Many people put all of their money into paying the mortgage on a house. A reasonably sound investment. And then they found their mortgages to be underwater. Literally every dollar they had put in, was now worthless on paper. Those who did not buy into the sunk cost fallacy allowed their houses be reclaimed. Then they truly had nothing.
Well, for example, if 11 members of the 20 person track team are going somewhere after practice, you have to invite everyone you meet even if you don't want them there. Even if its totally impractical to invite them there. If you're at a park throwing a Frisbee with some people you know, and you happen to be going somewhere with one friend afterwards, it's almost mandatory to invite the others who are there, even if you don't want to. I don't understand the rules, honestly. I was from a family who hardly ever invited anyone. But I've been frequently exposed to conversations about "who we've invited and hope doesn't come". As well as found myself in circumstances where I later realized that I was invited somewhere out of politeness rather than any desire that I be there. Both situations are really weird to me and it's just an extra complication that I don't need in my already tenuous understanding of social interaction.
In the Czech republic people don't talk as much and generally these situations occur rarely. And the example that I gave of the people in the park just doesn't happen in the Czech republic. There is no requirement to invite someone someplace just because you are going there yourself.
Does it even work well for go or rust executables? I seem to recall that Docker itself was written in golang because "fat binaries1111", but now docker is one of the hardest to install applications that I know of, and certainly isn't simply one executable file to be copied onto the system.
Managing resource files in fat binaries is really problematic.
But this still potentially "luck". Or perhaps "luck" is a very bad term. Imagine that Musk had a twin name Allen who happened to start a company called "pay-now". And "pay-now" was hit with a lawsuit related to the patent on eshops and had to shut down. Allen would never have started Tesla. Would we even know about Allen? He wouldn't even be rich. His behavior, timing, actions ect. were identical to those of Musk, but his outcome was greatly different. There are probably several Allens out there. Now, consider, what if Musk was identical, but he had never started paypal at all. Instead he, after studying electric drive trains for 20 years, made a proposal to investors that an electric car company should be started. This Allen would be MORE qualified than Musk to start an electric car company, but lacking capital to back the investments, he would be LESS likely to succeed!
I think that it is sad that we keep on creating new programming languages that are not radically different. The Zig language ecosystem faces the same problems as C and the compiler will preform many of the same tasks, lexing, parsing, optimizing, documentation, supporting all sorts of weird edge cases and use cases. From what I see in the introduction, I don't see a convincing case for a new language here. This kind of incrementalism is not worth another persons years of effort to create a parallel path.
I think that if you are going to spend years creating a new language, you ought at least to try something new. Otherwise, you become just another amateur landscape artists. Maybe you're paintings will look nice, but they'll never really be of any great value to society.
I up-voted you for the interesting opinion, however, I strongly disagree with you. Why would well paid politicians be less corrupt. Is there some kind of maximum amount of money that a person can gather? In Czechia politicians are extremely well paid, and we have a "founding myth" that states that a "well paid judge cannot be bribed". This has been conclusively proven to not be the case.
You do NOT need to explicitly pin content to help replicate it. Any content which is requested via IPFS is replicated by the daemon, up until it is GCed. The only thing that pinning does, is prevent the content from ever being GCed
I'd like to see more of this on HN, actually interesting technical content. The video is amazingly well put together. I don't know if it is sped up or not, my only experiences with windows now adays are through my non-technical relatives computers which I'm asked to fix, but I was surprised at how quick windows appears to be in this video.
But what bothers me, is the bug itself. It is shocking to me that someone set a hard limit on a pool and didn't add any code for replenishing it. I would just never do such a thing.
One of the first programming environments that I used was MicroWorlds LOGO, and they had a cheaper version which allowed a maximum of 200 turtles, and a more expensive version that differed only in that the number of turtles was unlimited. My father got me the cheaper one and since then I've had a religious hatred of arbitrary limits in programs. But even if you didn't have this experience, I'd have a hard time respecting any programmer who would have left that pool unreplentished and called it a finished project. I accept the fact that we all make mistakes and make bugs, but that wasn't a mistake bug, that was consciously sucking out of laziness and not even bothering to gracefully handle failure.
