xorvoid

Not sure what your point is here. He died rappelling when his bag got stuck. He didn't die free soloing. And it's unrelated to Yosemite. It was an avoidable accident and very sad. Climbers tend to die from Rappelling more than anything else. And, it's completely incomparable to Honnold's recent climb.

This. Watching Honnold makes your palms go clamy and makes you uncomfortable because you imagine how terified you'd be in that position. But for an athlete like Honnold, the experience is more similar to just a "hard hike". Strenuous, but just work. It's just normalized because he does it so damn much. He really seriously is not gonna fall off that building, just like you're not gonna get seriously injured on a class 3 hike.

(Source: I'm also a climber. Not remotely close to Alex's level. But frequent exposure significantly changes how your brain processes these situations)

Others have said a longer version of this:

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Do it yourself. Don't wait on others. Organize social events, invite people.

I didn't miss that and I'm not sure what argument you're making. It sounds like you're trying to say that state censorship is conditional, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to make your case.

"oh the indignity of not having internet for 118 hours, personally didn't have it for much of my childhood"

I understand what you're trying to say and I agree with that, but this is actually different. This is not an inconvenience as much a state censorship. It's the state literally disallowing people talking to each other. It's Orwellian: "we don't like what you're talking about, so we're going to make you completely unable to"

It's not the 80s or 90s anymore. The internet is rhe global backbone of how people communicate with each other. Shutting down access is a clear action of censorship and oppression.

Am I understanding correctly that the company itself maintains the allow list? It's not my personal allow list? That's bizarre. I don't want someone else to control what information I do and don't allow myself.

What could have been a decent and well-meaning discussion has been completely lost here in cynicism and hero worship.

I feel like the comments are taking away the wrong message from this. He used it to do the part of the project that he has poor knowledge/experience/capacity for. He needs a visualization but the project isn't about visualization. He's spent a lifetime coding in C, not writing python-based visualizations.

There's a big difference between vibe-coding an entire project and having an AI build a component that you lack competency for. That is what is happening here.

It's the same principle as a startup that builds it core functionality itself in-house and then uses off-the-shelf libraries for all the other uninteresting details.

"if something isn’t worth consuming at 1x, it’s not worth consuming at all"

Depends A LOT on what kind of content you're watching.

I've been studying physics lately and a lecturer talks slowly so 2x makes a lot of sense. Maybe even I know the subject somewhat but I believe the lecturer has a few insights or connections to point out that I haven't seen. But perhaps it's burried in the middle of the lecture. It really doesn't make sense to listen to the whole lecture at 1x speed. Much better to 2x to the "unfamiliar part" and then rewatch and carefully consider that part at 1x speed.

Also, some very intelligent people just speak/think slowly. They have interesting things to say but slowly.

On the other hand, if you're watching a highly-produced video (such as a movie), I think it's quite ridiculous to watch it at any speed other than 1x. It was paced that way for a reason (if it's worth watching).

I don't really understand why folks have to be so "binary" about playback speed.

Same. And I'd advise anyone to attempt it. You'll learn a lot about yourself and your society by quitting alcohol, even if for a brief moment. The benefits are immense.

I'm amused at how circular this is. Unix v4 is first OS written in C, now running on top of an unbelievable amount of C (and C++). Classic circular computer science delight.

Hobbies. Social hobbies. It kind of doesn't matter which, just pick one. Show up religiously. Try your best to talk to people. Having a shared hobby/interest makes for easy conversation and ice breakers. Don't expect to make friends immediately but if you stick with it, show some vulnerability, avoid ego, etc it will happen. Good people are attracted to good people.

I'm personally into rock climbing and the social scene at a good climbing gym is really fantastic. Climbers need climber friends (if only for the selfish need of a belayer). Its great to share notes on a climb, or chat about gear, or dream/plan good outdoors trips.

Not suggesting you take up climbing. I'm using it as an example. But you want some hobby you're gonna take seriously that has a social component.

And, stop being so hard on yourself. Making friends is hard actually (especially making really good ones). Give yourself some grace.

Strong agree. I switched back to RSS after trying social media. Much more boring. And that has been a very good thing. It's also been much more substantive. It's like eating your veggies vs eating sugar candy.

Why should we believe that "being entertained" is a valuable thing? I suppose it serves an evolutionary purpose as "steering focus", e.g. noticing the unusual/novel/scary/etc. But, it's not the end goal. And overloaded attention mechanisms sounds like an obvious misfeature.

Same. This is the way. If you use Firefox, install the "unhook" extension to remove all the junk (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-recom...)

