such an idiotic move by Google. You really should switch back for your own sake.

Thank you for the story! I helped my brother who was choking on a cough drop. Didn't use Heimlich, but nevertheless it was a scary experience. I hesitated to which one is the correct move. Edit: As far as I understand, one uses Heimlich if hitting on the back while bent doesn't work.

The one who down voted, please explain.

First aid skills, e.g. Heimlich maneuver. You might end up saving someone's life by being able to act calmly and correctly.

There are solutions that help you save water by requiring you to flush only when taking a dump (by preventing pee from smelling and hiding it). I don't remember the exact products.

Future programming languages will be graphical in one way or the other, I think. As you said, the programmer needs to have a clear way of visualizing the big picture. I think this can be achieved without forcing people to go visual. You could have the code on the one hand, and the metadata for the presentation of the code on the other, in a separate file. You could also just hide the graphical metadata for the code view.

One idea is that population competes for positions, and that restricts your choices early on. You could imagine that you're either pushed away or drawn into some position. Another point of view is to see your actions through constraints, which is an inter-related point of view to competition. You're bound by money, time, energy (you can do just so much), and other resources. You can see your situation also trough psychology. You have fears, traumas, addictions, etc. Then there's intelligence that translates into how good you're at creating goals, how good you're at seeing yourself, how good you're at listening yourself, how good you're at solving problems, and how aware you're of your current condition, etc. in addition to having the ability to become better at such matters.

It's clear that all these things define how well you're in control what you're doing. There are a lot of outside sources of influences that you need to be aware of. All kind of distractions, commercials, games, noise, propaganda (manufacturing consent?). Your society wants you to do this, your employer wants you to do that, and often times you feel you have to give in, which means that you're fighting for control on a psychological level.

Creating your life so that you're 100% in control all time is very difficult, if not possible, but you can become aware of what's happening in yourself as you click mindlessly trough the internet, or when you do things/tasks you don't really want to do. You can change yourself to overcome procrastination in order to become a person that knows what he's doing, not just because you have to, but because you want to. You want to take part in society, you want to work for good causes, etc. You want to study in university to get into a certain position. And all this will that you're aware of diminishes the amount of random choices you make, I claim.

You mean something like this (code autocompletion with deep learning)?

https://tabnine.com/blog/deep

>I think it's invaluable to be able to share your console output with coworkers in real time so they can also help to troubleshoot.

You can use tmux's shared sessions via ssh for that, no?

Came to say this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tweyWNr6X18

To me when people say they don't want anything, they mean they don't want anything the way most people want it, or that they don't want it in a way that is expected of them. So the solution then is to go beyond what is normally done, which can be done with courage. Most people that have issues, have issues in the context of the society they live in. "I don't want to do extraordinary things (that is expected of me in this competitive world)", they say. "I don't want to live this or that kind of family life (that is expected of me)". To me, there always seems to be this "that is expected of me", or "in the way things are done" present. "Human interactions are not interesting, because the way I perceive how it is normally done, or how it is expected of me to be done, is not satisfying), and I can't seem to be able to do it any other way." Don't get me wrong, but people have generally astonishingly absurd problems, that are in a way self-created (or rather created in collaboration with the society they live in), and that is very much related to how satisfied they are with their lives, even they might not admit it. They claim the problem is with the stars, oh stars. And also, don't get me wrong. The problems are real. But they have nothing to do with the meaningfulness of life, they have only to do with the difficulty of having a meaningful life. "I want to do ph.d (because I think it's the thing expected of me), but in myself, I don't really want it. I want to garden. But I can't do gardening, because I have this potential I have to fulfill (that is expected of me), etc.". It seems to be hard to live simple life, or have simple life around, at least. People have created a problem out of their lives. People think, think, and think, as if there's nothing else. But to me, even though the status quo in this world is pretty crazy in general, there are ways to live a meaningful life, but not the way it's expected of you, but the way that you are able to create the interesting things yourself, not by expecting them from others.