Financial impossibility is a strange thing. Is if physically impossible for just %20 of the population to work? We have so much amazing technology, we should be able to attain that. Why let money get in the way of what is physically possible? Its just paper. Its not even paper. Its an integer.
You are allowed to pay by the peice, but you must pay at least minimum wage, you must pay sick leave, you must pay health insurance, you cannot fire for unjust cause (at least in Europe). That marks the definitive end to piece work as we knew it in Adam Smith's time when a stranger could show up at the factory door and be paid by the piece for one day or one afternoon, something which really was even common in the era before the "Fair Labor Standards Act" was passed [1]. To quote from your linked article on the Act "All individually covered homework is subject to the FLSA's minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements. Employers must provide workers with handbooks to record time, expenses, and pay information."
Adam Smith began his wealth of nations with a description of the division of labor and an essay on how this division leads to an increase in productivity. Specifically, he gives the example of a worker who's sole job it is to make pins, and who devises a way to make them by machine, while previously, each pin was hammered out by hand over a matter of minutes, the new machine makes them in seconds.
This division of labor is often cited as the thing that makes capitalism great.
This kind of optimization can be incentivized by way of piece work. Piece work is when workers are paid per piece rather than by the hour. Piece work is outlawed in the west. In the US, it was outlawed during the great depression when the minimum wage was instated. In Europe, I'm not sure when it was outlawed, but it is illegal here as well. In Asia and India, it is still legal. I feel that things like Uber, and Amazon's Mechanical Turk, are rejuvenations of the illegal piece work payment method.
Would it be unethical to apply AI to solve Mechanical Turk tasks?
I don't know if I think that piecework should be legal or illegal. The reasons for banning it were very compelling at the time.
Recently, I paid two guys $150 to cary 4 tonnes of gravel up some stairs into my garden and level it. I figured it was a days work for the two of them, and that the price as reasonable. But then, they ran the whole time, and did it in half the time I had estimated for the job. And emotionally, I felt really ripped off, because I was paying twice the going rate for workers in my country. But WHY SHOULD I FEEL RIPPED OFF???? It is wrong to feel ripped off in such a situation. Their doing it quickly saved me time and stress as well.
It is very common for foreigners to hate their homeland. People who move from Kuba tend to say it sucks. I moved from America to Prague and I tell everyone that America sucks. My Russian friends say Russia sucks. The Ukrainians I know say Ukraine sucks. The Kyrgyzstanies I know say Kyrgyzstan sucks.
I live among foreigners, and the only ones that I've met that actually like their home country are rich ones from totalitarian regimes who somehow benefit from the regime. And as far as I can tell, public opinion of a regime among expats is strongly tied in both directions to how that regime effects them and their families financially, though even well off people such as myself, who have chosen to move away, often find it in their hearts to hate their home country.
The rich Saudis who come to Prague to study all thing Saudi Arabia is heaven on earth. The Russian who's family lost everything in 1998 [1] think that Putin should be hung from a lamp post with his own intestines.
I think that there is basically no knowledge to be gained from talking to expats about their home countries. After-all 75% of Turks in Belgium voted for totalitarian dictatorship at home [2].
It does mean that in Czech. Which is strange, because in Slovak it just means work.
I've translated a paragraph from wikipedia for you:
"Robota neboli poddanství je ve feudálním systému osobní služba sedláků a rolníků pro jejich pány. Robotník je pak výraz pro poddaného robotujícího pro svého pána, někdy též vyššího správního či soudního úředníka, drába apod."
"Robota is a feudal system of personal employment to the owners of estates and country houses. A robotník is a person who works for his/her lord."
Edit: I listened to the play by Karel and Josef Čápek, and it is most inanely stupid, sexist, pseudo-religious drivel I've come across in a long while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.