Indeed. I'd suggest Susskind's Theoretical Minimum: Classical Mechanics if someone wants an introduction. He doesn't explicitly prove Noether but he demonstrates the connection between symmetry and conservation laws building the intuition to properly appreciate Noether.

I've also written a series on Abstract Algebra for computer programmers if you're serious about learning it:

https://xorvoid.com/galois_fields_for_great_good_00.html

"Memory Safe No garbage collector, no manual memory management. A work in progress, though."

I wish them the best, but until they have a better story here I'm not particularly interested.

Much of the complexity in Rust vs simplicity in Go really does come down to this part of the design space.

Rust has only succeeded in making a Memory Safe Language without garbage collection via significant complexity (that was a trade-off). No one really knows a sane way to do it otherwise, unless you also want to drop the general-purpose systems programming language requirement.

I'll be Very Interested if they find a new unexplored point in the design space, but at the moment I remain skeptical.

Folks like to mention Ada. In my understanding, Ada is not memory safe by contemporary definitions. So, this requires relaxing the definition. Zig goes in this direction: "let's make it as safe as possible without being an absolutist"

It sounds almost like you're saying that quality information shouldn't be accessible to anyone if it's not accessible to everyone?

That would be an unreasonably high standard and would set an incentive to withhold. Which is exactly the outcome we got here?

Wouldn't it be better to cheer the improved accessiblity? Then acknowledge shortcomings and ask for community contributions to improve things?

Why must perfect be the enemy of good?

Ha. At my last job, I observed that we were so good at solving technical problems that we transformed social problems into hard technical problems so we could solve the original song cial problem. It's something like a problem reduction in Algorithmic Complexity Theory. There was perhaps a simpler social-centric solution, but we didn't have a method for solving those...

Here's someone trying to build a serious PC focused on Linux. But the comments are very negative. And people wonder why the year of the Linux desktop still haven't arrived.

If you want PCs targeting Linux with good support... don't complain when someone tries doing exactly that.

I'm amused this is a new reveal for some people. Seemed the very likely case for me.

Clearly you didn't read the article...

Because they struggle with how many problems they see. In order words, the opposite of "ignorance is bliss"

Honestly, this seems rambling and unfocused. It's like a grab-bag of recent-ish buzzwords.

The task that has been set is gigantic. Despite that, they've decided to make it even harder by designing a new programming language on top of it (this seems to be all the work done to date).

The hardware challenge alone is quite difficult. I don't know why that isn't the focus at this stage. It is as-if the author is suggesting that only the software is a problem, when some of the biggest issues are actually closed hardware. Sure, Linux is not ideal, but its hardly relavent in comparison.

I think this project suffers from doing too much abstract thinking without studying existing concrete realities.

I would suggest tackling one small piece of the problem in the hardware space, or building directly on some of the work others have done.

I don't disagree with the thesis of the project, but I think it's a MUCH bigger project than the author suggests and would/will require a concentrated effort from many groups of people working on many sub-projects.

Try going on a hike in the sticks where there is no cellular service at all. The idea that you can't escape the internet is a fiction. This is so overblown.

It's just the internet.

Lots of deviant communities that are still quite active if you turn off your laptop/phone and go seek out the eccentric folks in the real world.

The internet has pushed towards homogeneity over the last couple decades. If you're confusing internet with the real world constantly (i.e. staying "plugged in"), its easy to come to the article's conclusion. But, you can always choose to just "turn it off".

The way they're lock down make them really not general-purpose. Smart phones really were envisioned as thin-clients to cloud servers. When you start getting too far away from that, everything starts fighting you.

Why does it have to be one or the other? I agree about better government. But it's also very reasonable to call attention to consolidatation of power and abuses of that power. Doing so doesn't automatically imply that one thinks "tech will save the world". You're constructing a straw-man here.

That's not the issue in my view.

It's an issue of fundamental freedoms. Freedom of speech and freedom to control your own device and your own data. Freedom to decide for yourself how you use it to communicate with others.

The problem boils down to Apple's consolidatation of power in their walled garden. The fact that they can unilaterally decide to ban an app that people want to run. The fact that an authotarian government can simply apply pressure to manifest their will.

If Apple didn't have such a closed walled-gardrn, they'd be unable to do it even if they wanted to; even if an authotarian regime demanded it.

It's about separation/distribution of power.

Same. I am (1) Moving to GrapheneOS. And (2) exploring other alternatives such as PostmarketOS for when Google makes it impossible for Graphene to operate. And (3) even pairing down my smart phone usage entirely.

But I'm also thinking a lot about the impact on ordinary non-tech-literate folks. They really don't have great options. I think we need some serious technical focus into FOSS and freedom-respecting alternatives

Reach out and let's talk.