Edit2: The verb robit means to make something and has nothing to do with slavery.
> What's he point of Himmler's quote? He wanted to reduce deaths in a system in which the end goal was extermination?
My point is that you are denying the systematic genocide of the Native Americans. Just as the Nazis denied the systematic genocide of the Jews. Using exactly the same arguments.
> The fact remains that the majority of Native Americans did not die due to systematic extermination. It is indisputable.
It is also true that most Jews survived the Holocaust. Your point?
I have not read the entire book, as it is very long, but as far as I know Mein Kampf does not actually talk about genocide at all. It was not untill 1941, after the war had started, that Hitler first publicly mentioned the idea http://ww2history.com/key_moments/Holocaust/Hitler_talks_of_... He was hateful. Yes. But Donald Trump is hateful too.
> Hopefully when Trump does not become Hitler 2.0 you will admit you were wrong.
I don't think that Trump will become Hitler 2.0. But his supporters may well commit a genocide and cause either totaltarianism or mayhem. If they do not, I will not be wrong, just as I would not be wrong, if I were to say that cancer can kill a patient who subsiquently survives.
Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Concentration Camps issued orders on December 28, 1942, that "The death rate in the concentration camps must be reduced at all costs" (Reitlinger, "The Final Solution"). The camps had been hit with a deadly typhus epidemic that spread by fleas and body lice. Stomach pain, high fever, emaciation and death can quickly follow. All of the camps were factories and the loss of workers was hurting war production. Inspector of the camps, Richard Glucks responded to Himmler's order on January 20, 1943, "Every means will be used to lower the death rates" (Nuremberg Tribunal Document No. 1523).
""" Quote from a holocaust denial website [1]
> The Native Americans were not systematically wiped out.
"""
From the earliest years of colonialism, conquistadores like Vasco Núñez de Balboa would brazenly advocate genocide against the native population.[50] In the 1700s, British militia like William Trent and Simeon Ecuyer gave Smallpox-exposed blankets to Native American emissaries as gifts at Fort Pitt, "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians", in one of the most famously documented cases of germ warfare. While it is uncertain how successful such attempts were against the target population,[51] historians have noted that, "history records numerous instances of the French, the Spanish, the English, and later on the American, using smallpox as an ignoble means to an end. For smallpox was more feared by the Indian than the bullet: he could be exterminated and subjugated more easily and quickly by the death-bringing virus than by the weapons of the white man."[52] The British High Commander Jeffery Amherst authorized the intentional use of disease as a biological weapon against indigenous populations during the Pontiac's Rebellion, saying, "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race", and instructing his subordinates, "I need only Add, I Wish to Hear of no prisoners should any of the villains be met with arms."
""" Quote from wikipedia article on extermination of native Americans [2]
If you read the literature from that time period, Darwin, the various western diaries, ect. You will find that the desire to kill Indians, and the vision of Indians as undermench was universal. This impression of Indians continued up until very recently, when US children, when given squirt guns, would run around playing "shoot the Indian". An endeering game in which American childern would simulate the systematic extermination of the natives 50-100 years earlier.
> You are also absolutely incorrect on numbers of Native Americans or blacks killed vs the Nazi actions. The Nazis killed tens of millions systematically, not even counting incidental casualties.
I was refering to the Holocaust, the systematic cilling of civilians. There were some ten-elleven million killed in the Holocaust[3]. There were some nine or ten million killed in the slave trade [4]. And millions of natives killed by european settlers (the exact number is really hard to place). Since ten million + some unknown number of millions is greater than ten million alone, I stand by my claims.
> Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions have literally never publicly made a statement supporting genocide.
Did Hitler ever do so? The Jews didn't know that they were going to be exterminated. Otherwise, they wouldn't have packed their things and gotten on the trains to the concentration camps. They were under the impression that they were merely being deported. And Trump certainly talks about deportation [5].
[1] http://cell-lang.net/data.html